2p. Plat Subdivide on Jacques Addition C 1 TY OF PC DATE: Aug. 18, 1993 c' f
` 1 CC DATE: Sep. 13, 1993
C HANHASSia p
CASE #: 93 -17 SUB
�� By: Al- Jaff/Hempel
1
1 STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final plat to Subdivide 1.18 Acres into 2 Single Family
I Lots, Jacques Addition.
z LOCATION: 1210 Lake Lucy Road. West of Powers Boulevard and north of Lake
Z Lucy Road.
I ( A
V APPLICANT: Nicholas Jacques
1 E 1210 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I .
1 Rao 5? My Nam-Vsirffer
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential il+do!sed ✓ a;c;
Noditfed
ACREAGE: 1.18 acres (gross) 1.03 acres (net) Rejected _
'Date Sub •j> to Commission
I DENSITY: 3.43 u/a (gross) 3.0 u/a (net)
Dat i.ed to Cpi
ADJACENT ZONING AND — __ r 3 y
LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family Residential
I Q S — RSF; Single Family Residential
E - RSF; Single Family Residential
Q . W- RSF; Single Family Residential
W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
1 I- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site generally slopes to the southwest. Trees are
(f) scattered throughout the site with a concentration along the
I northern portion. An existing single family residence
occupies the northeast portion of the site.
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
1
c -
•
l i - f
I
. .
._
. .
,,, ,
.1
U O O O O a Q O c 0
CO � to st Tr) O – O m 0 0
OA a n - a • • • `-i' ` A • . "` , CHR /SrmAS /
' � ,,.,.�....% ' .- , MI - -- •% ' ; SAKE
Midi
•, Ns R4 w aw i F_1D It
tavill
gy p'. / ��t� 7
;weir; — Pow • , �- _ ; Oh' l�' i J t
- P .rAt4 I 1 1.7 e
I F. 44.
, .' 4 MK
• �£ P P K ; _ r'"'t • , t _ r . } 'app - ' � �• \,� 40
�E '/; r lU Y '- 't,' . �` CV" I C.N.
-- i► ia -_•� " 'J I MI
1 \ Inge 4161661. ,
,� i !fail p � , - - 1 • -�� 4, 4 CART , \ 11._ .�� e 'i►" ;PI
_ , PARK
J I 'll � . 7: N Ii 4 A. H '-
4 ,. r� — \ '�' ROAD
-4 rr ----:--, It )-' 44._ .
6? -•\'' 9'4 ! , --." ' - 1 ." 1 " ‘ k
1 .
- - L*----1-7 . -
--. ----•‘• . ..e- jr
LAKE LUGY = ..'T \\ ; a ?
. � �.,1 "� `' _ ?'� r, • te • * .:t
II `- r b -`
1- ` • 't .i 2' 1. �y;�
R EEN W N �:�r • ; ,. -
+c s ue!
PORES "� `
1
1
Jacques Addition 1
August 18, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 1.18 acre parcel into 2 single family lots.
PP q g PP P g Y
The site is located west of Powers Boulevard and north of Lake Lucy Road. Access to the
subdivision will be provided via Lake Lucy Road from the south. A single family residence
currently occupies proposed Lot 2. The residence is proposed to remain on the parcel. The
setback for the existing residence meets the minimum setback requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The
average lot size is 22,525 square feet. Sewer and water service to this area is available.
The applicant currently has fee ownership of Lake Lucy Road right -of -way (33 feet). Staff is
recommending that an additional 7 feet of right -of -way be dedicated with the final plat to give
a total of 40 feet of right -of -way.
The northerly portion of this site is heavily wooded. Staff is recommending a preservation
easement over this area as it is entirely wooded. This easement will prevent any construction
from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees.
The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park fees be paid in lieu of park
land.
Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established
by the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We
are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.18 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density
1
of the proposed subdivision is 3.43 units per acre gross, and 3.0 units per acre net after removing
the road. Both lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of
22,525 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
1
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
No site grading is proposed at this time. Staff anticipates only minor lot grading will be done
at the time of house construction. The lot is suited for either a split -entry or walkout type
dwelling.
