The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Ravenswood Estates: Dock Serback Zone Variance.k CITY OF CHANHASSE BOA DATE: 6/26/1995 CC DATE: 8/28/1995 CASE #: 95 -1 SUB By: Rask:v S �Z a ' J Q O �W STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A seven (7) foot variance from both sides of the dock setback zone. LOCATION: 1085 Dolly Lane, Lot 2, Block 1, Ravenswood Estates. The property is located on the south side of Dolly Lane. APPLICANT: Julie L. Sprau 3393 Lake Shore Drive, Chaska, NIN 55318 -1025 612- 448 -3517 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential Action by City Add ACREAGE: .84 acres Er*rs ed_,_Z_�Jl A Modifie DENSITY: 1.4 units per acre Rec Da ta 9 lots Submitted to Commismon ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood, Residential Submitted to Cauca S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Lot 2 contains a ten (10) foot wide strip of prop rty which provides access to Christmas Lake. o �' 0 2000 LAND USE PLAN:. Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range - 1.2 - 4.0 units /Ac.) ' Julie Sprau Variance Appeal August 23, 1995 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' 1. Sec. 6 -1 defines Dock Setback Zone as, "the area inside and running parallel to and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended lot lines" ' means an extension of the side lot lines one hundred (100) feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each lot line and the ordinary high water mark . . ." ' 2. Sec. 6 -22 states ". . . Any nonconforming dock which is partially or totally destroyed by any cause may be restored to its former use and physical dimensions, if the ' restoration is completed within one (1) year of its partial or total destruction ..." 3. Sec. 6 -23(a) states, , The City Council may grant a variance from the dock requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography, soil ' conditions or other P h Y sical characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this chapter." ' 4. Sec 6 -23(d) states, "No variance shall be granted by the City Council without the affirmative vote of at least four -fifths of the full council." ' BACKGROUND On March 27, 1995 the City Council approved the final plat for Subdivision 95 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to fifteen (15) conditions (see attached letter to Julie Sprau dated March 31, 1995). Condition fourteen (14) stated, "No docks, moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2." Lot 2 of Ravenswood Estates includes a ten foot wide strip of property which runs along the ' southerly boundary of Lot 9 of Crane's Vineyard Park (Miles Lord's property). This linear piece of property provides access to Christmas Lake. However, a lot width of ten (10) feet does not meet city standards with regards to width of property at the shoreline. In addition, there is insufficient area for the required dock setback, which is ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines. Because of staff s determination that the property no longer has nonconforming rights for a dock, the applicant must seek approval for a variance if a dock is ' to be permitted. In August of 1994, city staff wrote a letter to Mr. Carl Zinn explaining the non - conforming ' dock issues on this property. The letter was in follow up to a phone conversation between Mr. Zinn and Kate Aanenson, Planning Director. This letter was written and an interpretation given, based on information supplied by Mr. Zinn, which indicated that a dock had existed in Julie Sprau Variance Appeal August 23, 1995 Page 3 this location in excess of 40 years. Based on the information provided, staff informed Mr. Zinn that the dock would have non - conforming status and could continue to be used as long as it maintained its "grandfather status." The letter also stated that if the dock is not used for more than one year, it loses the legal non - conforming status. At the time of subdivision review, staff received conflicting information concerning the nonconforming status of this property. Based on information provided by Mr. Krogstad and the adjoining property owner, staff determined that a dock may not be maintained as a nonconforming structure. A dock existed on this parcel in the past, but was not used on a yearly basis since the adoption of the Nonconforming Dock Ordinance. Neither the applicant nor Mr. Krogstad provided adequate information demonstrating that the property has non- conforming dock privileges. Mr. Krogstad, at the March 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, indicated there has been a dock on this property on and off over the years. However, based on Mr. Krogstad's testimony, a dock has not been used on a yearly basis, which is required to maintain the non - conforming status. In addition, an adjoining property owner submitted a letter stating that a dock has not existed on the parcel since at least 1972. The City Council approved the subdivision request with the condition that, "No docks, moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2." The City Council did, however, indicate that they were sympathetic to what occurred and encouraged the applicant, Ms. Sprau, to pursue the variance process. In response to the variance request and in an attempt to clarify the discrepancies, staff viewed aerial slides (photographs) provided by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service which were taken in August of 1993 and in July of 1994. Staff did not see any evidence of a dock on this property during these two time periods. The majority of docks were clearly visible on the air photos, however, it is possible that a smaller dock at this location may not have been readily visible because of the aquatic vegetation along this section of the lakeshore. ANALYSIS The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Based upon information submitted, the previous owner lost the non - conforming rights to have a dock when he ceased to maintain a dock on the property on a yearly basis. The intent of eliminating nonconforming structures or docks is to bring properties into compliance with applicable city code, and to correct situations which may negatively impact surrounding properties or cause an overcrowding of the lakeshore. ' Julie Sprau Variance Appeal August 23, 1995 ' Page 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE ' On June 26, 1995, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to review the variance request for the dock and a variance request for a shared private driveway. The Board granted the variance for the private driveway. However, as mentioned above, final approval for a dock variance must be granted by the city council. In this situation, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals holds a public hearing and serves as an advisory board by providing a recommendation to the city council. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals recommended denial of the variance with a unanimous ' vote. The Board concurred with the recommendation of denial as presented in the staff report. Four lake shore residents also testified to the fact that there was never a dock on this property (see minutes dated June 26, 1995). These same residents also expressed concerns ' regarding the use of the lakeshore, lake traffic, and the precedent that a variance would set. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council deny Variance #95 -7 for a dock variance based on the findings presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Council finds the following: ' 1. pp The applicant has reasonable use of the property with the existing home and access to the lake. 2. The previous owner let the nonconforming dock rights expire by not maintaining the ' nonconforming structure. 3. The construction of a dock on this parcel would increase the nonconformity of the lot. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from ' 2. Board of A 3. City Counc 4. Planning Co ' 5. Plat of Rav 6. Letter from 7. Letter to Ca 8. Letter to Ju 9. Written De 10. Twelve (12 the applicant dated July 3, 1995 djustments and Appeals minutes dated June 26, 1995 it minutes dated March 27, 1995 mmission minutes dated March 1, 1995 enswood Estates James Lord dated February 28, 1995 rl Zinn dated August 30, 1994 lie Sprau dated March 31, 1995 scription of Dock Setback Variance ) letters from lakeshore homeowners of Christmas Lake 07/04/1995 10:12 6123351189 JULIE SPRAU PAGE 403 July 3, 1995 Mr, John Rask City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive R.Q. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re; Dock Variance - 1085 Holly Lane, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear John; 1 am writing to request that the City Council table the variance application relating to 1085 Holly Lane, Chanhassen, Minnesota, Chapter 6, Article I, Section 6. 1, until its August 28, 1995 meeting. Currently this issue is scheduled to come before the City Council at its July 10th meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further information. Sin rely, ule L. 4Spiau j CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ' ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 1995 I Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Don Chmiel STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. VARIANCE TO 20 FOOT WIDE PAVEMENT WIDTH FOR STREET AND A 7 FOOT ' VARIANCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DOCK SETBACK ZONE, 1085 HOLLY LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF RAVENSWOOD ESTATES, JULIE SPRAU. ' John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Watson: John, isn't this private drive going to be a better street than Holly Lane? ' Rask: Yes. Currently Holly Lane is 12 to 15 feet wide. ' Watson: Yeah, and then we're going to have a driveway 10 feet wider than the street. Rask: One thing when we looked at the subdivision, there's always been a problem with turn around at the end of Holly Lane. There is really no room for, currently now to my understanding is snow plows and such have to back up into Miles Lord's driveway to get back out. So when we reviewed the subdivision we requested additional right -of -way. It's a ' 20 x 30 strip up here to accommodate that. So with that, and not only provide the turn around for emergency vehicles at Holly Lane but it also makes it easier for public safety vehicles to make that turn into this private driveway. You know Holly Lane is 12 to 15 wide ' now. Right now if you're out there, you can see it's pretty tight with the location of the fire hydrant and such. They'll be relocating that fire hydrant further to the west so that the radius there will be greater so that fire trucks will have an easier time to get in because of this. So there will be those improvements made to it. Again, city ordinance does require a 20 foot wide driveway. It requires that that driveway be centered within that 30 foot easement. The ' reason for this is for of course snow removal, drainage and that sort of thing. It also helps prevent future problems as far as landscaping or if someone wants to put up a fence, it does provide that room there so it does not interfere with the driveway. At this time there are no ' plans to upgrade Holly Lane. It would have to come, I believe as a petition from the property owners to do so. The city surface water management plan, the SWMP plan has identified this area for storm water improvements. Currently now storm water runs down Holly Lane. There is no sediment pond so there is a problem there for water. More of a water quality issue. And again, the SWMP plan identifies this area to eventually be upgraded with curb 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 and gutter to handle this and direct storm water and pre -treat it before it hits Christmas Lake. But again, at this time there are no definite plans to upgrade Holly Lane. Staff is recommending denial of the variance for the driveway. However, based on some of these additional circumstances with the width of Holly Lane, the fact that the Fire Marshal did review this and he felt that whether it's 15 or 20, it's not going to make a difference for accessing it from a public safety standpoint. Right now the limiting factor is that turn into the private street. Even when this turn around is put in at the end of Holly Lane, it will still be somewhat of a restriction because it's not a full blown cul -de -sac. They are limited down there. Watson: You're never going to take the big truck down there anyway. Rask: Yeah, exactly. Watson: Not unless you wanted to live down there. Rask: So if the Board does choose to grant a variance for the private street, to reduce it to 15 feet, staff has provided 2 conditions. One, that the street be at least 15 feet wide and secondly, that it is centered within that 30 foot easement. That it does not go over to one side or another. And again, staff is recommending denial of the dock variance. Earlier I also provided you with a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. James Lord stating that they were in favor of the driveway variance provided that the drive be located in the center of that 30 foot easement. And that they did, they were opposed to the dock setback variance. In addition to that we did receive, I believe 11 letters from property owners on Christmas Lake, all in opposition to the dock. To the dock setback variance. And again, just to clarify one point. The dock setback does need to go in front of City Council for final approval so that will simply serve as a recommendation to the Council. At this time I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Johnson: Is the builder here? Rask: I believe Julie's out here. Johnson: Would you like to address it at this time? Julie Sprau: Hi. My name's Julie Sprau and I am the applicant. I guess I would just like to reiterate some of John's comments with respect to the driveway. That given the width of Holly Lane and the fact that the required driveway is significantly greater than Holly Lane and given that we're going to do, provide a turn around at the north end of the driveway, it seems like this would be an appropriate variance in that although the report does not indicate 2 l] ' Board of pP Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 � that we would necessarily be able to save the 2 trees, that is one possibility plus reducing the ' amount of impervious surface in that area and runoff has clearly been indicated as an issue for that area and that we would still get safety vehicles down there. So with respect to the driveway variances, those are my comments. With respect to the dock variance. We felt that ' it was worth pursuing, at least applying for a variance before going to City Council due to the circumstances under which it was denied and I think it's basically been laid out that when we looked at the property, we were provided with a letter from the City Council, or from the City ' indicating that there were grandfathered dock rights available to that piece of property and we felt that it was reasonable for us to rely on that letter for a number of reasons. First, it was ' from the City. It was written to a realtor so the City must have known that a possible buyer would be relying upon that letter. It was written in August of '94 when the City could have easily substantiated the conclusions that were drawn in the letter. And that we felt that there ' was really no further action for us to take to look into this issue because we had a letter from the City. And I just received some of the letters opposing the granting dock rights and that for this piece of property and since I just received them ... if I can address them. I guess most ' of them just say they don't support granting it but don't really give any reasons why. So that's, I guess the reason that I indicated with respect to the letter and that we're just asking the City to stand behind the letter that was published. So unless there are any questions ' regarding any of those issues... Chmiel: No, I don't have any. ' Julie Sprau: Okay. ' Johnson: Anybody from the public want to address this? Jim Lord: Hi. My name is Jim Lord and I'm here on behalf of Miles and Maxine Lord and they've asked me to assist in the negotiations with the new neighbor and we welcome the new neighbors, Julie Sprau and John Secrest and Joe Schneider who bought the Krogstad property. They're all here tonight. First let me discuss the road. I think we're pretty much... landowners ' are in agreement here on the road. I met with Ms. Sprau and Mr. Secrest on Friday and we discussed where the road would be laid out and they did ... comply with our agreement... cross easement. That the road would go right down the center of the easements. And that we had ' certain benefits but essentially the key question was, how wide would that road be and I think we agreed that we would ask for, and support the variance to reduce the road down to 15 feet. And... someday Holly Lane gets widened, maybe we can do something with the ' driveway at that time too. The big issue that goes to the heart of Miles and Maxine's concerns, it's very important to them is the issue of a variance to the setback on the dock. Now, you have before you, you mentioned I think 11 individual petitions... total I believe ' representing 21 signatures. Along with that was a cover letter which each of them followed 3 J Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 and signed a petition and ... was the one who circulated the petition. In that letter it says, and I quote, it is our position that the property in question never had a dock in the past. You've got 21 witnesses here who are going to tell you there was never a dock. I lived at that property in the 70's. There was no dock. And then when my parents moved in, I was there every summer. I never noticed a dock. There might have been at one year or two, a few sticks over there that someone could have represented a dock. Other than that, there was no continuous dock. The property that my folks own is burdened with... easement right now. If you imagine looking at the lake from my folks' house, on the whole left side there they gave to this city an easement to put in a big sewer system. They didn't ask the City for any money. They gave it to them. That goes along with part of the property. We don't complain about it but there's an odor sometimes and so the family gathers over towards the right side of the property as you look at the lake. Right towards the easement, right by near where this dock was and I can tell you that it would be pretty devastating for these people who gave you this easement to burden their property... and then have that same city come back and give a variance that would further burden them. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else wish to address this? State your name please. Joe Schneider: I'm Joe Schneider. I recently purchased the Krogstad property and prior to the purchase of that property, we were negotiating for that lot as well as the 10 foot ... access to the lake. For my purpose on doing that real estate transaction was ... lake and put a dock up on the water as I enjoy Christmas Lake and have for a couple of years. And I'm not quite sure of the timing of all this but I remember working with our real estate agent to get a letter from the city saying there was a dock there that was grandfathered and then in the process of that we were going to get an additional permanent easement on the Krogstad property to be able to put up a dock and Shore Station to comply with the setback requirements. Upon trying to get additional confirmation of that ... it became clear that there really hadn't been a dock there for a while and in order to be able to make this work, we were going to have to get a variance from the City because it hadn't been grandfathered and it was viewed to be unlikely at that time that a variance would be granted. So we stopped consideration of that deal at that time and then this spring I ended up with a significant additional investment buying the Krogstad property so that we were able to have the dock that we wanted and the Shore Station that we wanted to put a boat on. And at this point in time I'm trying to rationalize why this makes sense now and it didn't make sense then. From the city's point of view and from my point of view, I ended up buying a significantly bigger piece of property specifically with the expectation that the zoning and regulations around the lake in order to get a dock and setback requirements were going to be supported. So at this point in time I now own a much larger piece of property than I expected and what I'm standing here in front of you asking you for is to help me understand why I would lose some of the effectively grant an easement on property that I just bought when I was turned down, effectively turned 4 1 P r 0 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 down of doing that before. Now granted, it may not have come to you before but effectively that's why the situation didn't make any sense so I'm here to say, stand and wondering why this makes sense. It's not certainly anything that I would have anticipated having bought the property now and having... If that makes any sense. Any questions? Johnson: Anybody else wish to address us? Ed Schwapski: My name is Ed Schwapski. I'm a property owner on Christmas Lake and proud to be one. We are very concerned about the level of traffic on the lake. About water quality and water safety. We don't feel that Christmas Lake can afford a precedent like this where a second tier of landowners set back from the lake can be allowed to put docks on the lake with only a 10 foot easement. We're concerned not only about this property but the precedent that that would set for the future. I also understand grandfathering clauses and why they're put in, because we don't want to take anything away from people that they already have. However, last summer when we were looking to purchase property on Christmas Lake, I also looked at the Krogstad property for the purpose of purchasing it and I can tell you very clearly there was no dock there last summer. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else... Rick Carlson: Good evening. My name is Rick Carlson and I'm a property owner on 6280 Ridge Road. I was the one that took the hand and walked that petition around to all my neighbors this past weekend. Mainly because I really didn't understand it. I do know the former property owner. He's a good friend of mine. I look out to that property across the lake and I've been here 13 summers now, two things. Number one, he never owned a boat. I've never seen him on the lake waterskiing or boating to begin with. He did have a dock behind the house, a small dock to walk out which was no problem. I believe that's the property Joe purchased but I, to my knowledge, we're just about spending more time on that lake than I think any other adult, I've never seen any docks between Miles Lords house and that piece of property that Joe here purchased. So what I basically did was take a, I started a chain and... literally walked that last Saturday and Sunday around past Frank Beddor's house. All the way over to the property in question and Frank was not home. He's out of town so there's 4 or 5 pieces of property there that Frank or his family owns. If you take all of those, I believe two things. Number one, I had one person that said to me that she would grant a dock as long as there is no boat. All the other people said, and they have been there many, many years. The Gullickson's, some of the other folks. The Mars and the Cunningham's, there really had not been a dock there. So that's the reason why I did it. Just to make sure. To find out what those people had to say but I can honestly say that I had never seen a dock and I guess my neighbors agree with that. So that's why I did that. Thanks. Wi f' Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 Johnson: Should we take the road as a separate item? Watson: Let's do them separate. Chmiel: Yeah, I think that'd be best. Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor? Chmiel: Yes Roger. Mr. Chairman. Roger Knutson: Just to point out, what John has pointed out in his memo. You can act on the road variance. On the request for a dock variance, you're making a recommendation. Watson: Right, so we really would have to handle them separately anyway. Johnson: Any questions? Chmiel: No, I don't have any special questions Watson: I don't really have any questions about the driveway. In fact I'm willing to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve a 5 foot variance from the 20 foot width requirement for a private driveway, 1085 Holly Lane. I guess it's Lot 2, Block 1, Ravenswood Estates. But it's actually Lot 1 isn't it? Rask: Yes. It's for Ravenswood Estates, both lots. Watson: Okay. You can straighten out the exact location. I don't think there's any. Johnson: That would be centered. Watson: Be centered in that 30 foot easement. Chmiel: Okay. Watson: Is there anything I've forgotten in there? Chmiel: No. I'll second it. Johnson: Any more discussion? 