1d. Vinewood Subdivision Final Plat I /,
1
C ITYOF - I CHANHASSEN
**,114',._ 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM Action by City Administrator
Indorsed t/ W A-
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager )modified
1 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ed 6-10-9 3
Date Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Dee Submitted to Commission
1 Date Submitted to Coma
DATE: June 9, 1993 ` - .:../ - g,3
1 SUBJ: Final Plat Vinewood Subdivision
1 BACKGROUND
On January 25, 1993, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Vinewood Addition.
1 This subdivision creates one additional lot. Both lots will be served off of a common drive.
Since this is basically a simple lot division and there are not public improvements being installed,
staff feels it is not necessary to prepare a development contract.
I STREETS /ACCESS
II The site is currently accessed via a gravel drive along the easterly lot line from Pleasant View
Road. The proposed access for Lots 1 and 2 is from Nez Perce Drive via two separate
I driveways. It is recommended that the applicant combine driveways in an effort to reduce access
points along the curve of Nez Perce Drive. A single access servicing these two lots is strongly
recommended. A driveway or cross- access easement should be prepared to regulate access and
I maintenance responsibilities.
This parcel is proposing to access onto Nez Perce Drive which is proposed to be extended
I westerly to Pleasant View Road in the near future. Since the applicant has not paid their fair
share for access to a public street, it is recommended that these lots contribute towards the
extension of Nez Perce Drive, similarly to the Troendle Addition which lies immediately adjacent
I to the west. The developer of Troendle Addition contributed $10,000 for the 11 lots in Troendle
Addition. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant contribute his fair share of
approximately $900 per lot to the City for the extension of Nez Perce Drive.
1
1
If
1 tOf PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
I Don Ashworth
June 9, 1993
Page 2
1 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
I There is a significant amount of vegetation on the southeastern edge of the property. A
driveway onto Nez Perce would result in the elimination of some trees. Not all of these trees
are of high value. Staff would recommend that a home placement plan be provided, as well as
I a landscaping/tree preservation plan, to ensure minimal tree loss.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
I Erosion control measures are not proposed at this time since no grading will transpire until
building permits are issued. Staff has typically assigned erosion control measures at the time of
1 building permit issuance. Typically with all subdivisions, a development contract is prepared and
enforced; however, since this is basically a simple lot division and there are not public
improvements being installed, staff feels it is not necessary to prepare a development contract.
I UTILITIES
1 Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary sewer
and water service will need to be extended from the sewer and water lines which run adjacent
I to the west property line. Previous assessment records indicate this parcel was previously
subdivided and assessed one connection charge payable at building permit issuance. The
proposed subdivision creates an additional lot; therefore, an additional connection charge should
I be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The connection charge payable in 1993 is
$7,907.44. This should be collected for each lot as the building permit is issued. The City will
be responsible for extending the individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line.
I The developer/builder will be responsible for extending into the house.
EASEMENTS/RIGHT -OF -WAY
I The previous plat of this site (Edwards Vogel Addition) dedicated an additional 7 feet of right -of-
way along Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this plat also dedicate an additional 17
feet of road right -of -way along Pleasant View Road over Outlot A at this time. Outlot A has
been combined with one of the adjacent parcels to avoid the possibility of going tax forfeit.
1 The preliminary plat was approved with the following conditions:
1 The proposed house location meet the flag lot setback requirements.
I FINDING: This condition has been met.
I 2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time
of the building permit application for staff review and approval.
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 9, 1993
Page 3
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the city by final plat additional of road right -of -way on
Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one -half the total right -of -way of 40 feet
contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards/Vogel Addition.
FINDING: This condition has been met.
4. The remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent
parcels, or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval.
FINDING: This condition has been met.
5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross- access 1
or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance
responsibilities for the two parcels.
1
FINDING: This condition has been met.
6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the
property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition.
At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the
amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes
1
or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive.
8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive
to Pleasant View Road.
9. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road.
1
10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be
submitted for approval by city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west
lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
1
"The City Council approves the final plat for Vinewood Subdivision #92 -13 as shown on plans
dated May 6, 1993 with the following conditions:
1
1
1
I Don Ashworth
June 9, 1993
Page 4
I 1. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time
of the building permit application for staff review and approval.
I 2. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the
property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition.
1 At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the
amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected for each lot.
1 3. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes
or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive.
1 4. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 (Lots 1 and 2) to the City for future extension of
Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road.
1 5. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road.
I 6. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be
submitted for approval by city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west
lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible."
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated January 25, 1993.