The site drainage consists of a sheet flow from east to west across the parcel. Development of
one lot will not adversely increase runoff to the adjacent properties.
1
1
I Jacques Addition
August 18, 1993
Page 3
1
UTILITIES
The parcel is able to be serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water service. Sanitary sewer
service is extended to the lot along the west property line. The city's watermain is located in
' the north boulevard of Lake Lucy Road. No service was provided; however, an individual water
service may be extended by the property owner from the main to service the lot when it is
needed.
' The parcel was previously assessed one sewer and water unit assessment along with a street
assessment. The lot subdivision will create another lot which should also be assessed one sewer
and water unit assessment. The City Treasurer's office will calculate the assessment amount
based on the original assessment plus interest accumulated from the date the assessment was
levied.
' STREET/ ACCESS
1 Currently, one driveway access to the lot exists. According to the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study, Lake Lucy Road is designated as a collector road. To minimize curb cuts
on Lake Lucy Road, the existing curb cut should be utilized by the new parcel as well. A cross-
access or driveway easement, including maintenance responsibilities, should be granted in favor
of both parties. The common portion of the driveway access should be constructed to 7 -ton
' design per ordinance.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate 33 feet of public right -of -way for Lake Lucy Road. Staff
is recommending that an additional 7 feet of right -of -way be dedicated, for a total of 40 feet of
right -of -way, which is consistent with a roadway system of this nature.
' LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
Mature trees occupy the northern edge of the site. Staff is recommending that no alteration or
tree removal be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear property line. Trees
designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the
city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown.
' No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be
in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity.
1 EROSION CONTROL
As with all new home construction sites, erosion control measures in accordance to the City's
1 Best Management Practice Handbook will be required at the time new home construction
commences on Lot 1.
1
1
1
Jacques Addition 1
August 18, 1993
Page 4
1
PARK AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require full park fees be
t3' �1 P
paid as a condition of approval of Jacques Addition. Fees are to be paid at the time of building
1 permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Home Home
Area Width Depth Setback
1
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 20,793 90.01 231.03
1
Lot 2 24,257 105.01 231.03 136'/68'
25'/42'
1
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed this item. They were generally
comfortable with the proposal but made two changes to conditions proposed by staff. Condition
#3 pertaining to the common curb cut and driveway section to Lake Lucy Road was amended.
It was a concern that the requirement for pavement to a 7 ton design could result in excessive
expense and staff was urged to reassess the matter. Staff indicated a belief that the common
section and pavement requirements were reasonable but that something could probably be worked
1
out. The condition was amended to read "the paved section of driveway will be determined by
the applicant and staff subject to city staff approval." The second change was that Condition #6
referring to tree planting was amended to read that appropriate trees should be selected from the
city's recommended tree list. Staff is also comfortable with this change.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #93 -17, Jacques Addition,
as shown on the plans dated July 18, 1993, and August 27, 1993, subject to the following
conditions:
1
1
Jacques Addition
August 18, 1993
Page 5
1
1. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear
' property lines. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or
other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the
ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur
' within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of
grading activity.
2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final plat over all
drainage areas. The following easements and right -of -way shall be provided:
1 a. The southerly 40 feet of the parcel shall be dedicated to the City for Lucy Road
right -of -way.
1 b. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line.
3. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a common curb cut access onto Lake Lucy Road. The shared
' portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 -ton design and 20 feet in width. The
paved section of driveway will be determined by the applicant and staff, subject to
city staff approval. A cross - access or driveway easement, including maintenance
responsibilities, shall be drafted by the applicant in favor of both lots.
4. Lot 1 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in
house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence
shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading.
5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at the time of building permit
' issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City
Treasurer's office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus
interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and
1 hookup charge may be assessed against the parcel.
6. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be
1 planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least
2 in diameter at the time of installation, and selected from the city's recommended
tree list."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1993.
2. Preliminary plat dated July 18, 1993.
111 3. Final plat dated August 27, 1993.