7 ' Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 Watson moved, Chmiel seconded that the Boarrl of Adjustments and Appeals grant a 5 foot ' variance from the 20 foot width requirement foi• a private driveway for Ravenswood Estates. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Johnson: As to the dock now, your recommendation? Watson: I've got a couple of questions. What can be done with this 10 feet if no dock is put ' up? What can they do? Can you moor a boat offshore? Rask: No. Not in this instance. Basically without the dock, they have access to the shoreline. Watson: They can walk to the lake and step into it. Rask: The setback applies to the mooring of boats. It applies to the dock so all of those ' need to meet those setback requirements. Watson: This is just out of curiosity. As long as you didn't go into the water on that 10 feet, ' could you build some kind of a platform or something on the ground? A patio, deck kind of piece of item. ' Rask: They would have to come back for a variance. It is single family residential zoning, which is a 10 foot setback requirement for those type of structures, and we're only dealing with a 10 foot wide strip of property. Watson: So we're 10 feet from each of the side properties so we don't. J F Rask: Yeah. We're back to a variance situation. Watson: Got it. I just wondered what, if any, I mean outside of just walking to the lake. That's basically what this 10 foot. Johnson: Well I walked that property twice this morning. Mr. Lord was there when I was there the first time and then after he left, I went through it again. I don't feel there's ever been anything there for quite some time because those rushes and whatever else is mighty tall for over one season. I feel that being it wasn't used for the past year or so, we should deny it. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. Watson: I've said all I plan to say. 7 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 26, 1995 Chmiel: You don't want to say any more? Watson: No, I don't. Chmiel: Then I would address the appeal for that, with a denial for that variance of 995 -7 with the three specific items addressed in that for the denial. Johnson: Second. Is that your motion? Chmiel: That's my motion. Johnson: Okay. Watson: Actually it's a recommendation. Johnson: Any more discussion on that? Chmiel moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommend that the City Council deny Variance Request #95 -7 to the dock setback regulations requested by Julie Spr -au at 1085 Holly Lane. All voted in favor and the motion caned. Chmiel moved, Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to table approval of the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by John Rask Planner I Prepared by Nann Opheim 8 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I know I see some concerns over here from some of our seniors that are sitting. Some ' of my cohorts. This will be all discussed back again on the 10th of April. We can't move any action on it because there has to be 4/5 majority. So consequently it will be back to the city one more time for that additional discussion, okay? Thant: you. I PRELMUNARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 9 CRANES VINEYARD PARK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 22,879 S O. FT. AND 36,387 SO FT 1035 HOLLY LANE JULIE SPRAU, RAVENSWOOD ESTA Public Present: Name Address 2004 Scarborough Court 140 Carlson Pkwy, #320, Minnetonka 1115 Holly Lane Julie Sprau t Jonathan Secrest Pamela Myers John Rask: Thank you. The preliminary and final plat is to subdivide 1.45 acres into 2 single family lots. It is Lot 6 of Crane's Vineyard Park located here and the southerly 10 feet of Lot 9. The linear strip of property and the 10 feet on Lot 9 will be connected to existing Lot, or to proposed Lot 2. Access to this parcel will be provided via a private street which will serve a total of 4 lots. Including the 2 proposed lots and the existing homes on Lot 9 and Lot 5 of Crane's Vineyard Park. 20 feet of the 30 foot wide pavement easement will be located on proposed Lot 1 with the remaining 10 feet on Lot 9. The driveways had been combined to reduce the amount of impervious surface on this site. On March 1st, Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the preliminary plat for Ravenswood Estates. The commission recommended approval of the plat with 14 conditions. Several issues came up during this public hearing involving drainage and the use of the shoreline, mainly for dock purposes. Back in August when the current property owner was looking to subdivide this parcel, he contacted the city to find out, one, about subdividing. And two, about the use of the lakeshore. At this time we were led to believe that a dock had existed on this parcel, I believe at least for the last 20 years. And this was based on information received from the owner. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting we did receive some information from adjacent property owner, which you had received a letter from Miles Lord, indicating that there hasn't been a dock there. Staff did do an on site inspection of this site and I guess based on what we saw, there was abundance of vegetation. No dock on the site, which I guess would lead one to believe that there probably hasn't been a dock there in recent years. Based on this information, staff has determined that a dock may not be permitted or installed on this property because it has lost it's non - conforming use. Pertaining to the drainage, there was a neighbor who voiced some concern regarding drainage on this site. There has, in the past, been drainage problems both to the, it would be to the east and west of this site. Staff has met with the property owner and feel like we have worked out some of the issues. There are some existing, there were existing problems. We do not feel that the addition of two additional homes would significantly impact the drainage in the area. In addition there will be some improvements made to the ditches, culvert size and that sort of thing which should help alleviate some of the problem. With this staff is recommending City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision 95 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated March 20th and the following 15 conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Good, is the applicant here? Julie Sprau: Yes. 10 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything that you wish to add to what staff has said? Julie Sprau: Ali yeah, I would like to make a couple of comments in regards to the dock rights issue. My name is Julie Sprau and I'm the applicant. Actually there are four of us that are intending to buy the lot when it hopefully eventually is subdivided. So I'd like to make a couple comments with respect to the dock rights issue. Initially when we went to look at the property, the realtor indicated to us that there was non - conforming dock rights associated with the 10 foot strip of land going down to Christmas Lake and shortly thereafter he provided us with a letter from the City of Chanhassen confirming those rights. And after we reviewed that letter we determined that it was reasonable for us to rely on that letter for a couple of reasons. One of them being that there's no qualifying language contained within the letter such as based upon representations made by the owner. Just that there are non - conforming dock rights if certain conditions were met. Second, the letter was written to a realtor so we felt the city must have known that perspective buyers would be reviewing the letter and relying upon it when evaluating the property and deciding to purchase it. And finally, the letter was written on August 30, 1994. Clearly at a time where it would be easy for the city to substantiate the existence of a dock and dock rights, so we felt that we were reasonable in relying upon that letter from the city of Chanhassen. And based upon the original reports submitted by the staff, dock rights were granted to that. Non - conforming dock rights were granted to that piece of property. However, the day before the City Planning Commission meeting, an interested party submitted a letter alleging facts in the report were not correct and putting into question whether or not a dock has been there to maintain a non - conforming rights. And as I said, I'm the applicant so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the dock history of that particular piece of property, but we felt that we were reasonable in relying upon the city's letter. Now there is a dispute between a couple of interested parties, and admittedly I am interested as well as the other people who want to purchase the property, but we aren't alleging any facts or anything else. And we just don't know where to go at this point. We felt that we had something that we could reasonably rely on from the city. Now there are no dock rights and like I said, we just don't know where to go from here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Council, have any questions? Councilman Berquist: Well, I know non - conforming uses are permitted until they fall down or are not being used anymore and then it's not grandfathered. Did staff go out and verify that there was, you wrote a letter on August 30th. Kate Aanenson: No, I did not. I wrote the letter and I did not go look at the dock and that's why I put the clause in there that says, it's put right in there that the dock can be used as long as it's maintained in that status. It has to be used every year and I made that clear to Mr. Zinn. I told him the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate that it's been used every year. And as far as when it went to Planning Commission, I think it was clear in there that we still put in there the burden of proof was still on them to demonstrate it's been in every year. We've never claimed that that was our obligation. We said it was their obligation to prove it. However Mr. Zinn represented the property is, we're out of that loop. But we told them that they would have to demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that it's been used every year. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have a copy of that letter Kate? Kate Aanenson: I think, did it go in your packet? 11 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Perhaps I didn't get that far. Roger, what's in our legal purview to rule here? Can we make an exception to a non - conforming use? ' Roger Knutson: If they don't have a non - conforming use... continuation of a dock and they want to put a dock in, then that would be a variance to the ordinance and they would have to get a variance. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. ' Councilman Berquist: Well if there's no dock rights with the property, is the property still, I mean are you going to continue to subdivide it? Julie Sprau: Ah yeah. I should have made that point as well. We would like this to sort of be considered as a ' separate issue to the subdivision. I don't know that it's necessarily integral to the subdivision itself because we are still interested in the property without the dock rights. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's been some changes made, hopefully to your's and to the back side .of the letter that also came. With those respective changes on the conditions, we will have just conditions through 15 and with item 14 being struck from the recommendation that we have. And also the changes within item 14 as it's shown with the attachment that you received. As it would read, no dock moorings, or boat lifts shall be ' permitted on Lot 2. With the striking of 14 as I mentioned before. So item 15 becomes 14 and item 16 becomes 15. ' Councilman Berquist: Were you out there tonight, John? John Rask: Yeah. ' Councilman Berquist: Did you notice, I was out to the site today and there seemed to be some, it was muddy and it was raining so I wasn't about to traipse it but there seemed to be some material in the, what would be the southeast corner of the site, that could be construed as hazardous. Well, I don't know about hazardous waste but t leaking oil or something. I mean it looked like someone had used it for a repository for old oil containers, or it could have been my eyes playing tricks on me but that's sort of what it looked like. And I know old pieces of property can serve as that kind of a dumping group. You didn't find anything like that? ' John Rask: No, I was not aware of that. It's been several, a couple weeks since I've been on the site and I know there was. ' Councilman Berquist: Well this has been there a while. John Rask: There's been some trees removed as part of the clearing. t Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? ...certainly you may do that. ' Pam Myers: I'm the adjacent property owner that had the question about the storm water. My name is Pam Myers. I live at 1115 Holly Lane. I believe you have... I learned that the city's storm water management plan does include a nutrient pond in this area ... I also learned that nutrient ponds had to do with the debris and the salt and the sand falling out of the water. I think the nutrients... The reason that I come before you is that I ' haven't gotten any relief yet from the Planning Commission or staff or now from you. You have an 'il 12 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 opportunity now to help me out. I believe that my front yard has been used as a nutrient pond by the city. At least for my opinion... water runoff from Powers. Settles in the low land, which is my lot and the new lot that you're about to act on. Potentially approving to subdivide. And there's not an efficient... We haven't reached a particular solution, either at the Planning Commission or staff. It seems like ... this condition from continuing. The lot that is up to you for subdividing tonight is muddy. Of course, when it rains we're all muddy without having grass growing, but it is low ... My concern is not particularly about the grading there. I have seen the grading plan and it's not the grading necessarily, but as soon as that lot is filled in, there will be less place for the water to go. Right now the water doesn't drain very well down that hill. The last lot is ... they start at the top of the hill and they get smaller as they go down and the 15 inch one down ... but I'm interested in some sort of response from the city about what can happen to the runoff. If there's some way that the city can either provide a deeper drainage ditch in that area so that the water doesn't back up on my lot or perhaps when you're doing city projects in the summer time, you could use any sort of work that you're doing to fill in where my lot is low. I'm having a terrible time with the debris that's accumulating and it's ... I'd appreciate some support. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Now Miss Myers, you're in the. Pam Myers: I'm in the lot away from the lake. Councilman Berquist: You're right here? This is the area you're talking about? Pam Myers: Yes. I'm actually ... oh I see where you're pointing to, yes. John Rask: That'd be Lot 7. Pam Myers: There are two houses on my lot. With me? Councilman Berquist: No, I don't think I am but. John Rask: It'd be Lot 7. Miss Myers house is located up here. The lot currently backs up into her front yard, which is approximately. Lot 1 would be here and Lot 2 here. Miss Myers' home is up grade from the current, or the proposed subdivision. Councilman Berquist: It is? John Rask: It is. Or down grade, excuse me. Councilman Berquist: Down, oh. Well I noticed when I left the site this afternoon that there was an accumulation and I assumed that that was your land ... water and then there's accumulation on the other side and that's you? On the lake side there. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Charles. Can you add anything to this? Charles Folch: Well I really can't add anything other than the fact that our Water Resources Coordinator and another staff member from the department are working with Miss Myers and there's not, certainly not an easy 13 \ C 7 J J J City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 solution to this problem. It's been on going for a long time but we're certainly, have come up with a couple of options at least to investigate at this point in time and pursue them further and try to come back with some sort of recommendation as to what we think can be done and maybe thought to that interim situation initially and then something more long term because I think the solution it going to be complicated because of constraints in the area. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add onto that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Kate Aanenson: The reason why, and this came in for platting, we felt that this wasn't adding to it. There's an existing problem there. Certainly when there's a subdivision in the area, it's a time to be able to, a forum to try to address this problem but we felt due to the subdivision we weren't increasing it. But we're not helping it either, and that's why the meeting was held, as Charles indicated, to try and look at the bigger issue, which we believe this is. And how it ties into storm water management. I think the solution here is to put it into a program where we can do some short range things and that's what Charles is mentioning also. To put into a longer range but it's the long distance upstream problems that we need to resolve. So we felt with this subdivision, whereas we weren't helping, we weren't making the situation worst. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one way or the other. Alright. Is there a motion? Colleen? Excuse me. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will make the motion with striking 14. Whatever you said. Striking 14 and modifying condition 15. Is that the way it goes? Anyway, I would encourage the applicant, Ms. Sprau, to pursue the variance process. I'm certainly sympathetic to what occurred and Ms Myers, if you don't see any relief within the next 6 months, I'd invite you to come back under Visitor Presentation and present it again. Councilman Berquist: And I would second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated March 20, 1995, and the following conditions: Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed private driveway. Since the 36" oak was dead and removed, the driveway access for Lot 1 may be from Holly Lane or the proposed private street. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross - access or driveway maintenance easement ' agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. The total easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 14 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 4. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. 5. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 7. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. 8. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and /or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124.00 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500.00 against these trunk and'lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. 9. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088.00 and $2,693.00 respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane shall be abandoned and the ditch section adjacent to Holly Lane cleaned out down to the east property line of proposed Lot 1. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with rip rap. 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support a 7 ton per axle weight. 14. No docks, moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2. 15. The turnaround on Holly Lane shall be modified to 20' x 30' with a 30 foot radius on the westerly side. The pavement design sections shall be in accordance with the city's urban street section. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION t REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy Mancino, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Bob Generous, Planner II. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 9, CRANE'S VINEYARD PARK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 26,954 SQUARE FEET AND 36,387 SQUARE FEET, ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 1035 HOLLY LANE, JULIE SPRAU, RAVENSWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: ' Name Address Pam Myers 1115 Holly Lane Julie Sprau 2004 Scarborough Court, Chaska Deborah E. Grove Minnetonka Mirald A. Kroupstad 1035 Holly Lane Carl Zinn 5820 Ridge Road ' John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any other comments from city staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation or make some comments? t Julie Sprau: No. I think John's adequately described it. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the I motion carried. The public healing was opened. Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: If anyone would like to speak at the public hearing, please step forward. Let us know your name and your address and let us know what's on your mind. Pam Myers: Good evening. My name is Pam Myers. My address is 1115 Holly Lane. I'm the adjacent homeowner. I have a question or two. My greatest concern has to do with water runoff. Storm water runoff and I didn't see the 14 points, or the 14 conditions with regards to this subdivide. I don't know if staff has ... or what the plan is for water runoff. If you know the area, if you know Holly, it does come down from the top of the hill. The water runoff is from Powers or 17 or 85, whatever you want to call it. It comes down the hill through culverts that are larger at the top of the hill and get smaller as they come down the hill and at the moment they come down to the bottom of the hill to my front yard. I've worked with Mike Wegler terrifically well ... in attempting to open up culverts. To open up the water runoff. With putting in two houses downstream from me, I have a feeling that they'll put in fill for this property ... the new lots there which would build up that lot and therefore have less drainage downstream from me. I know that there is a plan, long range plan to do some storm water runoff management in that neighborhood. I would guess this is the only open property at the moment, so those plans might be for storm water runoff. Scott: If we could, because you have a number of questions I can tell. Probably the place to start, if we could have Dave Hempel, who is one of our city engineers, who's quite conversant in that sort of thing and I guess the question being, given what you know about the preliminary plat and the preliminary grading plan, what sort of things are going to be occurring relative to grading and then also our water surface management plan that might help everyone understand the situation a little bit better. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. As ... the city has been contacted regarding the water problem... Holly Road is a substandard city street. No curb and gutter. No storm sewer. The current drainage pattern is through an open ditch section along the south side of the road that meanders through the property that goes through a driveway culvert. There are a number of culverts... along the street there resulting in the water backing up ... The city surface water management plan has indicated a surface water pond in the vicinity of this subdivision. Staff did look at requiring that the pond be built on the subject property but after reviewing the site, and the number of trees, significant trees, we felt that a better alternative... would be to the west on Ms. Myers property. Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator has been in contact verbally, over the phone with Ms Meyers regarding this. There are no plans set for this storm water pond... actually a lower priority. There are projects... additional two home sites in the neighborhood will not generate significant runoff to adversely impact the current drainage situation that is ... there today. We are looking at increasing the driveway culvert underneath the private driveway of this development to a 30 inch culvert which... We're asking also that the existing driveway be abandoned and the ditch section through there be 2 ' Planning ommission Meeting - March 1, 1995 g g restored to help the drainage. One other thing that remains at the request of the city was to ' rework the ditch through this property down through the Myers' property too... Scott: Okay. Ma'am, does that help answer some of your questions regarding runoff and so forth? ' Pam Myers: It speaks to the need for larger culverts and it speaks to the needs for the drainage on the new property to actually be dug out which is... ' Hempel: Just to clarify. We did look at this parcel for ponding but all the trees that are in the front along Holly Lane there, we felt that it would be a waste to lose those trees. A better site would actually be on your property where the property is lower and is void of ' trees. Pam Myers: This is my front yard. ' Hempel: That's correct. ' Pam Myers: May I show you my front yard? Scott: Sure. Ma'am, if you could also help us out a bit. We have a preliminary plat map here and if you could tell us, show us where you're located. Nutting: Are you west of the proposed subdivision or east of the proposed subdivision? ' Pam Myers: West. ' Mancino: West, with the blue door? Pam Myers: I beg your pardon. Mancino: Are you west with the blue door? Do you have the blue front door? Pam Myers: No. I have a white house. Rask: Approximately right here on Lot 7. As I indicated before, Lot 7 actually has I believe ' 3 homes. Actually there's a home back here that sits somewhere in here. There's another home that sits kind of up in here and then I believe Ms. Myers' home sits up here somewhere. ' This would be the front yard I think where Dave would be, the pond. Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: And how does that correspond with the pond? Actually the standing water that we see in these pictures? And we'll pass them to you Dave so you can. Pam Myers: ...the street where you can see the driveway. The driveway and the culvert are under water. Adjacent to the new property. Scott: Yeah, we'll get this over to Dave Hempel and kind of circle the wagons a little bit. Mancino: You have a lake. Scott: They call that New Years Lake is what they call that. Does that ring any visual bells for you Dave? Hempel: That would be approximately the area that we had proposed to excavate out as far as easements for a storm water pond. Pam Myers: That wouldn't be my choice for my front yard. Mancino: Yeah. The other question I have Dave is a little bit about timing. You said it's not a top priority. When you say that, are you talking 5 years? I mean doesn't this present a public safety problem? Hempel: I can't tell whether, what the storm frequency this would have been. 10 year storm event or 25 year, 100 year. We've had a number of 100 year storms in the last few years that would result in this type of flooding. Simply I guess we'd be looking at this type of improvement probably within the next 5 years. Storm drainage ... and so forth. The other thing is ... temporary fix to the whole problem. What really should be done is storm sewer incorporated with the street construction, curb and gutter and eliminate the ditch section that's currently out there. If that... Scott: Yeah because I was looking, when I was down there it appears as if there's a lot of untreated water that's going into Christmas Lake through that area so. Mancino: Are there other options that your staff have looked into besides Ms. Myers' front yard for a ponding site? Hempel: For the time being, no. We've considered contacting the City of Shorewood to do a cooperative project on the north side of the street. There's an existing wetland there that maybe could be expanded to use for storm water treatment. 4 r r � I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Pam Myers: There is a pond ... that's correct. Mancino: Okay. So you would look into that further as, okay. Scott: Is there any, do you see any jurisdictional delays due to having two municipalities involved in this potentially? I mean what's your experience been? I think we've only maybe seen one or two plats that have come by that have had some activity with Shorewood. Hempel: We've got a fairly good working relationship with the City of Shorewood. In this same vicinity I believe we service their homes with city sewer and water as well so I think... Scott: Okay. Well, we don't have concrete answers but that's one of the important parts of a ' public hearing is that we can at least get some more information from residents and what we'd encourage you to do is irrespective of what happens here this evening, to continue to follow the project and you're free to contact, of course not only the commissioners but also members ' of city staff and what we've found is that they're very eager to take the time necessary to get the all information possible and try to make the best decision for everybody so. C I 7 J Pam Myers: That's certainly been my experience... But a lake in my front yard is a fall and spring event. It's not an every year event. The property as it stands, the undeveloped property which is the ... is low. I presume putting in pads to build the houses means that the developer understands that it's low... I also presume that means that that's going to be filled. I don't know what the plan is for fill in that area but that would mean that there would be less place for the water to go, which I would suggest would mean more back -up on my property. Scott: Have you seen a grading plan for the proposed subdivision? Pam Myers: No. I've seen a plat drawing. I haven't seen a grading plan. Scott: Okay. Well, you can get those from city staff and also we'll have some extras at the end of the evening but they'd be more than happy to sit down with you and explain, here's what it looks like as far as elevations. Here's how it's going to change and at least allow you to understand a little bit better what the impact might be. Pam Myers: Any higher, I would suggest than it is, they would want it to be in order to build there and not have water ... and as soon as they build, then there will be more water... I have a second concern that has to do with the lot line. I currently am in conversation with Rick Vogt about the survey. The survey line does not agree with my survey lines which my survey was done a year or so ago. So that is not settled. That is not a settled issue. There's an iron set in a corner that would divide the two lots, north and south that I believe is too far 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 west into my property. Along that property line I do have a 10 foot easement for that house that's behind me on the part of Crane's Vineyard. And it would mean changing where that driveway was for the easement. So it's important that that be settled before we move too far along with approving the building. I appreciate keeping the trees. I think that's an important part of the project and I appreciate your mentioning that and the developer considering that. We also have peliated woodpeckers there and it would be nice even to have some of those older trees but we can't have both can we. To have the old ones and the new ones too. Did I ask all my questions? Irwin Stevenson: Well I think you need to ask what the Council's going to do in terms of allowing properties to built that just spreads more water onto there because logic, it doesn't take an engineer to figure that out... Scott: Sir, if you wish, I think what we'd like to do is make sure that your comments are recorded on the record. So if you'd like to step up and continue your comments, we'd sure appreciate it. Irwin Stevenson: Well, at the present time. Scott: Excuse me sir. Could you please let us know who you are. Irwin Stevenson: I'm a friend. Scott: Could we have your name and your address for the record. Irwin Stevenson: Irwin F. Stevenson, 110914 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska, Minnesota. Scott: Great, thank you. Irwin Stevenson: At the present time, you saw the water that stands and goes over the road. As she stated, not on a 100 year cycle. But pretty regularly. And also that same water, at the present time we get some relief because it builds up on the property that we're now talking about next door. And so it's ponded too at times. Now the logic is, if you're going to build a house there, you're not going to, unless you're putting a submarine there, you've got to do something besides raise the property. And also the logic to me would be that it doesn't take an engineer to figure out that that water's going to go somewhere. And it's not going to go uphill. It's going to go down into that ditch. There's no other place for it to go. So therefore I would think it would be prudent to the Council, before approving something like that, that Mrs. Myers knows what's going to happen to her property. It can only get worst. It 0 C Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 can't get better. And I don't think it would be fair to allow something that now you deliberately say 5 years from now ... that to me doesn't make a lot of sense. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Scott: Ladd. Conrad: My only issue is drainage, which they've been talking about and I didn't see a ' solution that I felt real comfortable with that will take care of the current problem. So I think we need a solution. ' Scott: Okay. So your thought is conditions. Conrad: My thought is I'd table. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: Dave, maybe you can comment. There was a grading plan in the packet and it's maintaining the pre - development runoff rate so it's not increasing. I mean Dave could maybe elaborate on that more. I mean there's an existing condition out there. Whether this plat's ' responsible to solve that problem, whether this plat were to go in or not, there's still a problem out there so we're kind of looking at a bigger picture besides this plat. I think we ' need to separate those two issues and maybe Dave wants to comment a little bit more. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The grading plan...only showed minimal grading for the house pads built approximately 18 inches and provides surface drainage away from the house pad. The current drainage situation out there is not going to be, first of all improved with this development, nor is it going to worsen. A problem exists ' out there ... it's been there for a number of years and as development continues upstream, more valuable water in generated. So it's a much bigger project than this simple subdivision... involves drainage storm sewer piping, ponding and upgrading of the street essentially to solve ' the problem. And I was just going to add, by tabling this project would not solve any of the problems. Conrad: Well in the staff report Dave, that's sure not the impression I got, and maybe I read it, and maybe I didn't read your notes carefully enough but under drainage and streets, it Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 seemed like the solution was to develop a pond and that was not going to happen. And therefore, the way I read it, given the fact that that was not going to happen, we were not improving, or not even maintaining the predevelopment runoff. Hempel: The initial runoff generated from two house pads and driveways is really minimal compared to the overall runoff from the watershed that goes through this property. This property that's being subdivided is actually downstream and at the end of the watershed. The surface water management plan showed a ponding somewhere in this vicinity to treat the runoff prior to discharging into Christmas Lake. Not necessarily for quantity purposes but for water quality purposes. So any type of storm sewer improvements we do will help ... the situation but will not totally alleviate the problem. Storm sewers are designed typically for a 10 year storm event. Anything greater than that, we provide for emergency overflows to prevent flooding of the homes and so forth. Aanenson: Can I just add to what Dave was saying? They are being assessed storm water fees to add to that project so we have, that's the purpose of the storm water plan. When we adopted those fees as property subdivided to collectively get that money in order to do these kinds of projects. So they are being assessed storm water fees for the eventual construction of the pond in that area. Conrad: Well again the way I read the staff report, it said we can't solve the problem. It has to impact it somehow. Has to. And therefore that's why I didn't feel comfortable with it. Now if you tell me this is 1 /100 of the overall problem, or 1 /1000, then I may pay attention but I don't know what it is I guess. Hempel: One of the major problems out there is the downstream culvert for this subdivision. It currently goes through Miles Lord. The culvert there I believe is only a 15 or 18 inch diameter culvert which is severely undersized. We propose a 30 inch culvert through that area. That is the restrictive device that is creating most of this backup into the upstream properties. Conrad: Yeah, but that's quantity and I'm talking quality I guess. So we can't really solve the quality issue until we build a pond. That's the bottom line. So the bottom line, if I said let's table it, you wouldn't come back with any solution other than the fact that in 5 years we may have enough money to treat the water and therefore maintain the quality of the water in Christmas Lake. Hempel: Certainly, yes. We'd look at it from that standpoint. We'd also put it higher up on the priority list if funding comes available. 