2. Final plat dated May 6, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
might ask the Council to consider in place of the bowling center to add one that 1
would be referred to as miscellaneous acquisition /improvement projects,
$750,000.00. That relates to three smaller projects that fall under the same
category. At the time we first put out this list with Springsted we didn't have
the final numbers on West 79th Street improvements, the bus turn around, Market
Square storm sewer, and Manus acquisition but those four are complete. The
total of those is $750,000.00. So we would be deleting bowling center, deleting
Bloomberg and adding micellaneous acquisition for $750,000.00. It would be a
net deletion of $1,300,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. ,
Councilman Senn: Don, are those new ones likewise ones that in effect have
already been expended? '
Don Ashworth: Right. Completed 79th Street public improvements. We've
completed the storm sewer. We've completed the turn around.
Councilman Senn: I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? '
Councilman Mason: I think what Councilman Senn has said makes a lot of sense
and I would certainly go along with that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I don't disagree with that either. Would you like to move
that with the addition of that $750,000.00 for the miscellaneous acquisition.
Councilman Senn: I'm not quite sure how to word it but I'll just say I move
approval with deletion of the $850,000.00 for the bowling center and the $1.2
million for Bloomberg's property and the addition of $750,000.00 for the four ,
projects that Don mentioned.
Don Ashworth: Hopefully I can have a friendly amendment in that this was
originally set for February 8th and we tabled it for 2 weeks and so the new date
should be shown as February 22, 1993.
Councilman Senn: Fine. '
Councilman Mason: I second it.
Resolution *93 -04: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
setting the date of February 22, 1993 for the 1993 Tax Increment Bonds deleting
$850,000.00 for the bowling center, deleting $1.2 millino for Bloomberg
properties and adding $750,000.00 for micellaneous acquisition /improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
E. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT, SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEW00D ADDITION,
STUART HOARN.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The reason I asked to discuss this separately is we '
were just handed this letter from several neighbors in the Vineland Forest area
3
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
who have some strong concerns about subdivision of the lot and I would just ask
staff a little clearer explanation of what their concerns may be and if they've
been addressed at the Planning Commission.
II Kate Aanenson: If there's a spokesmen here, maybe it'd be better for them to
speak to it but I can go through the subdivision itself if that's what you'd
like.
I Mayor Chmiel: And in addition to that, if I could, in looking at the two lots
that we're subdividing, we show that it's .86 acres in size and we're going to
I divide it into .48 acres and .41 which makes that .89 as opposed to the .86.
Which is correct?
Kate Aanenson: They probably rounded up. I could double check that. Just to
I give you some history on this. This lot was split off Edward Vogel's middle of
last year. Since that time a person has picked up this lot, Mr. Hoarn and has
requested that it be split. Both lots are approximately half acre in size. A
II little less than a half acre in size. The concern that the staff had 11
originally, and we still do, is there is some trees in the area. Not all of ; I
them are of high quality. We did request the home placement plan the first time
I and we recommended it the second time. The lots do meet the standards. They
are flag lots. They can meet the standards. One of the concerns is the
driveway. They showed two separate driveways. This outlot here is under the
I city's control. We've granted them an easement to go across that. They had
shown two separate driveways with that. We would recommend one. Whether
there's one home or not, there would still be an access onto that so one of the
issues that the neighbors had concern with was the two, or the traffic onto that
I but we feel like it's really not an issue because whether there's two homes or
one, there will still be one driveway access at that point. The engineering
department has looked at that and felt that that is really not a bad location
' sight distance wise. We did want to prohibit, what we felt was the worst
condition, going out onto Pleasant View and recommended denial against that.
Again the Planning Commission addressed those same concerns as far as home
placement plans when they come in. We try to site the home on the lot inasmuch
I as to minimize tree loss and it's our understanding that the owners have the
same concerns. The value of the lot is in with the trees. Just some background
too. When Vineland Forest was in, I didn't work on that but in speaking to Jo
I Ann, we did walk that site with the Forester. There was a substantial amount of
trees on that one too and substantial value of trees were lost when that
subdivision went in too. Unfortunately sometimes that happens when the
' subdivision goes in. We do recognize that it's a concern.
Mayor Chmiel. Do you have any idea of the species of those trees that are
there?
II Kate Aanenson: The ones that are there right now? No, I have not identified
those.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would it be appropriate for any neighbors who may be
here this evening to...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it would. Is there anyone wishing to discuss this as well?
Please state your name and your address please.
' 4
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers and I reside at 6500 Nez Perce. One of the
things that you can't see on that overhead is, if you look directly to the right
of Lot 2 there, there's a house currently on that lot and I think you can just
make out maybe the outline of that house.