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 •
(612) 937 -1900
I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: NICHOLAS JACQUES OWNER: HELEN JACQUES 1
ADDRESS: 1210 LAKE LUCY RD ADDRESS: 1210 LAKE LUCY RD
I
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
9 37 -4704 Il
TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: 474 - 2767
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Subdivision
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW /Easements
3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Variance
1
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
I
5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
I
6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees /Attomey Cost - (Collected after I
approval of Item)
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
1
9. Sign Plan Review
I
10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ i cf)
1
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must 1
included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 1
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME JACQUES ADDITION
LOCATION 1210 LAKE LUCY RD , CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC. 2 TOWNSHIP 116
RANGE 23
1
PRESENT ZONING
' REQUESTED ZONING SO NA,d.
•
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION S 1.s.1
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 9 a
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST •
•
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
' This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for
wi!h all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party v - the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
c - ship (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
au!h 'r d person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I i - iyself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understz,n„ that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
1 against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records.
k tiA•Dk , ..2
Signature of App scant Date
t7L z� c iJD 7 -/� -93
Signature of Fee wner Date
1 Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.____
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission /Board of Adjustments and Appeals on
•
1
1
- - ■ I i
z _ - 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _ S . ; _ , _ - ,1 i'd
2 • - u. r ° ' t ^ ' MI c
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � �/= - '�•
Wednesday, August 18, 1993 � `�.,
7:30 P.M. �j \ �I� ♦ � :,.
•
P , T ' 7 -
City Hall Council Chambers 11 ) ! - L ! ta�- w 4 .51, 11 " —
690 Coulter Drive D W. , V1 - 7 -
_! 4 , 1 -
Project: Jacques Addition
. ? 1 )
Developer: Nick Jacques .K ' .- - ' '
.- j ��
Location: 1210 Lake Lucy Road r - _ F
LAKE WC r •Jt- -- . -1 . _
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.18 acres into 2 single family lots on
property zoned RSF and located north on Lake Lucy Road, west of Powers Boulevard, 1210
1
Lake Lucy Road, Jacques Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform 1
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing I
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
I
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
I
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
1
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharrnin at 937 -1900. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 5, 1
1993.
1
1
L undgren Bros. Const. Richard C. Ersbo Ruthanne W. Owens
935 E. Wayzata Blvd. 1211 Lake Lucy Road 6535 Peaceful Lane
'Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
"Carver County Auditor Marlow & K. Peterson Gregory & Marsha Cook
600 East 4th Street 1180 Pleasant View Road 6471 Devonshire Drive
' Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
ark & Wren Feyereisen Stephen & Jacqueline Lorch Frederick Kenyon, III & Nancy
'461 Devonshire Drive 6451 Devonshire Drive Christianson
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6500 Welsley Ct.
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stuart & Tammy Flolid Susan Arndt Thomas & Debra Given
It 510 Welsley Court 6520 Welsley Ct. 6521 Welsley Ct.
hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
11 J ames & Mary Y Jetland James & Carolyn Hesketh Steven & Sheryl Kullander
511 Welsley Ct. 6501 Welsley Ct. 6541 Devonshire Dr.
hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Thomas & Patricia Potter Stephen & Mary Bielski Jeffrey & Mary O'Neil
6531 Devonshire Dr. 6521 Devonshire Dr. 6511 Devonshire Dr.
'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
omas & Judith Schaffer Jeffrey & Sharon Critzer Geroard & Jeanne Brower
501 Devonshire Dr. 6491 Devonshire Dr. 6611 Arlington Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
E. Samuel Chase, III James & D. Olson John & Barbara Spiess
x 6621 Arlington Ct. 6620 Arlington Ct. 6610 Arlington Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Sylvester & Mary Roerick Brian & L. Nelson Cheryl Burda
C 600 Arlington Ct. 6551 Devonshire Dr. 6480 Devonshire Dr.
hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Jerry & Valorie Harlow Dwight & Rhonda Schneibel Kent & Carol Peterson
6490 Devonshire Dr. 6601 Arlington Ct. 6460 Devonshire Drive
'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
•
Ronald Haglind Dane & Lias Doescher Timothy & Katherine Clarke
6470 Devonshire Dr. 1280 Stratton Ct. 6510 Devonshire Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Deborah Flood Boeck -Kevitt Partnership Melvin Allrich & Bonnie Thomas'
6500 Devonshire Dr. 7441 Jolly Lane 6681 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Crystal, MN 55428 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Thomas & Anne McGinn Conrad Eggan Wendall & B. Gravlun
I
1121 Lake Lucy Road 6500 Peaceful Lane 6270 Blue Jay Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Harry Murphy Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber Ronnie & Teresa Hagen
1215 Lake Lucy Road 6420 Powers Blvd. 1200 Lake Lucy Road
1
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Christopher S. Eiman Todd & Diane Gerhardt
1206 Lake Lucy Road 1180 Lake Lucy Road '
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 8
7. The design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be
adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed District
1 setback.