8 ' Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995 g g , Conrad: Well, I'm not doing that but, there are a lot of priorities. I'll be interested in the ' other commissioners comments. That's a tough one. My comment was, Joe is to table it but thinking I'd get something better back. I'm not hearing that the staff has got a better solution ' right now so I'm not sure how I'm viewing this. Scott: Okay, Matt. ' Ledvina: In talking about the ponding issue a little bit. We have approximately 10 feet of elevation difference between the lake in that northwest corner of the property where the ' ponding is occurring, so that tells me that that's over an average by 2% grade and you should be able to get the drainage flow. So that tells me that there's some, like Dave mentioned, restrictions of culverts, etc, that are making the problem worst because it should be able to be ' done. I had some other questions about the situation with the dock. Now I'm not sure I understand what the response of the applicant is regarding the letter that we have which states the dock hasn't been in. Is it the applicant's contention that the dock has been in every year ' for the last 12 years? Rask: I don't know, maybe if he's here, Mr. Krogstad or his representative, maybe they can ' answer that better than I could. Ledvina: So, it would be good. I'd like to get that on the record if that really is the case. ' Would that be possible? I mean you don't have to if you don't want to but I'd just like to hear what your opinion is on the dock. ' Scott: And this is an exception. Normally once the public hearing is closed, we do not have input from the general public but in this particular case, it's an important enough piece of information that we're making an exception. ' Merald Krogstad: There's been a dock on the property since about 1900. It's used for about g P p ' 35 years. Scott: And you're Mr. Krogstad? ' Merald Krogstad: Yes. I'm sorry. Then when my parents had it we rented out the cabins we had back there and that picture show the dock in place. So I'm adjacent to the property so ' sometimes we haven't had a dock in as it got older. In fact I haven't had a dock on my property for the past 3 years because I'm too busy working in the summer to pay for the taxes on it. That's why I'm selling it and so I don't have time to put out a dock all the time. But ' we have had docks on and off. For 3 years they were putting in the sewer and they were removing the sewer so I couldn't use the lake for 3 years. I hired a contractor to move ... and 1 9 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 then we had a dock up at that time. Then for several years a friend of mine put his boat there and he had a little dock this past year but I haven't had my dock in repeatedly for 12 years but we have ... over a period of about, probably 3 to 4 to 5 years. It had a dock there when we bought it because it had a dock and we had lakeshore and we kept it and paid taxes on it and not used it for the past few years for the same reason. Scott: It's going to be real important for the purposes of the people who purchase the property that it's substantiated as good as you can. Very important. Merald Krogstad: ...after you pay taxes on it for 4 years... Scott: I know we had a similar circumstance where this same issue came up and one of the things that helped was there were some photographs I think somewhere from the Department of Natural Resources or I think the Department of Agriculture with their aerial photographs that were taken and that may be a source that you could tap into for your purposes as well, and there may be some other things available too but those are very helpful to us when we ran into this situation about a year ago. But if you have some pictures, I think probably the best thing to do would be to show those to the city staff and then because it's going to be important to do that. Thank you sir. Do you have some other comments? Ledvina: I had a question regarding the driveway. The existing, or the driveway along the east side of this parcel. Now that is an existing gravel driveway, is that right? Okay. Now with your proposed plat they're proposing another bituminous driveway right along there so essentially we're going to have 20 some feet of driveway or, are we getting together on this or how is that going to work out? Rask: Yeah, there will be approximately 10 feet where the existing driveway is now is actually on Miles Lord's property, Lot 9. There will be an additional 20 foot easement provided next to that so you'll have a 30 foot wide easement. On the 30 foot easement you'll have a 20 foot wide pavement width that will probably be on a combination of both of the properties over that easement. The private street section of our ordinance, this type of development does require that 20 foot pavement width built to 7 ton design. Ledvina: Okay so the access will be from the driveway that will be improved on Miles Lord's property, is that correct? Rask: Partly. Ledvina: Okay. Okay, well so he'll keep his edge of the pavement and then he'll improve it over on their side? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 n ' Rask: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. So they could... Rask: The existing driveway comes in here. The easement would provide another 20 feet here and I think it's their intention to make use of that existing driveway for the existing, that ' area not to disturb any additional area than what they have to with the pavement widths. Ledvina: It would seem to be a real beneficial thing not to have 30 feet of roadway right there ... but I don't know, can we add a condition of that sort? I know we might be getting inbetween two private individuals coming to terms. ' Aanenson: A condition for what? Ledvina: For having an easement over the existing driveway. Rask: The easement will cover that existing driveway. ' Ledvina: Has that already happened or is that in the process? Rask: No, it's in the process. We've got an indication from the owner of Lot 9 that he is... Ledvina: Do our conditions in the staff report guarantee that that will happen? Or no? Is it ' appropriate for us to try to specify that? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Condition number 3. The applicant ' shall obtain and convey the necessary cross access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. ' Ledvina: Okay. But that relates to the two parcels. It doesn't relate to the neighbor's parcels, right? ' Aanenson: We can modify it to include that language. To include the existing homes be included in that... ' Ledvina: Okay. Can I just add that in there? Okay. That was all I had. Scott: Great, Nancy. I 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: I just want to make the comment that I think all of us feel and Ladd has certainly said that we are concerned with the water quality in the area and as soon as something can be done about it, the better and we would like to pass that on to City Council so as they prioritize for their areas, their list throughout the city, that this is a very serious one. How many homes are on this private drive? Rask: There will be a total of four. We're not including, there's two residences on Lot 9. There's one up here on the lake and then there's, I believe it's a rental unit back there. The existing driveway comes in like this and then here. So it'd be that rental unit, the existing house on Lot 5 and then the two proposed. We looked at a number of layouts here. We looked at creating a flag lot. However, this would force a number of driveways. You would have one driveway coming in for Lot 1. Another one for Lot 2 and then a third driveway for the existing home so we thought this combined driveway, or private street would be the best way to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Mancino: Yeah. When you go and see the site, it certainly does and it kind of keeps the character of the area. It keeps it that way with not as much road coverage. John, a question for you. - The back of the property, I want to say the north end of the property that we're looking at. There's, you know it kind of goes uphill and there's quite a few big trees on there Were you thinking about doing some sort of a conservation easement in that area because of erosion, etc? Rask: Yeah, I guess based on where they're showing the building pad, the slopes in this area and the majority of those trees are within the required 30 foot setback from the rear property line. That those trees would not be disturbed due to construction activity for clearing a building pad. Mancino: Sometimes you put a conservation easement to make sure that they stay there even when a homeowner moves in and maybe wants to start taking them down. How do you feel about that area? That slope area. Are they something that should stay permanent and help in the conservation of that slope? Rask: Certainly we did look at that. However, I think based on what was submitted, we felt we were getting adequate protection. We felt they met the basic requirements of the ordinance. In addition, you know I think the applicant's been very sensitive about the location of the building pad as to reduce to a minimum the amount of trees being removed. Mancino: The only other thing that I would like to add is that on recommendation number 2 which says the site plan document should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 the proposed private driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter ' oak tree. And those are all my comments. ' Scott: Ron. Nutting: I don't have any additional comments of substance I guess. On the drainage issue, I guess I would opt for supporting staffs recommendation. As Ladd commented in his final words, we're not going to come up with a solution over night and I'm not an expert in drainage and so forth but I'm presuming staff has done their homework in terms of assessing the additional amount of drainage that would be generated from this and not having a material impact in and of itself on that so. I would be prepared to move it forward subject to some of the modifications that have been addressed in Matt's comments and Nancy's. ' Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect? ' Nutting: Sure. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 995 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the conditions as noted in the staff report with the ' following additions. Under recommendation number 2, added at the end of that sentence, which would result in the savings of a 36 inch. ' Mancino: Diameter oak tree. Nutting: Okay. And Matt, was the, I'm trying to think. The easement issue we felt was ' covered in the item number 3. Did you have any modifications to that? Ledvina: Yeah. I would suggest that the language read, the applicant shall obtain and ' convey the necessary cross - access or driveway maintenance agreements between new lots and neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. ' Nutting: Yes, and also subject to the issue of condition number 15 which would require the applicant to submit proof to staff with regard to the existence of the dock prior to, is it ' January 1 of? Rask: July 11, 1983. ' Nutting: July 11th, 1983. Presuming at the discretion of staff in their evaluation of that. ' Scott: So you want to have, by virtue of a friendly amendment, condition in there about prioritization of the upgrade of the surface water treatment in that particular area? 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Nutting: I guess I'm not sure that condition, well. They're two separate. They're related but I'm not sure that that condition makes sense putting in with this. Scott: I'm thinking when people are going through the Minutes of this meeting, see people tend to zero in when it says motion and then here are the comments. So maybe, I think what I can do is I can just make, I'll make a comment at the end, after we vote on this so those who read the Minutes will see that. Instead of having it buried in. I think it's too important to be buried. Nutting: I believe that's it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a second? Oh, go ahead. Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staff's recommendation subject to the conditions mentioned. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yes. I'm curious what item number 15 means in terms of the grandfathering. Grandfathering means the dock has been in continuous use so Ron, you were asking the applicant to prove that it has been in continuous use since 1983? Rask: Yeah. That's a condition staff had recommended. What I indicated earlier was that when we originally reviewed this we were under the impression, based on evidence submitted by the applicant, that a dock had existed on this parcel for quite some time. Therefore it could continue to be used as a non - conforming structure. However, recently we've received some information that kind of contradicts that so what staff is asking is that everybody submit the information they have. The applicant, any other concerned parties. We'll review that and staff will make a decision regarding the non - conforming status. Conrad: Which means the applicant should be able to prove what? Rask: Prove that a dock existed on the parcel. This could be done either. Conrad: Last year? Rask: Yes. It has to exist every year since adoption of the ordinance. Conrad: Okay. Was the motion made to indicate that? 14 u u L' u u n 0 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Yes. That was condition 15. Conrad: Okay. That's the way you heard it? Aanenson: That's the way. Aanenson: Yes. Ron just summarized it. Conrad: You're going to write it. Conrad: With a dock goes 3 boats. Aanenson: The issue here is because it's so narrow, they have to meet the dock setback zone so that's why they're non - conforming. That's why we're saying that if they've had a dock, they can continue to use the dock as long as it's always been in the water. If you don't have it in there for more than one period, you've lost your rights. Conrad: Right. With a dock goes 3 boats overnight. Aanenson: Right. Ledvina: Just to further add to that. I would like to make a friendly amendment, in the event that the dock is approved. I would like to amend condition number 14 to clearly state that if the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non - conforming status is lost. Nutting: I'll accept that. Scott: Okay. Is there any more discussion? Nutting moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision 1495 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 2. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter oak tree. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross - access or driveway maintenance easement agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. 4. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. 5. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 7. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. 8. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and /or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124.00 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500.00 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. 9. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088.00 and $2,693.00 respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 16 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane shall be abandoned and the ditch section restored. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with riprap. 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support a 7 ton per axle weight. ' 14. Storage of boats at the dock must be consistent with applicable city requirements except those which have the legal non - conforming status. If the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non - conforming status is lost. 15. The applicant is required to submit to staff for their review evidence that a dock has been in use on the property since 1983. ' All voted in favor and the motion caned. Scott: This is going to the City Council on the, it's still scheduled for the 27th of this month? Okay. Good. And just a comment with regard to surface water management. Obviously we have some concerns there that we'd like to pass onto our folks at the City Council. And then also when a decision is being made on the dock, please whoever is going to be involved with that decision really has to take a very close look at how the decision was made on Schmidt's Acres because in that particular situation the time frames were very similar. Early 1900's. And also there was conflicting information from those who were interested in seeing the dock versus those who weren't and there was antidotal information that was accepted but there were no photographs available for each year so we have set a precedent in that particular issue and I think we have to pay very close attention to it when you guys make a decision on this one. 0 7 Conrad: And Joe, what was the ruling on that? Scott: That they kept the dock. The situations are extremely close as far as facts and so forth, so I think that's a, we're always careful about when we make a decision on something like this that it follows that the next time it's made, it's consistent. Conrad: And that one had a 10 foot piece of lakeshore? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: No, it was 50 feet. Or no, 30? Yeah, it was non - conforming. Conrad: I'm real uncomfortable with my decision. Aanenson: The beachlot thing's a little bit different. We were trying to attach the documentation to 1981. Okay. In order to maintain the legal non - conforming, he's got to demonstrate that it's been in there every year. The burden of proof is. Conrad: The burden is on him. Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,052 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 900 WEST 78TH STREET, GENE HABERMAN, CENTURY BANK. Public Present: Name Address Craig Hallett 983 Santa Vera Drive Ken Brooks Eden Prairie Pat Giordana Minneapolis Sheldon Wert Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff repoit on this item. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from staff? Good. Questions or comments from commissioners? Mancino: I'll wait. Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant or their representatives like to make a presentation? Yes sir. 18 4129 w 136.50 _42.10 _ / � tjifum�nous �� I Y —fie I n 1 n f U L 1 135.64- _ I' 1 /. o �i2 *,. HOLLY . 3 er 0 i o } I� s P E 1 1 11 •\ Q 1 � ' .I � -- v SANITARY SE'NEf_AND� (`. �:' - '\ l \ "cr'2 \IAA EASEMENT to .._je ... _.. S} I -NORTH UN OF LOT 9 _...... °. 8uildincq Sefback'Line o Imo. NI � — fi t _ t'1_ > 0 O I f � " '20- n. Slda. Pad 0 • 1 e C�utt ° 1 I � � W t .s BA • �� o• I �o° •1 SP. 66' SP 0 VF1 I A I INI a0 I Kline or A, S. 10.00 reef �—�� '! C �lj ' �i 4az _oF Lot 9 d e" CR Ir Cft Cot }cye PROPOSED OPA.0 E k Ll.::! EASEUE L. 1 5 M....!'L_t lfcy S _ I 936 996 / r / 1 �-- — t`�i5896 — X 27 - � ; • �✓ J �7.t F.. _ .7 y 295.11 � \ fTd"Ifi 6 � — 1 / I �. 9 ` Cb I �� 10.E6 < � �' h PROPO6E0 Dlwru4E • VlllffY CASEMEM i l �J 292.57 �I I 1� `1RN;M GE - NI" E�SEYEM /I I I r` I L_ 1 f a 5 I / **�F•9 5. line orLor 9 o ti u DESCRIPTION: Lot No. 6 and the Southerly 10 feet of Lot No. 9, Crane's Vineyard Park, an addition in Carver County, Minnesota. 9� 7 R6 2 . 9CQ o� \ A\ MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE 600 West 79 Street • Americana Community Bank Building Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (612) 333 -5673 FAX (612) 937 -3501 February 28, 1995 Mr. John Rask City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposal to Subdivide by Applicant Julie Sprau Dear Mr. Rask: ) elr �S�j �P vet' woo In their absence, my parents, Miles and Maxine Lord, have asked me to monitor this proposal as it may affect them. We have worked with real estate agent, Carl Zinn, and have participated in some of the plans relating to a driveway. In addition, I have reviewed the staff report. The purpose of this letter is to point out what I know to be an error in that report. Under the heading "Background" the report states "Staff has reviewed the nonconforming status of this piece of property, as it pertains to future use of the lakeshore, and determined that a dock may be maintained as a nonconforming structure. A dock has existed on this parcel in excess of 40 years and may continue to be used as long as it maintains its `grandfather status.' " There has not been a dock there, based upon my personal knowledge, since 1972 and probably prior to that. I lived on that property from 1972 to 1975 and there was no dock at that time. I also had the opportunity to observe that piece of property after I moved because my parents lived near and then at that site ever since. There has not been a dock at the location indicated for at least the past 23 years during summer or winter months. Our family welcomes the new neighbors. We only wish that the record factually portray the history of this property. RASK.LTR 02/28/95 3:23 PM Mr. John Rask February 28, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. ' Very truly yours, MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE James F. Lord tf ' RASKITR 02/28/95 3:23 PM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 August 30, 1994 Mr. Carl Zinn Burnet Realty 19400 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Zinn: This letter is pursuant to our conversation of the non- conforming dock located on Lot 6 and part of Lot 9 of "Crane's Vineyard Park" on Christmas Lake. The dock currently does not meet city standards in regards to width of property at the shoreline to the dock setback zone and there is no principal structure associated with the dock. The dock can continue to be used as long as it maintains its grandfather status. This means the dock cannot be altered and must be used every year. If it is not used for more than one year, it loses the legal non - conforming status. This interpretation is based on the,fact that the dock has been on the lake in excess of 40 years, many of those years without a principal structure. It is my understanding that the dock was used for rental property associated with the dock. Therefore, the dock has become the principal structure since the rental property has ceased to exist for a number of years. Storage of boats at the dock must be consistent with all other applicable city requirements except those which have the legal non - conforming status. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Planning Director 'KA:v 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Ms. Julie L. Sprau 2004 Scarborough Ct. Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Ms. Sprau: This letter is to confirm that at their March 27, 1995 meeting, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision 95 -1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated March 20, 1995 and the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approvai.' Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. 2. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed private driveway. Since the 36" oak was dead and removed, the driveway access for Lot 1 may be from Holly Lane or the proposed private street. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross- access or driveway maintenance easement agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. The total easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 4. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded..- The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. 5. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 7. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. March 31, 1995 Ms. Julie L. Sprau March 31, 1995 Page 2 8. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and/or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. 9. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088 and $2,693, respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane shall be abandoned and the ditch section adjacent to Holly Lane cleaned out down to the east property line of proposed Lot 1. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 -inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with riprap. 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support 7 -ton per axle weight vehicles. 14. No docks, moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2. 15. The turnaround on Holly Lane shall be modified to 20' x 30' with a 30 foot radius on the westerly side. The pavement design section shall be in accordance with the city's urban street section. The final plat mylars may be submitted, along with two 1" equals 200' and one 1" equals 500' scale reduction mylars, to our office for signatures along with the fees listed in teh conditions of approval. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. S e —John Rask �— Planner I PC: Merald & Elaine Krogstad, 1035 Holly Lane Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Steve Kirchman, Building Official L DOCK SETBACK VARIANCE Written Description of Variance Applicant is requesting a variance from Chapter 6, Article I, dock setback zone requirement. The required dock setback zone is ten (10) feet from ' either side of the extended lot lines. Applicant is requesting a seven (7) foot variance on both sides of the dock setback zone. Written Justification When Applicant initially looked at the property on Holly Lane, prior to purchasing the property, Applicant was told that the ten (10) foot wide strip of land which provided access to Christmas Lake had non - conforming dock status. Additionally, Applicant was provided with a copy of a letter dated August 30, 1994, written by the City of Chanhassen to ' Carl Zinn (the Seller's realtor), confirming that non - conforming dock status existed with respect to the parcel of land (a copy of the letter is attached). ' Upon review, the letter from the City of Chanhassen confinned the existence of non- conforming dock status for the parcel of land for a number of reasons. First, the letter was written to the Seller's realtor; therefore, the City must have known that prospective buyers would rely on the information contained in the letter. Second, there was no qualifying language with respect to the non - conforming dock status. Finally, the letter was written in late siunmer 1994 when the facts necessary to support the existence of non - conforming dock ' status would be readily apparent (the language of the letter indicates, in present tense, that a non - conforming dock was located on the property at the time the letter was written). Based upon this analysis, Applicant felt it was reasonable to rely on the letter from the City of ' Chanhassen as confirmation of the non - conforming dock status of the parcel of land. The City staff report dated March 1, 1995 also confinned the non - conforming dock ' status of the parcel of land. On February 28, 1995 the City received a letter from James F. Lord, son of Miles W. Lord (Miles W. Lord's property is located just east of the involved parcel of land), contesting the facts contained in the City staff's report. As a result, the City staff altered its position on the non - conforming dock status of the parcel of land and determined that a dock could not be maintained as a non - conforming structure. At the March 27, 1995 City Council meeting the City Council indicated that a way to rectify this situation would be to apply for a variance from the dock setback requirement. Applicant feels that it was unreasonably denied the dock rights associated with the parcel of ' land. The conditions under which the variance is requested do not, generally, exist with respect to other property located within the same zoning classification. It is Applicant's ' understanding that a dock has been maintained on this parcel of land for many of the last 40 years. It is also Applicant's understanding that years when the dock wasn't maintained were due to extenuating circumstances (such as sewer work that was being done by the City). The ' purpose of this variation is not to increase the income potential or value of the parcel of land. The need for this variance was not self - created. Additionally, the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE 600 West 79 Street • Americana Community Bank Building Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (612) 333 -5673 FAX (612) 937 -3501 June 26, 1995 Mr. John Rask City Planning Commission Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Ravenswood Estates Dear Mr. Rask: I am advised that Mrs. Sprau is asking to amend two aspects of the permit she was given to build on her residential lot described above. The Road Request When we were presented with the request to grant an easement to the Spraus, their agent, Carl Zinn, represented that the road, no matter how wide, would go down the middle of the right -of -way created by the reciprocal right -of- way. At that time, it constituted a 30- foot -wide right -of -way with a 20- foot -wide road down the middle. Based on that, Miles and Maxine Lord granted an easement. n+,+ �+n On 1 i.. w '�, : lwi' �..�, 1 � �, 1 a�. � .. l �. SV - - , "P. la l4 lll. ' the �111 alG alb.' ✓t neighbor, John Secrest, at the site. It was agreed on between the parties that the road should be centered in the middle of the reciprocal right of way. It is my understanding that the staff report recommends a 20- foot -wide road, and the petitioners are asking for a 15- foot -wide road. We join the petitioners in requesting that the road be 15 feet wide. The Dock Request I am also advised that the Spraus will attempt to get a variance to build a dock on Christmas Lake. It is my understanding that the dock will be in violation Mr. John Rask June 26, 1995 Page 2 of the City's setback requirements. Further, the prior allegations that the dock was grandfathered in are without foundation. Therefore, the Lords oppose such a variance. The applicant, at the March 27, 1995, council meeting, made an issue of "relying" on the letter to Carl Zinn. She did not rely on it in deciding to proceed with the purchase of the property. At the March 27, 1995, meeting the following exchange took place: Councilwoman Berquist: "Well if there's no dock rights with the property, is the property still, I mean are you going to continue to subdivide it? Julie Sprau: "Ah yeah. I should have made that point as well. We would like this to sort of be considered as a separate issue to the subdivision. I don't know that it's necessarily integral to the subdivision itself because we are still interested in the property without the dock rights. " Although Miles and Maxine wish to get along with their neighbors, and fully intend to do so, they do not wish to do so at the expense of the devaluation of their property. ' Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE James F. Lord tf June 24, 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment & Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board Members: 1� The enclosed Chanhassen lakefront homeowners of Christmas Lake are all opposed to the variance for a non - conforming dock on a 10 -foot easement by Ms. Sprau. We trust the Zoning Board will reject her appeal. It is our position that the property in question never had a dock in the past. Sincerely, Christmas Lake Lakeshore Homeowners Chanhassen, MN Encs. June 26, 1995 1 ' Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City lull 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, ' 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. a June 26 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. June 26, 1995 1 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. --. r June 26 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. 1 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: ' her residents in wishing Julie S 1. We join with of g rau a warm p welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, ' 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. ' 3. We J the Board to re urge reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates ' to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. i y � C �, � � ��.� it -- ,�'��',•,.� C June 26, 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall r 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: ' her residents in wishing Julie S 1. We join with of g rau a warm p welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, ' 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. ' 3. We J the Board to re urge reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates ' to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. i y � C �, � � ��.� it -- ,�'��',•,.� C June 26, 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. G C G June 26, 1995 i Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 i The undersigned residents of Chanhasse n petition this Board as follows: ' 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 7 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. 6 ; P 1 u l- Fv June 26, 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates recting a n -conform' ock on the 10 -foot easement. June 26, 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprwi a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2, We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for anon- conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. �f All J June 26 , Jun , 1995 Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City Hall ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 , The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Board as follows: 1. We join with other residents in wishing Julie Sprau a warm welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2. We strongly support the City staffs ' analysis dated June 26, 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on ' Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Sprau as it relates r to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. 13 !l V L 7 J J June 26, 1995 1 ■ Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals Chanhassen City lull 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned residents of Chanhassen petition this Boar d as follows: other residents in wishing 1. We loin with o g Julie Sprau a warm ■ welcome to the City of Chanhassen. 2, We strongly support the City staffs' analysis dated June 26, ■ 1995 that a variance should not be granted for a non - conforming dock on Christmas Lake. 3. We urge the Board to reject the appeal by Ms. Spr au as it relates ■ to erecting a non - conforming dock on the 10 -foot easement. I JtL_L_%_ 6 3 /� o� l L l S AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY AUGUST 28, 1995, 7:30 PM CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City.Council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the Council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Item Deleted ** b. Lotus Lake Woods, 7500 Frontier Trail (Forcier Property): 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for Lotus Lake Woods, Project 95 -15. C. Item Deleted ** d. Set Assessment Hearing Dates for the following projects: 1) Chanhassen Estates 1st & 3rd Additions Street Reconstruction Project No. 93 -10 to be held on September 25, 1995. 2) Lake Lucy Road Extension Project No. 92 -12 to be held on October 9, 1995. 3) Galpin Boulevard /Coulter Boulevard Reconstruction Project No. 93 -26A to be held on October 9, 1995. e. Preliminary Plat Extension for the Hiscox Addition, Subdivision 87 -31 for 3 Single Family Lots, 7500 Erie Avenue. ' PUBLIC HEARINGS - None AWARD OF BIDS 3. a. Lyman Boulevard Surcharge Contract, Project No. 93- 3213-2. ' b. Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) from Timberwood Drive South to Lyman Boulevard (Carver County Project PW026E). UNFINISHED BUSINESS ' NEW BUSINESS 4. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide a 2.22 acre Parcel into 4 Lots, 6660 Powers Blvd., Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. 5. Variance to the Required Dock Setback Zone, 1085 Holly Lane, Julie Sprau, ' Ravenswood Estates. ' 6. Request for Interim Use Permit for the Filling and Stabilization of an Existing Ravine on Bluff Creek Golf Course, Grading Permit File No. 95 -4. James J. Meyer Susan Karyl Price Dean Wetzel 6225 Ridge Road 6250 Ridge Road 6260 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jon & Irene Joseph 6290 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jerry & Katherine Snider 6270 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 John S. Fess 6280 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Mary Eastwood 6285 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy Foster 6370 Pleasant View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 William Gullickson 830 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Sherry Aguilera 790 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edward & Victoria Szalapski 850 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd Novaczyk 6371 Pleasant View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 James Lord Miles W. Lord & Associates 600 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gordon Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317