Kate Aanenson: There? 1
Dan Rogers: Come down. There. Right there. The driveway for that lot will
very closely meet the corner of the driveway for the proposed development. And
I don't live there. The gentleman that lives there couldn't make it tonight but
it seems that that could be kind of a difficult situation where less traffic
would probably be better than more. '
Kate Aanenson: Staff is recommending that we go back to the original proposal
for the single lot split and the driveway be located there. There is a utility
box there too so this is not what we're going to recommend. This is what they
had proposed. They go back to a single driveway, centered where we save the
trees and give separation for the other driveway.
Dan Rogers: Okay. I'm not sure I understand. What I'm trying to explain is,
no matter what you do for Lot 1 and 2, if there is one driveway or two coming
out onto Pleasant View. Excuse me, Nez Perce. That driveway or driveways will
converge on the existing driveway for the gentleman who lives next door making a
V at the street.
Kate Aanenson: No. No, they won't. ,
Dan Rogers: No?
Kate Aanenson: No. We've looked at that. That won't.
Dan Rogers: Okay. The other concern is that a few of us came to the Planning
meeting a few weeks ago just to hear what Mr. Hoarn had planned and he wasn't
here so we're just interested to hear what he proposes to put on the lots.
We're concerned with property values because we made quite an investment in our
homes and looked at the area and we're just surprised to hear that that lot
would be split into two. That's the basis for our concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes sir. Would you '
please come to the podium. We do record this and we'd like you to get you on TV
too.
Stuart Hoarn: Oh wonderful. I'm Stuart Hoarn and I own the property there. '
Actually my mother and I own it. I do apologize for not being present for the
Planning Commission meeting. My grandmother in Tucson chose an inconvenient
moment to die and she sends her apologies too. In any case, I will address the
question about the driveway being too close there. As far as I'm concerned, I
live on a cul -de -sac now and there are four driveways that come into a tight
radius cul -de -sac and we haven't had any great objection to that. I think
there's actually more separation there once that's done between the driveway to
the south and the driveway to these two parcels than would be typical in a
cul -de -sac. As far as property values. We're not planning to set up any group
homes or anything like that, as happened in my neighborhood in Eden Prairie, so
5 ,
11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
you all can relax about that. If that's your concern. I'm not sure what the
concern is. Obviously if people are involved in lots that are worth 50 +, maybe
$60,000.00 apiece, we're not going to put hobbles on the lots. I think the
1 mar dictates that. So I guess I don't know if there are any other
questions then that people would have of me about what we plan to do. It seems
like a simple subdivision to me but. It meets all the requirements. Thank you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seeing that the issues have been discussed at the
1 Planning Commission meeting, I would move that we would approve the preliminary
plat to replat 2 lots. One lot into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant View
Road, just north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition.
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just put that friendly amendment making sure as to the
II size. Which is proper. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
1 . Preliminary Plat to replat 2 lots into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant
View Road and north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn with
staff clarifying the correct lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion
I carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
I Gary Carlson: Good evening Mayor and City Council. My name is Gary Carlson and
I live on Lot 6 of Schmitt's Acre Tracts way up in the northwest boundary of the
city. You gentlemen made the ordinance for non - conforming beachlots. Non- -
i conforming recreational beachiot ordinance and our original plat allows about,
right now about 40 odd people to, I've got the exact wording on the original
plat here. The property is actually owned by a person that owns that whole
' remaining stretch of Lake Minnewashta on the northwest corner. I don't know if
that's open for development yet but a single gentleman owns that entire area. He
owns our 50 foot lake access and the City keeps sending me registered letters as
if I'm the non - conforming beachiot. Through the years that this original plat
1 has granted the heirs and assigns. So there's heirs of Schmitt that have the
right to ingress and egress the lake over this 50 feet but I don't own the
property. It's owned by the gentleman who owns that whole section on the lake.
I And with the City Attorney here, you're sending me letters as if I'm a beachiot,
which I'm not personally. I don't know the 50 other people. So I don't care if
you say well, you're non - conforming. How are you going to enforce it against
me? 2 or 3 times a year I go over that 50 foot wide strip in and out from the
1 lake. The City Attorney is here. I don't know if you're going to ask the owner
to come down and request a beachiot or ask me to personally get one or the other
50 people and odd heirs and assigns to get a non - conforming permit. I'd be glad
1 to apply for a non - conforming permit for myself but then the other 50 people
will say, well why didn't you call me. Well it's not my, I don't know them. I
don't know their addresses. We all just have it. It's dated since 18, I think
the original plat was 18, or I mean 19. I've got it here but it's an old plat.
It gives all of the heirs of Schmitt and the assigns the right to ingress and
egress the lake over this 50 foot wide strip. So when I talked to the people at
6
1