8. The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly
parking lot shall be sodded and the curb shall be extended
' around them with the exception of the triangle located to the
southwest of the parking lot. This triangle shall remain
bituminous so it will not impede drainage.
9. If rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be
required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NICK JACOUES TO SUBDIVIDE 1.18 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF
' POWERS BOULEVARD, 1210 LAKE LUCY ROAD, JACOUES ADDITION.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Judy Kepp 8860 Cty Rd 52, Carver
Gary Welch 101 Choctaw Circle
Timothy Rashey 45 Willow..., Tonka Bay
Dwight & Rhonda Schneibel 6501 Arlington Court
1 Jeanne Brower 6611 Arlington Court
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice
Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Harberts: I have a question. Could you just give us a little
bit more detail about sharing a curb cut. Are we talking a common
driveway?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Harberts: So basically it would run the property line?
Krauss: Well, there's a potential of it Y'ing off at the back of
the curb. It's a common entrance onto Lake Lucy Road.
Al -Jaff: So let's say the house would be located here, the curb
cut, they would use this existing curb cut and potentially...
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
• August 18, 1993 - Page 9
Harberts: We're talking, though are we talking some type of
easement or agreement or something?
Al -Jaff: A cross access easement would be required as well as '
the portion that is shared between the two homes which would be
this area. Would have to be paved up to a 7 ton design.
Harberts: Are they proposing, is the other place going to be
built. Is it family related or just? I think we got a yes
maybe. Okay, thanks.
1
Conrad: We'll open it up for public comment. Is the applicant
is here, we'll let them speak. '
Judy Kepp: My name is Judy Kepp. I'm representing Nick. He
lives with his mother at 1210 Lake Lucy Road. He's an over the
road truck driver and he could not be here tonight so if I can't
answer any questions, it will have to stay open until he gets
here. What we wanted to do, we do share the driveway. We'd
rather have it not tarred because all the roads right there are
not tarred. We'd rather have the gravel. We like it better. We
would have the garage on that side...with it angled. Angled up
because we have...split entry, walkout type house. And the
easement, I don't know how to go about that or what to do with
it, I don't know. I mean would that have to be gone through
more?
Harberts: Are you related to the applicant?
Judy Kepp: I am his girlfriend. '
Conrad: I guess what I'm interested in, or we would be, is if
you have a problem with that tonight. Yeah, you're going to have
to, if you don't like the recommendations of the staff report,
we'd like to hear that. If you agree with it, you've disagreed
with one of their comments so far, but if you disagree with that
portion, you should make your point. We're not going to tell you
the process but I think you should tell us your opinion.
Judy Kepp: Okay well, all I know is we will share the driveway
if it has to be in. That's alright with us but we don't want to
tar it. We'd rather keep it gravel.
Batzli: Is it planned to be developed in the near future? I
Judy Kepp: Yes. We have talked to a developer but I mean all of
a sudden little thing where we're dividing land between his
mother and us is starting to cost more and more than what we
thought it was going to so that might be one setback on us. But
I
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 10
I mean, we came to the city. Nick came and asked how much sewer
and water was going to be. He was told like a $25.00 to put into
1 the lot. Now all of a sudden another developer came and it went
up almost $2,000.00 and then he came again and got another
estimate, it went up 3...so we don't know...
Batzli: Dave, would they have to tar the entire length? Can they
tar the first 10 -15 feet or something?
