The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Jean Addition, Sub 93-19 Reconsideration 1 5, l CITYOF II i _ , 1 .N114 I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 •FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager I FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planer 1 DATE: November 3, 1993 1 SUBJ: Jean Addition, SUB #93 -19 Reconsideration 1 BACKGROUND I On October 26, 1993, the City Council reviewed the proposal for the Jean Addition. This item was tabled for a couple of reasons. Staff was asked to consider another subdivision option and the second reason was to consider the location of the home in relation to the trees and the 1 wetland. Staff has reviewed these issues and has the following comments. ANALYSIS I Mr. Swearingen had requested that the wetland setback be waived in order to preserve more trees. Staff is in the opinion that the integrity of the wetland and the trees are of equal '' importance. As stated in the staff report, a home placement plan will be required to ensure minimal tree loss. Staff would not recommend a variance to the wetland at this time. 1 There are two approaches to subdividing this property. One approach is as proposed with one lot and one outlot. The other option is to create two lots with the plat (see Alternative 1). The outlot would then be combined with the Reese's home in Shorewood (see Alternative 2). 1 Approval by the City of Shorewood would be required. There are pros and cons of each alternative. 1 Alternative 1 I This option provides for an outlot. This outlot would be unbuildable. There is a possibility that this outlot could go tax forfeit and someone would try to obtain a building permit. Staff is convinced that this would still be very unlikely that a home could be built on the site. After the 1 1 1 1 Jean Addition November 3, 1993 Page 2 11 required front yard setback is met, there is only 20 feet before the edge of the wetland. In addition, Mr. Reese accesses his property via a driveway across the outlot. 1 Alternative 2 I This option has two lots being created Lot 1, Block 1 would be the lot available for building and Lot 2, Block 1 would include the 8,750 square foot remanent and Lot 164, Auditors Subdivision No. 135 in Shorewood. This option would eliminate the outlot but would require subdivision 1 approval from the City of Shorewood. RECOMMENDATION Staff still supports the original staff recommendation. There is a greater level of protection with I alternative #2, and staff believes that it is very unlikely that this property would be separated from the Reese home since it is a portion of his yard and his driveway is located on it. I If the Council chooses to approve the subdivision with Alternative #2, staff would recommend the same 8 conditions of the staff report be applied. 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Alternatives 1 and 2. P2. Staff report dated October 6, 1993. 3. City Council minutes dated October 25, 1993 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 - •, _ :• i 1 • • ize,...] . 4.0. I . . 3 * MOM If • Alternative 1 113; 1101 IMM fair MN 11 01 a. 1 «... ... 111 r ......: - .... w ... MOW lM1LM ND Ji! / /J / nt 0001001. wN.� ..I.. ..Y. M ....r.. 8141000000 I .rte I / • I • , / Li t . .. •� Off ► ' • , • � ° (/' I / /,� \ �� e7 .,,, • • \N„... • • .' ....! . ... ::•::: ..1, / I ` . * \ . .17.7: iee • � / / � � \ \\ :�,.nl /,��' lilt- • 111181111.1111 =OM= \ Z.:: . % . ::. ...........e ... ... , \ . , % v ' . 4e5e '4ft , \ • ••. '` ■\'\ —. LT Y • / i...; ,.I∎::, r'V 1 1. . f . LA01 .. '.. 44,. ‘%%• ....... 04 I ' C1 . %%10,P4r ..-.. /› </::/" iir % \ 0 , • j ... / . Z 0 ,0" 6 *. ../ • I 4 \ dm IMIRiting ,... Mb 1111111•11111 lot / / i • ra ISM 1 / A slaw MI amok IRON beft111 be • • ,,, //// \ • • s •/:;# ,//;,// • 1111111•111111 =SWAM " • • / II r' \ \• loft w n w ..... I li `4 , • 4 / / . _ 1 1111.1 iiii wil me am Milli Am it il IIIIIII 111111 1pil NW Mir Mil MIN 1111 • ;la ail MN on 011i , ail aml MI ilia MO ternative 2 1 ,3 . Lot 2 Block 1 Jean Addition ` • �'� �s �f 1' .. . .1 1 : . " ..V :. �!�! 5 . ..._ f z � /� •�` IMO • y wry •■•••••• ...ow. g I ill . \ )0 a a • II :••••‘• I I I. a liNrir..., „....... . , .... '6%:: ' ....:. ' • •%%%.:.. :. ' .:r- 7::r - ------ '.... \ . ,'/ , ../ .. d.. ' .... "6°,° "Man ■••••••• • `.� ` % , \ • `. . �•.�"' r...... N � 1•M r' \ ,s. • / ' . ♦ `■ ill .. — . ,... ■■•: .. i g i ea : 71,4, ..... : / 4. 4 % , / ! . . •••:. ;V' •".l '' A r....:,44. 0 . % tStf fe / se/ /10/7 ' - t ..ir . le ..-: !■ as • / LA ** `...„ 10. \ ■...../1 / cy>/t/ / ::.:2 /› </\ ii° ♦ `.I ■ / / \ \ di „ J/ I I if 31111MMENLICLIC um •••• y ; • / / I `\ e". Ms ►•warm • I / / // / `` • ww•I• r iwTi� / /-; `•. , , � ti "I i : / /r �` \ ``. "CI S"" l 1 �� / /' /' • 1 • OM NI • • I \ ` • i -, . /:' � / ./ ` , r. • .... U CITY OF PC DATE: 10/6/93 \ � ,�` CC DATE: 10/25/93 CUANI1AE1 1 -.......\..„.- _.. CASE #: 93 -19 SUB By: Aanenson:v .-.................................i STAFF REPORT . ,i PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final Plat Request to split a 36,023 square foot lot into two lots. One lot would be 27,750 square feet and the other would be an outlot of 8,750 square feet (no development necessary) !et 64 Administrator D K'H' 1 Z LOCATION: 6200 Chaska Road mod— V io =iy -i3 1 ..� LW Submitted to CommisaION amsgl APPLICANT: Frank Reese 0.. 6200 Chaska Road Date Submitted TO Council I Q Excelsior, MN 55331 / 0 - 1 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family ' 1 ACREAGE: .83 acres more or less 1 DENSITY: .75 units /acre 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood, single or two family Residential S - RSF, Residential Single Family Q E - RSF, Residential Single Family W -RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property is bordered by a Class A wetland to the north L. and contains a significant stand of trees. The site slopes 1 down from Chaska Road towards the wetland. II 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1 1 1 Jean Addition October 6, 1993 1 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The subject site is located on Lot J, Bardwell Acres. Bardwell acres was platted in 1947. There is an existing home on this lot owned by William Swearingen. Lot J, Bardwell Acres was split in 1986 and the applicant, Mr. Reese, had the .83 acre lot created. Mr. Reese also owns the home and property to the north of this site, Lot 164 in Shorewood. Two lots are being proposed at this time on the .83 acre lot, one would be a buildable lot and the other an outlot which would be unbuildable at this time. The applicant is proposing to combine the outlot with his property in Shorewood at a future date. There is a Class A wetland along the northern portion of all of the Reese property. In addition, there is a significant amount of trees on the site. Staff had asked for a specific home placement plan to ensure that the proposed dwelling can meet the wetland setback as well as limit tree 1 removal. The only way the home can meet the wetland setback is to be located as proposed. Based on the home placement plan provided by the applicant, it appears that the home can be located to meet the wetland setback, which is 50 feet. The house will have to be located in the most southwesterly portion of the setback area. The significant trees found on the lot include black walnut and sugar maples. Staff is recommending that tree loss be kept to a minimum. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit. The second lot which is being created is proposed as an outlot. This lot will be 8,750 square 1 feet. This lot is unbuildable because it does not meet the city's lot size regulations. The purpose of the outlot is to provide Mr. Reese with a buffer from the proposed home and from his existing residence. Mr. Reese is also proposing to annex the outlot to his Shorewood residence at a future 1 date. 1 STREETS /ACCESS The parcel lies adjacent to Chaska Road which is a substandard urban street consisting of a bituminous surface with no curb and gutter. Access to the lot can be easily accommodated from Chaska Road. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. 1 LANDSCAPING / TREE PRESERVATION A tree survey was not completed by the applicant on this site. The significance of the trees was not noted until there was a field visit to the site by staff. Jeff Schultz, the city Forestry Intern, inspected the site and made the following observations. The site contains a significant amount of trees on the lot proposed for development. The site contains predominately young to mature black walnut, along with scattered sugar maples, green 1 1 Jean Addition 1 October 6, 1993 Page 3 1 ash and basswood. The majority of the tress are in excellent health and have a high quality form and appearance with little or no disease or decay problems. All of the trees are young to mature, approximately 20 -50 years in age. The under story consists primarily of sugar maple, buckthorn, raspberry, and wild grape. If staff were to prohibit tree removal on this lot it would be unbuildable. Staff is recommending that tree loss be kept to a minimum. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. WETLAND The proposed subdivision contains a wetland. This wetland has been classified by the city as agricultural/urban. The wetland will not be altered with this proposal. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 40 foot setback and a 10 foot buffer strip from the wetland. Diane Desotelle, the city's Water Resource Coordinator, noted that the buffer strip width shown on the grading plan is approximately 10 feet wide and that there is essentially no buffer strip near the area where the house and yard would be located. A buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet down from the house is recommended since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with the area of greatest potential of runoff from lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. 1 The close vicinity of the wetland and the grades associated with the lot will mandate erosion control. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. 1 GRADING/DRAINAGE According to the City Treasurer's Office, the parcel has not been previously assessed for sanitary 1 sewer and water because it was deemed unbuildable at that time. In addition, the City's as -built records show that no sewer or water service has been stubbed to the property. The property can 1 be serviced from an existing sanitary sewer and water line in Chaska Road, although the house type may be limited to a split -entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. The City has in 1 the past allowed homes to be built where the lower level is on the ejector system and the upper level is serviced via gravity. The applicant would be responsible for the appropriate connection hook -up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. These fees may be assessed as well. Upon payment of these fees, the City will extend a sewer and water service across Chaska Road to the property line for the applicant to connect to. 1 EASEMENTS At some future date when Chaska Road is upgraded, it may be feasible for the extension of a 1 storm sewer line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to discharge storm runoff into the urban wetland. It is recommended at this time to have the applicant convey a 20 -foot wide drainage and utility 1 1 1 Jean Addition October 6, 1993 I Page 4 easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm 1 sewer considerations. PARK AND RECREATION 1 Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600 for park and $200 for trail. 1 COMPLIANCE TABLE 1 Sq. footage Front Rear Side Wetland Setback Setback Setback Setback 1 Required 15,000 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 50 feet Lot 1 27,273 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet + 55 feet I *Outlot A is unbuildable and will be noted in the development contact as such. II PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On October 6, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision for the III Jean Addition with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has heard from one of the neighbors, Mr. I Swearingen, who stated he did not receive notice of the Planning Commission meeting. He lives just to the west of the site and is concerned about tree loss. Staff indicated that it is the city's I goal to minimize tree loss and had required a specific home placement plan, showing trees and which will be removed, and that it be provided with the building permit. Mr. Swearingen has requested that the home be placed to the west of the lot as much as possible while still meeting I the wetland setback to preserve trees. Staff has already provided a condition to maximize tree preservation and will work to retain this goal when a building permit is requested. I RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I "The City Council approves the request for preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #93 -19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on 1 the plans dated September 8, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1 1 Jean Addition 1 October 6, 1993 Page 5 1 1. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. 1 3. A buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet down from the house is required since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with the area of greatest potential of runoff from lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. 4. The house type may be limited to a split -entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. 5. The applicant is responsible for the appropriate connection hook -up charges at the time 1 of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. 6. The applicant convey a 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the PP Y g t3' common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. 7. Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit 1 application. These fees are currently $600 for park and $200 for trail." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993. 2. Preliminary plat dated September 8, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 111 4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer `414 • DATE: September 27, 1993 ' SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat to Subdivide and Create One Single - Family Lot Located at 6200 Chaska Road, Jean Addition - Frank Reese File No. 93 -20 Land Use Review i Upon review of the preliminary plat dated September 7, 1993 prepared by Merila & Associates, I offer the following comments and recommendations: STREETS The parcel pa cel lies adjacent to Chaska Road which is a substandard urban street consisting of a bituminous surface with no curb and gutter. Access to the lot can be easily accommodated from Chaska Road. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot, UTILITIES According to the City Treasurer's office, the parcel has not been previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water because it was deemed unbuildable at that time. In addition, the City's as -built records show no sewer or water service has been stubbed to the property. The property can be serviced from an existing sanitary sewer and water line in Chaska Road, although the house type may be limited to a split -entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. The City has in the past allowed homes to be built where the lower level is on the ejector system and the upper level is serviced via gravity. The applicant would be responsible for the appropriate connection hook -up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. These 1 fees may be assessed as well. Upon payment of these fees, the City will extend a sewer and water service across Chaska Road to the property line for the applicant to connect to. 1 i 1 Kate Aanenson I September 27, 1993 Page 2 1 MISCELLANEOUS At some future date when Chaska Road is upgraded it may be feasible for the extension of a storm sewer line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to discharge storm runoff into the urban wetland. It is recommended at this time to have the applicant convey a 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. 1 A development contract will not be applicable in this situation since no public improvements are being required. 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate connection and hook-up fees at the time of I PP P Y P building permit issuance. The hook -up and connection fees may be assessed against the property. 1 2. A drainage culvert shall be installed by the property owner in conjunction with constructing a driveway to the property. The appropriate construction plan should be II submitted denoting the culvert size, elevations and location for staff review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate with the final plat a 20 -foot wide drainage and utility 1 easement centered between Lot 1 and Outlot A. 4. A grading and development plan should be submitted denoting the house type and 1 elevation of lowest floor and garage floor elevation for staff approval. ktm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 044 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 r October 12, 1993 Mr. Bill Swearingen 6250 Chaska Road 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Swearingen: ' Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, enclosed is a copy of the staff report and P Y� PY eP preliminary plat with a reduced copy of the proposed home location for the Frank Reese proposal. The City Council will be reviewing this item at their meeting on Monday, October 25, 1993. If you have concerns, you will be given an opportunity to make them heard. However, 1 since this item is likely to be on the consent agenda, please let me know if you wish to speak ahead of time. I apologize that your name was missed by Carver County Abstract and Title but unfortunately it does happen. We attempt to notify concerned parties to the best of our ability which exceeds statutory requirements. If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me or Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner. ' Sincerely, (.j 111 Vicki Churchill Planning Secretary VC:ms Enclosures • r r r 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 7. The applicant shall leave the parking entrance as it exists today. If safety problems PP P g y Y P are experienced, the applicant may petition for a modification of the access points. 8. Sign covenants shall be created and filed with the development/tenants. g P 9. A variance shall be granted for the lot width requirements in CBD zone. 1 10. The City shall monitor parking and if parking becomes a problem, the applicant shall provide a landscaped hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Companies. 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re- evaluated for the north/south walkway between the 1 buildings. If staff has concerns, a rail or other means shall be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety reasons. I All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: FRANK REESE TO SUBDIVIDE A 36,023 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6200 CHASKA ROAD, JEAN ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address 1 Robert Sommer 6239 Chaska Road 1 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. 1 Robert Sommer: My name is Robert Sommer. I live at 6239 Chaska Road. Essentially across the street and my only concern is that I had to, I extended the water line to the city 1 limits of Shorewood, eastward and to give you a little historical perspective. It was about 5 -6 years ago that Mr. Reese requested that the City extend the water line because he wanted to I split off a lot. And at that time we made an agreement with Mr. Reese, Mr. Swearingen and myself that we would extend the water line for this petition and that we would all pay our fair share. Then his original plan did not go through and I extended the water line at my 1 22 III • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 I expense to the city limit. I would like some assurance in the public record that he will pay his fair share of reimbursing me for the amount of footage that he would be using in the 1 water. Conrad: Kate, how would that happen? I Hempel: Mr. Chair, maybe I can address that. Unfortunately I guess Mr. Sommer's here is a mP Y Y g part of the development requirements, the City does have requirements that-provide sewer I and water for the subdivision and also extend it beyond his subdivision or into the limits for the next person to connect onto and extend it. Unless there's an agreement reached during I the actual platting procedure, and on record, the city is not obligated in any way to reimburse you for any money for anybody else tapping onto the water that you have already installed as part of your development. Similar to...Gary Carlson up on Church Road where Mr. Carlson I did put in a water line to serve both sides of the road...as well as the neighbors across the street. At that time it was brought up and put on public record that the applicant should be. reimbursed by the neighbors across the street and the neighbors then...onto it and paid a I portion of those connection hook -up fees that were received by the city. To my knowledge I'm not aware of any agreement has been made in the past for this subdivision. I'm assuming your referring to Eight Acre Woods subdivision. 1 Robert Sommer: Yes. I Conrad: Okay. It doesn't sound like there's a happy answer for your question. I think that's a practical response from the City Engineer. I think that's probably true. Do you have any agreements? Any written agreements that you can produce? That might be the only. I Robert Sommer: Well it's in the public records that Mr. Reese did apply for water extension for the city to put water through. Mr. Swearingen was a co -party to it and I was also a co- 1 party to it originally. At that time we had an agreement. Conrad: Any advice we can. I Hempel: I guess he can certainly pursue it at the City Council level. Let the City Council decide whether or not there's any reimbursement. I Conrad: You may want to do that. Any other comments. Hand it up to you. I like that. Y Y P Y I That's great. Mancino: Pass the buck. 1 23 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 Conrad: Any other comments? Is there a motion to close public hearing? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and 1 the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Jeff, start at your end. Farmakes: I guess I don't have any further comments on this. Staff's recommendations seem sensible to me. It seems like a straight forward request. So I have no comments. Conrad: Nancy. 1 Mancino: I agree. Conrad: Matt. ' Ledvina: I do have a couple of questions, and I guess maybe the first one relates to the, may be a question that Paul can answer. Are we concerned at all about the future loss of the outlot by annexation to the city of Shorewood? Is that an issue at all for us? I mean we . don't like to see our city chiseled away at but I mean is this a concern? 1 Aanenson: ...annexation. We're not discussing this at this point. What we've always said is that this is an outlot and it's unbuildable. Recorded that way. If he wants to pursue annexation, that's completely different...City Attorney about that. We're not prejudging ourselves in anyway. Right now it's unbuildable. Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: What he really wants to do is to create a buffer between that lot screening and the 1 existing home. The one that's in our jurisdiction and the Shorewood jurisdiction, we want a buffer there. He's just got two separate tax parcels, which he's had in the past. Ledvina: Okay. Krauss: ...we went through with an annexation of a chunk of Shorewood which was a 1 cooperative effort between the two cities. Ledvina: So this swapping goes on all the time. Okay. Alright, well that's fine. I was wondering if there was anything other than that or something deeper that we should be concerned about as it relates to that potential annexation. But our loss to Shorewood. 1 24 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Whatever. Okay. I had a couple of questions here on item number 2. A tree removal plan I shall be required with the building permit. Would that be prior to the issuance of the building permit? 1 Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. And then a buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet from the house, that's from the 1 of the house right? I'm sorry, for number 3. I think it's identified as a 5 foot buffer strip. Is that right or is it 10 feet? Can we be specific on that? 1 Aanenson: It's 10. Ledvina: Okay, 10 feet. Is it appropriate to be specific on that at this point? Okay. And 1 let's see. In Dave's staff report he talked about the need for a grading plan, grading and development plan showing the elevations of the lowest floor and garage. Also it talked about 111 a ditch culvert. Is it appropriate to add that to these conditions here or do you have any thoughts on that? I Aanenson: They did submit a...plan that showed the sewer and I think they gave that to you, that showed the elevation...sewer in. • I Ledvina: Okay, let me just take a quick look at that. I didn't think I saw it in here. I see . the house plans but. 1 Aanenson: Where it shows the proposed sewer and water. Ledvina: I don't know what the lowest elevation would be. I guess I'd like to, it may be I redundant but I'd like to stick Dave's recommendation in there. His recommendation from the staff report. So we'll throw that in there whether that's been covered or not, and that may be the case. I Aanenson: Which number from Dave's? 1 Ledvina: Number 4. And I guess we don't really see a grading plan for the house pad and such and I think maybe that's one of the things you were looking for. 1 Aanenson: Usually we do that as a part of the building permit... Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think that's about it. 1 25 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 Conrad: Okay. Thanks Matt. Kate, you expressed some concern with tree removal. But actually there's only one spot on this parcel that can, that a house can go. Whether it splits or not. Aanenson: Exactly. 1 Conrad: I have no comments. Is there a motion? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93 -19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions. That read in the staff report with the following modifications. Number 1 shall read, an appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. Number 2 should read, a tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. Number 3 shall read, a buffer strip of 10 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of greatest runoff along the area of greatest potential of runoff from the lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot during construction. Number 4 to read, the house type may be limited to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pump for the lower level based on engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics. Number 5 to read per the staff report. Number 6 to read, the applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm considerations. Number 7 per the staff report. Number 8 to read, in addition. 8 to read, the applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of the lowest floor 1 and garage slab. This plan shall also show the ditch culvert location and size and invert elevations. That's it. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 1 Conrad: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93 -19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1 26 1 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1. An appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. 3. A buffer strip of 10 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of greatest runoff along the area of greatest potential of runoff from the lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot during construction. 1 4. The house type may be limited to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pump for the lower level based on 1 engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics. 5. The applicant is responsible for the appropriate connection hook -up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. 6. The applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm considerations. 7. Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600.00 for park and $200.00 for trail. 8. The applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of 1 the lowest floor and garage slab. This plan shall also show the ditch culvert location and size and invert elevations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 1 1 1 1 27 1 1 WILLIAM V. SWEARENGIN 6250 CHASKA ROAD EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 612- 474 -8258 612 - 470 -0672 October 20, 1993 1 Ms. Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen RECEIVED 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 OCT 1993 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: CASE # 93 -19 SUB 10 -25 -93 CI Or CMANHASSEN , Dear Kate: I have read the material Vicki mailed to me on the 12th of October regarding the Reese subdivision on Chaska Road and the proposed building permit. Everything seems to be straight forward and I have no problems with the previous proceedings. I do regret that I was overlooked in the notification of adjoining property owners for the public hearing. I did call Carver Abstracting and learned that since I was part of lot J, they assumed I was part of the proceedings and didn't need to be notified. I would like to address the council on the 25th regarding one item having to do with the potential location of the home on the site. I will be prepared with a handout and will take no longer than three minutes to make my point. Briefly, my interest will be to plead with the council to modify the proposed home location to a more easterly direction to preserve the stand of nine Black Walnut and Maple trees at the southeasterly corner to the property. My suggestion will be to preserve those trees, some being 18'' in II diameter, by shifting the house site approximately 40 feet to the east, creating a fifty foot side yard rather than ten feet. The resulting shift would position the front easterly corner of the house approximately forty feet from the wetland rather than the fifty -five it originally had. In addition to preserving the stand of Walnuts and Maples, moving the house site easterly would not endanger any other trees. There aren't any! The center of the property is basically untreed and relatively clear except for some scrub box elder, a dead elm and shrubs. Furthermore, by positioning the home more towards the center of the property, the finished product would be more aesthetic from the street. It boils down to the question of whether the city would prefer 1 WILLIAM SWEARENGIN PAGE 2 (October 20, 1993 11 to strictly observe the wetland's rule or preserve a stand of relatively rare, healthy, large Black Walnut trees and several healthy, young Sugar Maples. The wetland is the remnant of a body of water that has run it's course and is following the path of nature on it's way to bottom land. The state of Minnesota really did it in in the early fifties when Highway 7 was pushed through to the west and a major part of pond was filled. As it is now, trees are just beginning to push through the center and soon it will be capable of supporting weight. The only water visible is around the perimeter and this only in wet years. Left to nature, it will very soon no longer be a wetland. My point is this. left untouched by man, the Black Walnuts and Maples will continue to thrive and grow, providing shade, beauty, and nuts for the animals and future growth. The wetland will rapidly ' become bottomland as trees and shrubs take root, forming a network of solidity to the muck. WHICH DECISION WILL HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE ECOLOGY? SAVING A HEALTHY STAND OF TREES THAT WILL THRIVE FOR THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS OR NOT SHAVING A FEW FEET FROM A SETBACK ON A DYING WETLAND THAT HAS A VERY LIMITED FUTURE IN ANY EVENT? I lean to preserve the trees. Years ago we lost 28 large elms on our property to Dutch Elm disease. We were fortunate enough to have a stand of Black Walnuts which filled the gap. Today you can't ' tell we suffered that kind of a loss. Black Walnuts are hardy, seemingly impervious to disease, productive and appealing to the eye. The community is blessed with their stature because we have done everything in our power to preserve them. I would hope you would vote to do the same with similar stands I on other properties. Since,', Wi. 1 . •wearengin • WE`T L A V BUFFER „. '.� DR PM NGE A� 'I 1 .• Z0 E . \ :.� \ '�l 5.86 • • ■ \ \ `\ EpGE ��i ■ rs 5 _6 ' E r- I 2 ' r 3 ill — — — — — — ` \ .. \ \ * I _9_ __ \ \\ \ \\ /, -_\�\ , ` ` , \` ~��.. ._ ♦ 990 _ � MM. \ ` \ \ \ O'c1 S� \ 1 .� / a i N.... � \ \ � � � / � \ \\ \ \ `� _ 694 % 1 \ ,5 , „sop-- e - . 4 1 7 ‘ 4..... .... \ \ q 0 \ s 0 " . N 401 ' . \ \ •.>\ I .... \ ..... \ \ 0 1 10 \ \ \ R�WE \ ' : \ \ ` M � NN E rG it 4 // L A KE - t \ g ` / 5 ■ 1 - �l; ,,,/? \ 1 4 / \ / • �\�vV / / \ \ / / . 1 / . ./ 1 / / / / / /• / 9 / • , ., . , o • 1 / / /SO> / • / 1 . /•• / /\ / 1 U F. , ii iii 1 OCT 2 0 1993 4 _, _0._ ____ ._..__ „..11_ ____cL 111 • r-- IF- / ;W / . 1 .[- _____3 14A4%,--- 99 1.6 , ----- 1 To i ._1 .._ Rd muihir /2‘ • 1 . 10 1 . ! CP 1 i 0 0 i ! . 1 1._ 0 --I- I 4 D _ _ -11---- 0- 04 ' I • 1 3 , in 2 e . • , i i I , . . ---- - 1 1 . , 1 _ 1 . 445 11) I * D ;40 - OD YO 0 1 . . 1 1 1 1 i 18 iq . 7 1 T ......, I- , --- 1 1 _:, \__, 1 ____ _....._ i I . , il i • 1. '. Q ,.." i■ _ 1 4 z . , ._,•!'' :11 A . _ s t , - i :72 . 1_ , ■ 1 I •i ) i _ \ .._ . . 1 > AL,.-4-- 5 4, -/-- 1 40s , , ------; . , ,- 1 ' , \A ..,...' : ,.. . e. i . 1 , 2 ) , , ,, k ,. , \ I -‘ 1 1 - _ .._ ... .__ _ 1 1 ..i 1 t c)Z irt-lu - _ . NI t f t ... • 1. v. i /.. • ••4. . . ir 4 ...,,.. - ::** t 0 "k•1 • ., ..-,, 4 . -,„.,...„... • .. ... ......., -..- , .. _ , A, 6 : • : .7 - __ 4.' F. l - `' ` ., -..,s ipr " ,,;„ ).,,..-- .. ,-- V:, ., ••," - A " • - 4 ti ; .r.• . _,. ' '.-- 1 - ''. - 7 , 1p ... / g ." . ' ' --- - - --CTI t ..: t ' • - ‘r . ' 4'. e• d "' ' . '... -. P ' .- • ' gil - -304,k_ ' ;--= 7- - .e I ),..- <- • 44 . _ ,..... Illi ... - , # - 41644.4 - ..* • .% 1 \ e. __._. r ' t - ..0,- -. • • .6) "'Cr' 4 ‘ A A • • Ai , . -: -` ... . -, ). • • ,t 4 Ni , i g ,,,, . ..... 4 - 4,06.. xfil .7. , ..,...e.v. ,t..t......„. , 4.1.,_,..4......_....:, ......,,.._„..__,..,.._.v...1e..410,,,..„.,t,, 1 ., ,..}. , , tu. f- - - r I kr) ;Jen,: a.: • _41,62, - - -.; -,4<- , a , , • • , "lier 44 . • ta ... •'' 30 .• it , ..,4 ...# III G *.., f , .. '4. . - .' . ..-1 , e.,,, . . • ...",„ .., l'i\,, • ,,-... . ,,, .., . .. , ., _ • ,. .. II' . ' ' A , , ;. y . ' : „ \ N s lid_ 4/1 A'. •W' 1% :_•re S., 4 ?, . „ 1 „;,fs ...,. ;i - - • - v., i , li% li r ,.1 --- ---- - - --- . A. - . ,_-__, . ,....sim-__, - . , •••,.!. ..A.-- s-4 Ai:. ., . - _"•--s,--- zu 1.‘`,. I 4.-•. - .4:..i.:1-,..-/; 1 -....4- *--1, -- .. ‘'• - . . - . A 4 li ‘.1tir ;*,.. k" .,- l .". -,- . _ ,.. -,••-„,_ _.... ..,, _;.... 4,- 2.-•.....„..\5. _ __- ...• ....*:- . -. ' • ' '. I 1 ., , - ..or; ... : ' I. s • pr.. , t , ' 4111., • , ••• It ' ,- .1. 4. ?-.. , " \ - -,...e......,- ,,:..... . '11111W1.5....-4141111177111- iN -I- 11 ;:antr - 4--- . ; • ' • k S It . :1 ' •"1 "lt a .A1 , . - ;Nie • , 34 , . . .. ,-, V ,,f , w- ‘..o - 1. 7 'n r . ,c• ' , • - ` f: 4ioibri.i, , - .. , / 1 , p . ... , 1 .K • '5. '. ../1 / I / ft sr4 ...., ..t c • . :-..;-.. -,„ cit r. s• • -,.....,'..q. . • --. . •.1. , • . . t..5. .."- : f .`....,,`-..., -• • 0 ;• - ! 1 :' •'-k -. ::-: . 4.; - --; 4" ' - , h , ,,,,,,! j; ,, • ' .;.., ..,. , „ - t •''. '1. '',t' . , ',-- 4 Zse "„t" ,,..,\I It .0" :,.. .47 t, t . , , .s. r , ' , ...;.-..•.. „ _ '.,-...•'«. ' .: -- - - 1.- - "./ • k / 1. a ''‘' ' 4 ' ‘.# • • If :.i. -- ' k-N, :. „--'4". -- .,'s..--:." SPY - • .7- ‘ , " ;at Ilk' ... At ! .,,,. ii• .... P. _ ■■•••Wialiglii■ ‘* :g :. ' ri., ,‘ i .); - (....: . -.4 r.t.;.?`" '( , . ' - .• • ' -- c4/C... • • A r . ..... -, ...r_ &.,. - ._ 7 " \ .■ ""‘ "1 • ', ".. 4 -z :- ....11 - " r :' i f ) •il - .;"' - -4 0 • i . . • . , ,--... A v........ - . . . "• 1. , a * t l. , ' ar ,- air - .. - C4 .4* 3 . - 1 4' 4 :4 14 11E- - 7. . tw- .....- - 4 •'`'- :' • ,-- 1 \ _ ',NOW- - .*-_,. _'... ...r,'' • -411rdie;. 'V - ---•■ " Li k ' ..!-,- :■,,, A , /0 -j , 1 ,;: . ; * ., ' ZI & • e -4 i's - \ ...IF 4 .., • - . . -..,._ • la,17 --- .. q " i ../ % 14 063 1. .