Hempel: The ordinance requires to share a common driveway. The
private driveway requires it to be paved up to the point where it
essentially breaks off to a single driveway access. The driveway
' is supposed to be built 20 feet wide and 7 ton standards. That
personally in my opinion may be alittle excessive for just a two
lot subdivision. The grades here do drain out toward Lake Lucy
Road and a gravel driveway is subject to some erosion...Lake Lucy
Road so we'd be very interested to seeing that blacktopped, at
least a portion of it.
1 Judy Kepp: So you're saying that it would have to be all paved?
Hempel: Just the common portion of the driveway.
Judy Kepp: Which is how many feet?
Hempel: Well it depends on where the driveway would Y off or
branch off. It could be right outside the property line. Could
be 30 feet behind the trees...
' Judy Kepp: Like I said, I can't make the total decision, or
whatever. Nick is going to have to talk to somebody. I'm just
here representing him.
Conrad: That's alright. Any other comments? Okay good, thanks.
Any public comments?
' Dwight Schneibel: Good evening. We haven't met yet. My name is
Dwight Schneibel and I own the lot just to the west of the
proposed area on 6601 Arlington Court. And we haven't met the
' people that are planning to develop it and I guess a couple
things come to mind, or questions. First of all this drawing
doesn't really specify where the house is going to be located at
on the lot. And we're kind of curious how far away from the lot
' borders the house is going to be facing and what portion of the
lot the house will be at because it will obviously make quite a
difference. Our lot is, sits on a hill below where that lot
would be located at so the elevations are quite different and
brings up some concerns on losing the privacy with the house
right on top of the hill where they're building. And if there
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 11
would have to be anything done with the lot below...or change the
hillside which faces the new lot that they're developing. So I
guess there is some concern on the change of the hill. The
drainage of the water. Where the water would drain in case of
rain. And also if it would obviously affect the privacy that we
presently have with our home, with the new home being built on
top. It there would be a need for some type of natural growth,
privacy fence being put up, or hedges of trees or something of
that nature to continue to have that privacy in there. And if
there was a change in the lot and having some of it excavated
out, that there be some portion put in there to make sure that if
there's a change in our lot, that that would be taken care of as
far...rocks that we already have on the hill...So I have 11 questions on where the house is going and questions about the
privacy remaining the way it is right now. Also, the other thing
that kind of comes to mind and curiousity would be the value of
the home that's being built on the hill. We live in Curry Farms
development which is a Centex development and I guess we'd be
interested in seeing the value of the home being somewhere around
the mean average value of the houses we have in our area...cul- 11 de -sac or in the Curry Farm development is presenting a
development going just south of us. I think it's Willow Creek
where the homes are...and I guess we don't want to lose the value
of our home with...So those would be my concerns at this point.
Conrad: Thank you. Some of those maybe we can address. In
terms of where the building pad would go, in a subdivision we
really haven't asked the developer. The owners to do that. What
would be the process for them locating a building pad?
Krauss: This may not be the answer that the gentleman would ,
prefer to hear but Codes give the property owner a great deal of
latitude as to where they can put their home. It has to meet 11 setback requirements which puts them a minimum of 10 feet back
from the property line. But beyond that is a matter of personal
discretion on the site. In terms of privacy, I understand the
issue but the city has never been in the habit of requiring
screening from one single family home to another. Generally
homeowners do that kind of thing anyway. It hasn't been something
that we needed to become involved in. We certainly do screen
between different intensities of use but from one single family
home to another, no. In terms of drainage, those concerns are
very valid. We take that into account. When building permit
comes in, if there are drainge issues, we ask them, Dave ask them
that there be some information provided as to how the drainage is
going to be handled. We make sure that natural drainage patterns
will not be disturbed and that there not be flowage directed in
areas where it was not appropriate. Our building inspectors are
getting pretty good now too of making sure of those kind of
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 18, 1993 - Page 12
II things...In terms of disturbance on neighboring lots, that's
trespassing. The grades have to match at the property line.
1 There should be no disturbance beyond that, or somebody's on
somebody else's property at that point. The last question that
was raised was as to the value. Again, the city has no minimum
value requirements and to do so raises a lot of ethical and
I possibly legal questions. Again, it hasn't been an issue.
Generally homes tend to be a certain value and it keeps creeping
upwards. Not every home conforms to that exactly but...
II Farmakes: But from a practical matter Paul though, there is a
minimum size that's required for footage size and if you look
into that you will see that there are other conditions that are
minimum requirements in the city of Chanhassen for single family
homes.
II Scott: I think we're talking about 1,500 square feet finished
with an attached 2 car garage.
I Krauss: That's true but those are fairly minimal standards. I
don't know of any houses I've seen in 4 years that are anywhere
near it...
II Farmakes: But I think from a practical standpoint though, there
isn't going to be a warming shack built on a piece of property in
Chanhassen for a single family residential zone, if that's some
II of the concern of the neighbors. The city does have minimum
requirements for single family homes...
II Scott: Also too, there isn't any site grading that's proposed
for the property so my interpretation is that there obviously
will be some excavation for the foundation, etc but the grading
will be minimal. So the drainage pattern will probably not be
II altered.
Conrad: So I think the bottom line is, many of your concerns
II there are basic regulations but specifically they're not going to
be addressed. I think grading and drainage will be addressed as
a building permit is taken out. But the other issues are really
based on code and current city standard setbacks. The applicant
II has a right to build where they would like to as long as they met
our current code. Any other questions? Any other comments from.
I Judy Kepp: This won't close so Nick can come up and talk to you
about some things?
II Conrad: Well we're going to make a motion tonight and that
motion will go to the City Council. If he has some comments, he
has to get to the Planning staff and address those based on what
II
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 13
our motion reads tonight and he still could oppose what we're ,
recommending but it's, and then the City Council will vote on
that with his comments included. But he'll have 2 weeks or
whatever until this gets there.
Dwight Schneibel: Can I just get one clarification. What are the
city codes or clarification on the privacy between the homes. '
You said there is no code or city recommendation that they have
to build some type of privacy or continue to, I should say, make
sure our privacy isn't changed because when we obviously moved
into the home, the reason that we liked the location and the area
is because of the privacy that we did have. I'm not saying that
anybody doesn't have the right to build on their lot but I guess
we don't want to lose what we thought we got when we bought the
home and part of that will be lost if we lose the privacy that's
right there presently behind our home. By a house that we have
no control over. We have no idea where it's going to be placed.
How far away from the lot line it's going to be. As far as I can
tell right now, it could be sitting right on top of the hill
right behind our house and there's nothing. What you're saying
at this point that's going to help insure some of the privacy or
end the privacy that we presently have and I guess that's a big
concern of mine.
Conrad: Yeah, I know what you're saying. Paul, there's really
not much that we or staff can say. It's going to meet our
minimum side yard setbacks. They have to do that. But beyond
that, to tell you the truth, it's interpersonal communication
that you have and maybe that's more important than what the city
can legislate.
Dwight Schneibel: That's fine. We haven't talked about and we
don't have any gripes about it. We're just finding out but at
this point just clarification. The only guideline we have is the ,
10 foot offset that we have. That's the only privacy...
Conrad: Pretty much so. If you thought that there were some
trees or some natural features that were being disturbed, I think
we'd be very interested in that but, and again, but if there's
nothing that we see there, they do have the right to build within
the current code.
Dwight Schneibel: And the current code as far as for the type of
home they have to build. '
Conrad: They can do anything.
Dwight Schneibel: It's just the, it has to be a 2 car garage, at ,
least square footage of 1,500 square feet.
1
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 14
Conrad: Right. And pretty typically you're protected. You know
we have seen very few cases where new development in this area
1 has been substandard or hasn't appreciated the surrounding
property. With property this big, I'd be real surprised if you'd
be unhappy. Now that doesn't protect you. The odds are with
what I'm saying but then again they're only odds so. But I'd be
real surprised if they built something that was less than
appreciating the surrounding community, but that doesn't you
know.
Dwight Schneibel: ...that doesn't obligate...I guess I'd just
like to tell...the types of homes that have been going up around
' the area. In Willow Ridge substantial homes and I think the
homes that are presently in Curry Farms development right next
door are along the same type of...
Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close
the public hearing?
' Scott moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
1 Harberts: The only comment I have is, I would support their
recommendation to lay asphalt on the common part of the driveway.