% 1 ft 1‘ - • Jr • ..., i . . ,-• • ....-7....!;,, - • • I • 'a .•• 0 0, • f. 41 ■ • , •r' ..„,,`' ' . , :,...A -1 ‘ A - 5 ‘,".• .i . '4 ' . 1 " - ;/ ./ - - s lit ' ..' • /ra• • *: '''' 4. * ■., s. • _ . ey...41 • ......:' A ":, .* ' V''' .4 4 i - 44 _IL 7 . .' , • ' k.4 1 - fa. * 4 ,...„ , ..,,,,. • . , ,.. %I ' '' 4 ...;,'' " 't I '`.- "4 4r , .. ..A - Wit 1 " -; 1 I t's ' ,-1 =. ,e-:. 1 : 14 1 . 1 . A i.. • . '... - . .... i ie1,4 . _L t , p ..7. - - ‘,.: -• ..,..; , fil ....: ,, 4:•;: 1 1... 4., . vb.-4.7 7.;,,, - • , . \ . 1 .!..-,.. ;.. ,, • - -44. 4 - t• - i .;, ...- .1: %Li: ' ' • i • * NI 6• ••• I 41 6 1 4 .1. • s* ■ •if i ... . 4 ,. \ 1 41 1' . , ,. .ii. . 4 i i 1 ■•• 0 a _' - • „... • •.) a 4 . . .• r ,* ' * „ 4 , • cal ,. .,„ ..„ . -, f . . . • , ..t. t■ft . A. r •ir . ' # '' t rit' • - ' ' . ). ' a V* - .1r 14 ' . ' • - ts' d" . ' ' Is a ', f,,,,i +.. t . ', .,v; • sic '. T , , ..:•,'. ....,:pi.4.410- > .‹.-... r . ■ ; ',.. 18 ,,..,tp;•:••• '.-. 4 A -. ' " As '" i a , .,,.... • .1. • % „. . A - 4 01 . ...it -,:f ' i ' Pi4.' - I'vl l • : irrit .'., i . '1,t" ' --- -'4 - 1• 4 ...- - re' , ‘ 4 , 4 * t 4 _ v .. ..- 'v Ms. A a' -- . ...1'" .'4 • •1 -\--. . . . ..... -, ....7. - .4 - -st.`14". . • 1.. ,„ r . ' t s ' r .' : - .... .. - c L _, • . .....„---,..,..L., : •-• ... . ,,,,. , a I ,..i-,-• 4 , ._ , , . 4...\ > • ::;:,..-, ,......,.--- . -, . • ....,,,,,,, 'T Ira :,y11....- 4c • •.' 4. ) t , ^ .,' 4 ' ..,• ,,.. .f...--..`4;.1,k`, L ": .. , ..t it. ,...- ,: , ..k : '-- . ' n ' • • 4 4 . . . -* . • - - - Y. , 4 - .5. ., ? - '......4''''S...• e4• • t # 1/4 - -.., 4 .•...- .-',, .. t- • - /-04 . • *L - . - • • lk -,.. , :... ....a. --• - ..-_ - • - .4•■ •1., 4 4 , , ' ... -.... , . ..f ^tr. • : j t . ' ••■• '' • " . • E ,. . , .• , --.„ dr - -_ ;,- 41IMi - 1,, %Pr. .. :47, !,,: i .,./•Fl : . 4- ‘1;iv,'. - ': ''...' '41 - 4 ',... *I '':‘?, ••• ‘ --''".• ''.- - aral2,0%. . ti•'''.; t: -. :: -.1.--e ' - ■ . : '"!'; :tr, -- ..... , .,••••1 . • e !!' e.. 4 'r :Sli , A .1 ? I; W - 4 e . *-* ''''''''. - IV . f - ' •• - • .V4'..., ...' 1 . .,,_ . ‘ ,,, , ..,,. 4dIW . _. c ..,A _ - . -. , : •y•' . ' ' af' •a s' -' _,K •- Sat ;A ' ''' • k. ,... if'.•lif .-- •- •i! C 4 ' - ' - -;' A z . .1% 1 . . - ' - 'So --.$ 4 n-...V1:•.2 ; .--C- -- r- \ •• •: ,T -'.. - - .Ns: 74iy '447 • • : • • of . .1 . , :1•• : •E . . . . . , .,,! .-.N,.,„ 3 . \ -c-„,-- ..,,,.......„,- , *VW ....- .t..‘7. 1 •■ N " - ‘1/4 • • - 't . • - - . - ,--- - ; - :--,- • 1116, ' ' rY i - ; ,r, - .. -• Ln et"...-.. , 4-i - - - MI•' 0 .i. . c..i... ' ‘ • ‘ -.."'''.--- "'"' - ;tt-st'l 4, ..=. ?• ql t,..i -- - • .m.$••••. , 7,.• . 7 ' " - . -•%:,- ,-. `:-.4„;- . .,„, i ; - x - it ',".•-•-... - 4 ,45' - -- s ' *..- -..;-... t .yto , . 1. :-• - A - -, . . ta,,Aa„ _. • . , 4 - . ••• 4, .,, , 7. _ rr , ) *k '1 ) .7 - ii ' - --.-e• . . 5 .,. -4 . . -.._, • , A , • , ili tiw- /-0.- • -- ..v , ..•,:„..-- %‘ , .. . -I"' ; -NI . ••, ,... „,... - ..- it- N Oalialilre _ ,,. , . ,.. • - , A . , ''' '1• , - . ' t ri ''' -,,-Icas -^ ..'. - 2 .7- - t' Atz • %.•• i ; 7•.. . 1 1/4 %. f ••7-,atitcl,4antrgroih.-wir • ..- - , ,y ‘ 1 .. 1,,, .... • ,...„,,,, 1,.,,L _ • - ,,'. . rV ,,'• ,•■• ••-' .1, I t' :- ' .._ --...•-•,_'. ' • . - , Atria, - - : tIll, V ibTOM - ,., .tait 7 - X `- ; . •''' " Pt i c i .. ,..,. ' 7 . :,7 `---•••- - ;4 .' . - .7. -: I- , ' ';,- ...V -* : .... 7, " - . ..- 7 • 4v1 - A - - 7:• I . ' . ' 4: -: ' , ..„ . .7 - ,..--.,'-;• 1,0.: -. ;LA. .' ' ..''''' . ''' ts..) ....;:..i. ?4. .... ' . _\ ‘ ...a.: •,.21 .:•v •-' - ' -: ''"? , ' :1 . ,...":4.„ . 7 :::-.; ...., *. . r),„4,..'",'S`VII.: ' '`. r ? '. ^ '- Sba ' ' t • 0- .1..7"I t.. .. .. ..* 1. . ; '--;:` - .1 1 (."- • ` ' (i I , ± - ' ,? , =.--.. - '.1 ' t i _v ..1.< ' 07.1% i .4 . t• : v• --, .....cN . •'" ' • ', - X . .-• •••••11 , ' .," 1. - •• - .. •• A. -' \ toes'-' . 4 ..' ...1.-., 't 1;.1..: ' .. ...; . ' . .1 . - • XV k . t14 . t'..4 • 1 4., • . • ' 1 , , i 1 a 1 ' C , . , .-7 . .--- .. - 4::- -,,--', '• - Illiii A , i .. k '''' e' . r.‘ ■ ' •*-aracr 0 .r.l.' i ' s .' f :, t - - - OS t. I , .h.,-. . _ , S ke , ...44 A3 %.4 ••• .,..._i2I.747 a ._ ... s • t i l r' K2. ;74.11\ f a g .. ••• V - l• . :' .f:' Or 1•!-.. - 7,.*4,, 3.4 ? • , z.. -,, _ , e- .-,. i ' it ..,vJi. / , • ,...‘ - - • _ ,. • 4-,, . •i ' i'' . a --..- P • . - ' VIV.A. / .,.. " ' •-• ., Z - r - A.." - , 1 ,tor I ... 44 , -xt 1 . -,. •.... _ . • . . .. -. A -, 4 • . • • " .r --- • . iv •,, t• . •• ■• r , - 4 -- / '.. "".' --..., • v. - ,, ,, 4. ••• : . • ,•• 0 iie dgol, , . _ , I.:J. 4 1 ' ,. , ', ,,, • . , . .• --. 6 . (.aPy. . ' 1 6- g ye :44: rfr....: A - +1;',/: ',..... -" .4 . 4.,t• 4,,\,. ,.,,., 1 -c..... .. , . . .. ur.-1, ,t - " tip, ''' ' .'"...%. . 1. ...•• . . .. r : br ' ,* .. • '.. .; ' '. . • . - .4'114-:'; - . - -.6010 - • , Ark i t " . • . . . -a 'SI 4 -'- 41 • • - -C ilizieVi 0 / 46 ' .4...' - , - . .N.1. ''.. t 4 ••• - ; • ' • ‘' .. --7 11 %., • . • - RA - • txi A _ ., • - A 411. -. , - it • - - • • • : - '' ' f,A4 - • • 'Sit' --t x t 11 ' 1111 444.11411 , 4. y ; •••-•-- ' 7 ' ‘,.. • , -t•., ,. . *A. . -.X!, .f.- - ' lr'''-!: ;„ , • -4 , /1 - . ' • 2 , i. - _.s. , 1.- L ,, ' 4 . ' , , t - ii,Alto lir .., ! \ .- ,. .., , 4 ,.. ...„..., .., # ..„ ••,,, 'v" ..,,,s„.,... ...,... ......,„ Ivy ., .., , r ' • , - Xi " ,V-' Z - - •••‘ - - , ' 1 ,' ./;i' *-1 ' • "P . 4.4Roir . ' ...:%, 4 ,- ii - ' .. + . S Z - 64'. 41...,* '111.' . - 0 . ; ', It .. -"' --• ' 4 . .......4e24 - ........- Z ist ... "' .4- 44116 '",,:: t - s Ata-- •• ■ ; . ‘ lig i l7 - - li k.) It ..v. - - --" .4. o ... • • ti •••••c 1. ''• a .4 -.. - 1 . striLttf . ... A' - ' 4 gi " 5.. ' . - . . ti s , A4 1 : .1_ z, 4 - ,a . / =. . ar j - ' .. - • 4. •!4 . ' ,.. '-',-- . ■ f.' 944 -,- do,_ • 4 e rr , -.......„, .. _. . , r5„.. , • .- , e - ....^.,..is.a. -4.. ...." : os„ C ,t. '-''. /.2'; ._ - 1.7.116 '-c.. '''''i r- ." - '• - '' P. •/* j■ .*-'. Ye . .V . ' ' ' ' .. . " •J 7 0:4 4 -r ir t : . , - ' S ( I ' .. a -_.- •jr ,-,- .- ,.."..-±,..-lw•--- . -;. .--'4...7:' , , .1*" 47 • , P, ' . - Is ■ .'1.. ''''{• .' -:. • ' '1. ' • L. .:- - ,- _ :. 4 ' 10/4 "- 1 4 4Th - 2 . s •-• j • I - . '":i.. !" ' 1-4e‘..! .-.--'. d • it ilii, 4 /41t 1 . .:.. l''' ... ' 1E .; 4....../S},C4 - • ' ro•Airi, -. ?,1 ' , , ..• ''. ,?-. -, ;-: ; -..: ..4 - - 'k It ... ...„. „; i, 1" . ,.. • , `i • e', -- . . .• .'it - , A , ‘ , 4. ,:e• „ ' / • . ,.... . .... - ...4,-...:v :-..- - AO --::-.• . ' .• A t ' - -14 4fr• 1 - . ' ' 7." 0 - ." - ' -s -1 '. ..•` : -- tax, ' ' 4 s' - 7.1"11 . . • ' , ' J P'. ''' ^' - i I 's 4 A k. ...- 4 ,. , ' , - , : • _ -- - 4,1 ' .: . -,' - :'•■• - - i - ° ... i t 4; - L ' fr 1 - ' " “ ' ik- ' • • ' ‘ ,.. '.:. -... -. - ci .... - r .., --, -.'; -. - -• ' • 1 ..4. . It..7' " -.,- -. .. c •'( . ' 4111. - St''' , ' • \. ' ..,..-- A ' Ni"r,.':- -- . ,,,I.; . .,- If •c-a. ....‘ : 4 ,: ; • • , 4, ...:, . c . , :1 1 . ...; . .-Ary . - ...,. ,•-• -'‘: New: _ -. ;. '. : ' '4 , .- ..-Ariiii' - "Z.' .-% k.) 4. • A'. 4. . ' - ' --- ' p", • .kts • ..--. • --%-:„. -1/4. ..,!. .1, • ., r.- ,...:, .,,...- , •,.. „...s.o • , A/.• • ! • .. • 1 ..„ -•.- Nb` :... .... ,: 1. - lc ' ge. ji,., ., .. .+4Z• / ity --- - - - , .-,,,,-. - 4 tf .-....4. t . -. - . • ...-- , - 4 . 01 „ • ' .-..-..-* ' 1...k4 • ., . . ( _■• , -,7_2‘ Itii.le.kcEii.:,...11..... 4 \ • N a . ':."' ,..