I appreciate staff taking that proactive approach. Number 3 in
terms of including that a written maintenance agreement is
established, even though we do have family, ownership does
change. So I think that was a good call. But my only comment
really is to support the need for an asphalt drive. I don't
think 7 tons is excessive because again you don't now what's in
the future. I don't know, if an over the road driver, he brings
his rig and drives it home or what but the code was established
for some purpose but I guess there's always an opportunity to
consider a variance. That's it.
Scott: I have no comment.
Batzli: Is the taking of 40 feet what we've been doing along the
' road with other people, with other developments?
Hempel: That's correct. Consistent with Willow Ridge.
Developments on the south side...
' Batzli: Do we need so much?
' Hempel: Based on that status of that road, the future road is
classified as a collector type street, minimum right -of -way is 80
feet...
11
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 15
Batzli: That's a lot of feet. We need to look at that someday.
tz . 1 Y
That's all I got.
Mancino: No comment.
Farmakes: The property is not large enough to subdivide again? 1
Krauss: No. No, this one will be above standard...
Farmakes: The applicant shares parking does not wish to pave it, 1
pave the shared driveway...I'm assuming they're going to...
farther back from that they place it and there's an agreement
here that the road is paved so there is a cutoff there. Unless
you build a dual road...I'm still kind of ambiguous about how
that would be handled. I'm always uncomfortable with shared
driveways. I know there might be a fair amount of distance
that's involved. The reason being, from what I've seen in
practical matters, some of these left over lots, especially
around Lake Lucy Road, there's a development built around and
there's a little corner lot or something left over and being
divided. The one I'm thinking of right now is on Lake Lucy and
right on the corner of Lake Lucy and Powers...many of these cases
cars have to be parked out into someone else's lot. And the
shared driveway situations, unless there's a substantial amount
of road available, can create a problem between neighbors. Now
in this case...attachment to the adjacent property owner but in•5
or 10 years that may not be the case. I would hope that if there
is a shared parking lot there, that it be minimum to avoid those
type of things. There is enough driveway...Lot 1 and 2 to allow
them enough parking space to accommodate...I have no further
comments.
Conrad: Okay. Thanks Jeff. I have nothing to add other than
making sure we incorporate the staff's condition number 7 and the
change that I think is some common sense in terms of the length
of the common drive. A portion of the asphalt I think. It
shouldn't be the entire length but just up to the Y. Other than
that, I have no more comments. Any other discussion? If not
I'll ask for a motion.
Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 1
Subdivision #93 -17 as shown on the plans dated July 18, 1993
subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 will remain as they are. Number 7 to be added to read,
park and recreation fees to be paid at time of permit
application. And Nancy, do you want condition number 3 to, or
excuse me. The condition relating to the trees, to include the
language about, from the tree list. Recommended species.
Condition number 6, add the language that the trees to be planted
1
11
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 16
come from the recommended species list.
Conrad: Anything else? Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Batzli: I guess I'd prefer to see something in there in
condition 3 relating to the reasonableness of this road design.
Conrad: In reference to what Brian? The length of the asphalt
' or the.
Batzli: The 7 ton design, yeah.
1 Conrad: What are you suggesting?
Batzli: I don't know because I would be comfortable with only
about the first 10 or 15 feet so that we don't track the gravel
onto the road and we eliminate the possibility of the runoff,
which is what I think we're requiring it for. You know it seems
to me that our variance standard takes into account conditions of
neighboring properties and here it clearly, we've got gravel
roads up and down the whole way and I don't know why we're
requiring something extraordinary from this lot. So I would at:
least like to see after the word 20 feet in width, something like
for a 15 foot initial section or until the driveway splits. You
know subject to city staff approval or something like that
because I think there needs to be some reasonableness here.
Conrad: Joe, what was the intent in your motion. You took
1 number 3 pretty much verbatim. You didn't make any changes.
Scott: I think Dave, what would be the minimum that you would
recommend for a paved section?
1 Hempel: A minimum to the property line from the street curb.
1 Scott: Which is a 10 foot.
Hempel: Which is, in this situation would be probably about 14
1/2 feet.
Mancino: Nobody else has it on...
' Hempel: ...would have it. The driveways down further are, to
the east are pre- existing conditions that go out into the...In
fact we are in the process of requiring an ordinance that all new
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 17
driveways be hard surface. Right now...from an ordinance
g
standpoint.
Harberts: I have a question. How is the 20 foot derived and as 1
a basis for the code or the ordinance.
Krauss: That came from a section of code where we started 1
allowing...on private driveways, which the city never used to do.
When we...private driveways, we figure well it's okay to do that.
We still have to get a fire truck in there. The UPS truck has to
come in and police car or whatever and the minimum acceptable
standard, and this was by...
Harberts: Given that, you know with your experience Paul, what do '
you feel...like that. 15 feet or whatever to the property line.
What's your feeling on that?
Krauss: Well I don't know. Dave is correct...talked about the
need to have a driveway ordinance and we don't. And there are a
series of problems that occur. Major deal? No, it probably
isn't but the code requires...having common driveways that it be
paved up to a point where you no longer have two houses uses it.
And you know, there are ways and maybe they can work this out
with Dave to come up with a, I mean there's nothing that says the
existing curb cut is where it should be. Maybe it gets moved
over a little bit to the property line and maybe if engineering
is acceptable of it, the curb cut's a little wider than the
standard and it Y's off right away. At that point it's not an
issue. I mean there's ways to work this out. I guess we
understand...where you're going and we can probably work out
something before it gets to the City Council.
Scott: How about if we put something into condition 3 at the 11 end. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to
a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved section will be
determined by the applicant and city staff.
Batzli: Subject to city staff approval. I like that.
Harberts: I do too. '
Scott: Is that what you want? Okay.
Conrad: So we have a motion on the floor. Brian, was your's, '
what was your's? You were just talking right?
Batzli: I was just talking. I didn't propose an amendment. ,
Conrad: Right. Do we have a second to Joe's motion?
1
11
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 18
Mancino: I'll second it.
Conrad: Any further discussion? So the intent, what we said to
staff is to negotiate this with the applicant. Is that what we
said?
1 Harberts: I also liked the flexibility that Paul talked about
because I think it's generally the feeling here that we don't
like those common accesses but some of them, sometimes it may
occur so if we have the opportunity of flexibility with that curb
cut, I'd say let's go after it.
1 Batzli: We don't have an ordinance.
Harberts: Right. But that usually seems to be the intent of the
Commission here with regard to common access points.
' Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission
recommend to approve Subdivision #93 -17 as shown on the plans
1 dated July 18, 1993, subject to the following conditions:
1. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted beyond the
40 foot setback from the rear property lines. Trees designated
for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means
acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at
or beyond the ground footprint of the tree's crown. No fill
' material or construction activity shall occur within these areas.
These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements
on the final plat over all drainage areas. The following
easements and right -of -way shall be provided:
a. The southerly 40 feet of the parcel shall be dedicated to
the City for Lucy Road right -of -way.
1 b. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot
line.
1 3. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a common curb cut access onto Lake
Lucy Road. The shared portion of the driveway shall be
constructed to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved
section of driveway will be determined by the applicant and
staff, subject to city staff approval. A cross access easement,
including maintenance responsibilities shall be drafted by the
1 applicant in favor of both lots.
4. Lot 1 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 1993 - Page 19
preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a
building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change
in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant
vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the
tree preservation easement prior to grading.
5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at
the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and
water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer's office
shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus
interest accrued from the date the original assessment was
levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against
the parcel. 1
6. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent
erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback
of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2 1/2 inches
in diameter at the time of installation, and selected from the
city's recommended species list.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: '
CONCEPT UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DESNITY (190 DWELLING
UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND VCATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF
86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present: ,
Name Address
Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd.
Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd.
Mark & Lori Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd.
Bruce Engel 8699 Chan Hills Dr. No.
Jeff Williamson 8411 Great Plains Blvd.
Randy Fresett 8411 Great Plains Blvd.
Joe & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle
A.W.(Mike) & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Joanne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle
David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
0 111r4
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ``AP ,
1 DATE: September 3, 1993
SUBJ: 93 -17 SUB (Jacques Addition)
1 I was asked to review the revised proposed plat (dated Aug 27 1993)
for the above referenced project.
1 I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*11
��M► PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1