- ••• j , •h,..- -- ' ' 7 ' - WV' , r -a. ..i ...s. -s- , • a .: .' 444 - lit IF '-`; 1-kg " - 1 ' , 4, .. *. -/-‘ Tti- - -,'-t -4 g 4 " - ;• - • 4 S1 N ...._•".-WAV , ,....,.. _ 11.47 _ .... 1r ... ‘e .. dopp......- „... 1;2' ■ .4 F.,... -,.. IA -. 'I.*, - - 4:4 tY 71 ,4 kl \, _ ,..144 ,, ... --. - ,.-,, )-- - • .v .1 ,i..1 I , st , .,- - it„ . 1. ...' k .,14 t,... -- !'ve: - .- I, . , gs - . _ . CI ■ , t lir - 1 - it 7 . , , • i. -.ung.••• • 4 . .. ...... ,..., . , ...,....„. • -., . ....• .„.:.,_ ... .... . P 1 • x ; } a r` P + R J, � \ j I - ....f,,ye.1 -. J o a .-11 . :, . . . , • f ; •+ ' s, - ,: \ � ` �- • 'ice_ . ,.- `� ': t4. '• :. '. sale \ : { i'r � , Z. _ r j , �4w� � \ ., vy ''t "•44 ty j t J y x rr 4 y ' a .' . J •t •. • 4 a • ,w: �a 7-_,..4,,,..--_,-.114.,_:_s., i`.. {s .. • `': i I r , , +"' i J 1 • . ,� . .� y 1 • • ;. - _ • ' J .. , ;_ 'i . ` - �RZ . A9 ^.� . _ • \ Nri I �•y . ± � * . sty �' . L I ` • R _ - _ y _ " a : j� lt,i ,• ,r r . - rt ` - s. = a '� 'F .ail:-. s - - - a�� "'n�/i��, 4 t a�.{S • • ` , ,•„ V ( S/ ' � • .• ; �' ' t i ` - i a' Is .'� l' .. •.t r "*--i'%11./ _ � '� .S ' •i i�R.jj F - :.'' . :. I l /4' J 4Q^ - r - -; _ '' * e ms. y `t _ '�`•��'� • J '- �T. f 1•' a ."..../.. .r� a '-c fi ' • �. t i it .- A „? - . "te r � Pw_� Jr,'Ya: -' `' ► '1i- • � . s r4 ' i y � ' pti- rr , 3s 4 ` _ • � _ s I 7,..;•• d ' � 'fi -i - +- ;t - 4 ,r . � t 7 .. r '. M , :wi- . - ',�1 i !mss • �' ' - _..s•. _ • y . ' + s „..a. � '. _ S .1, 7 ltd'. h� � . it - A IlL P • ,%-:'f - . • ' - '. , • '-.. -; w'-` , ' -4 . .. . j . • a ��f � _ — 3 . y� + y r � R[ t 11 it' +r.f 1 •Z• \ • • z`i` t . w / tt , , r . 4,:f;T":•:', { r , ' `A V' q w ! . # e • w.r � ti s ' :. y $ -). 1 4 :.• t •r c J t - r y »•., �. t 41 t y j Y S 1 ti . its \ • . s' � ,aj , X ii. y - . a9 r ^I r 1/1,„ a. a � a ' � . 1"7 c a-x 4, t r: �$+•" • ' t t t- O' rS•'a 1 N .S _ • ., V '�. i'��— � • t`4... t 1 • w .. _ •i• , k , ( ,y . S . r; .` S ; i ':�+ '�!- ,t; ..sAi .r, .0,,,,- i•"� =SF t r .• 'S,_ ' t 't - - . ti '4• • �. ' •�` . :f. p�•'� -, • _ - i�. \ 3 - �• i', ° ,. -•• - S - - A-- - - .. • . �y ` "' fi r ' �xF°!�uc �- 4- Y 1 N `t r ti t s �: 3� afT Y # {.'i •, 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 I resolution authorizing the reprogramming of $3,494.00 from the HOME program to the South Shore Il Senior Center operations for Year XVIII of CDBG funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 26,023 SO. FT. INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD, I 6200 CHASKA ROAD, JEAN ADDITION. Public Present: . Name Address 1 Frank Reese 6200 Chaska Road I Bill Swearengin 6250 Chaska Road • Kate Aanenson: This is definitely a pretty straight forward subdivision except for a couple issues. One being there is a wetland on the property and the other is that there's a significant amount of trees. Mr. Reese, the 1 applicant is proposing to split this lot. His home technically is in Shorewood here and what he wants to do is create a buffer lot to the lot he's creating. The lot he's creating has to maintain the wetland setbacks. In order to do that, it has to pushed into this corner right here. And as the staff has noted in the report, there's a tree, a I significant amount of trees. So what we're recommending is that when the building permit comes in, that we work with that in order to site the home in such a way that they can preserve the most trees possible. The property owner here, Mr. Swearengin has put in a letter that you have a copy of in your report concerning about I the location. It is his feeling that he would rather see the home being placed closer to the wetland and preserve more trees than maintain the wetland setback. Lot 1, they'll meet all the standards. It's got the street frontage. It's a buildable lot of 27,000 square feet. The outlot is 8,000 square feet. The applicant has stated he may at some time annex this lot to Shorewood. At this time that's not a consideration and we would be classifying it as I an outlot. It will not be buildable at this time. The conditions that are in the staff report, I mentioned the tree conservation. There was some concern about whether or not it would be a full basement based on the location of the sewer so the engineering department reviewed that too. There may be a type of home may be limited so I the applicant is aware of that. So the staff is and the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the conditions I've outlined in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is there anyone wishing to just address this at this time? Okay, is the 1 applicant here? Are you in agreement basically with what the staff report has indicated and the conditions that are contained? Frank Reese: Fine. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussions? I Councihnan Senn: I guess I look at this and I really have some problems with it because I'm sitting there trying to reconcile in my mind why we're creating this kind of goofy little outlot that goes into kind of a no man's I classification. You know to me is that productive land and there ought to be part of the residential tax base. I don't know. I just think down the road it might be, well geez now we've created this lot you can't do anything with and the next thing they're going to be in to say well geez, we should have our taxes lowered because it's not buildable and not developable lot. This, that and the other thing and it just doesn't make good planning I 55 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 111 sense to me that we should be creating some kind of a splinter parcel for no purpose at all. It seems to me that if there's a concern over the development of the property, or whatever, and how it's developed in relationship to the other houses, the wetlands and the trees and that sort of thing, that's something that should be handled in relationship to the planning process. But I just have a hard time going along with creating this type of a parcel, especially when it's on the boundary between the cities and probably would complicate it further in the future and what happens when ownership changes and some of the situations where I feel someday somebody's going to come back and say well geez, I want to build on that property because you know, changed hands so many times and everybody's forgotten the original intent and it's different people involved and it seems to me it doesn't...good out of it. That's my comments. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Well I think Mark does raise an interesting point. What is the rationale I guess for having 1 now an 8,700 square foot lot that nothing's ever going to happen to? Kate Aanenson: Mr. Reese wants to make a buffer between himself. I mean he owns all that right now. It just ' so happens that his property falls in two different jurisdictions. That's all his lot right now. Okay, so he wants to allow a split but he wants to maintain a buffer between himself and the lot he's creating. He's always enjoyed this full yard. He still wants to enjoy it... 1 Councilman Mason: So okay, so outlot A then still remains a part of his property? Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Now it'd be nice to say let's make it all one tax ID number but we've got two 1 different jurisdictions...we can't. Councilman Senn: There is another solution though. Why don't you take the whole parcel and put it together in 1 Chanhassen and put... Kate Aanenson: He could annex Outlot A. 1 Councilman Senn: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying if you took this whole lot and made it a lot in Chanhassen, and then put a covenant on that, for as long as he's there that nothing can happen to this area defined on the property, you've accomplished what he wants at the same time and we don't create this. Kate Aanenson: It is one lot right now. 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, then leave it the same. Kate Aanenson: He just wouldn't do the subdivision, because it is one lot right now. 1 Roger Knutson: He could also consider, just throwing out ideas, including his house. It just occurred to me, in this plat. Kate Aanenson: Right. Bring him into the city. Roger Knutson: No. He stays where he is and you can have a plat. 1 u 56 1 1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: You can have a plat cross city boundaries. It makes it a little complicated. He has to go 1 through hearings here and there to do approvals but it can be done. Frank Reese: Mr. Mayor, could I address this question? That was my first feeling Mark. Then in talking with 1 the realtors, it's unmarketable. You cannot, really you cannot sell...Yes it's legal but it's not marketable...so that was why we went through this process and paid the surveyor. I Councilman Senn: I'd love to know the realtor you talked to because to me that would enhance it's value because property, somebody who comes in and buys that chunk of property, which is a bigger chunk and know that nobody can infringe upon their house either... 1 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Roger Knutson: There are certainly very distinct disadvantages to the property owner. He's got a little piece of 1 property here and he's going through a lot of work to get the job done. Councilman Mason: Well I'll wait and see what the pleasure of the rest of the Council is. I guess I don't have a real strong opinion one way or the other. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ditto. I don't have a real strong opinion one way or the other. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. • Councilman Wing: Well he's doing exactly what I would have done and what I would prefer so I don't have a problem with it. It's insignificant I think. Mayor Chmiel: And I look at it the same way. I don't see much of a problem with it. I looked at it and I looked at it rather closely and I just, being that there's that much of a wetland involved with it as well. It can make it rather difficult for anything to be done but funnier things have been done. But nonetheless, at this particular time I don't have any real questions. So with that. Bill Swearengin: Your Honor, Mayor. May I make a suggestion. I was overlooked in the public hearing. I wasn't notified because I'm part of Lot J and when Frank notified Carver County Abstract and he indicated that 1 Lot J as being subdivided and they thought that I was part of the transaction, which I'm not. My only question was, in your motion for subdivisions...recognize a variation in the setback from the wetlands from the required amount the...trees on the southeasterly... There are 4 walnuts, 1 red mulberry, which is an extremely rare tree in Minnesota, and 4 young maples that are healthy. If the house were moved from a 10 foot setback from the I property line to a 50 foot setback, all 10 of those trees would be preserved and it wouldn't impinge on any other trees on the property because the center of the property is basically void of trees anyway. Some scrub elm and a few scrub basswood. It would center the house more on the lot which would give a more aesthetic appearance I from the road and also make a better access as far as the driveway goes because the lot tends to slope down slightly from the point of view. It would give the buyer more flexibility and all you'd have to do is set back, rather than the 55 feet you're talking about, I believe it would set back something like 40 feet from the wetlands and the wetlands is a decaying wetland anyway. It was done in 1953 when Highway 7 was pushed through by I the State. They filled in most of that pond. Right now if you look in the middle of the pond, trees are coming up through that and it's fast on it's way to becoming bottom land which is to the point where no longer, probably in 10 or 15 years be a wetland at all. It's running it's natural course so I would simply plead with the 1 57 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 I Council to make a variance on the setback from the water to allow more variation in placing the building...to preserving trees on the southeasterly comer. Thank you. 1 Roger Knutson: Just a comment. To do that you need to go through the variance process, which has not been done here. You're not in the position to grant a variance tonight. 1 Councilman Wing: ...I'd like to move to table this allowing staff to work with the applicant to review the further options...including the issue of the trees and that entire subdivision... I Kate Aanenson: No, we looked at the trees and we said we want to move the home and place it specifically where we can save the most trees. We asked.. just to show whether or not we could get a house on there and meet the wetland setbacks. This is by no means binds him to that footprint. But whether or not you feel I comfortable saying, well we'd rather save more trees than give on the wetland, that's where the issue is. Councilman Wing: ...the other issue is the other options that were brought up...and perhaps if you have a chance to discuss this with the applicant it may be to his benefit to...so I'll stand by my motion to table. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd second that as well. There are enough questions here. I Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the preliminary and final plat to subdivide 26,023 square feet so the staff can discuss further options with the applicant. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OUTLOT C AND D, BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS, INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A HOTEL EXPANSION AND RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUILDING; I LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD; LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES. I Kate Aanenson: I apologize to the applicant. All the site plans and renderings were thrown out that were left down here so unfortunately we don't have...wanted to show you tonight. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, can I interrupt you for a second? Mr. Mayor, what is our policy about bringing new issues past a certain hour? Mayor Chmiel: 11:00 is our cut -off time. Basically. We can continue and go to 12:00. I Councilman Senn: On an item that's already on, right? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just see this issue taking quite a while. I, myself have lots of questions about it. 1 I'm just wondering if we should enforce that this evening. I realize that the applicants stayed here through this horrendous meeting but. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they've sat here through most the evening and there are some questions that are there as 1 well but Roger. What position legally? 1 58 1