Loading...
6. Final Plat for Washta Bay Ct, Minnewashta Pkwy & Linden Circle I 6 1 4 C ITYOF 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 AMP N CIY Ailetits1,051 1 MEMORANDUM �/ ?�tc� /�1' 6idoitod Nodi*ed . TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rtjected 1 Date - X 1'2 „ FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner � Date Submitted to commissiolp submitted to Coma( DATE: September 23, 1992 D elo 1 4y- ai_ /2.. - SUBJ: Final Plat for Washta Bay Court 1. On May 20, 1991, the City Council approved a subdivision request for the division of a 39,885 1 square foot parcel into two single family riparian lots of 19,943 square feet and a variance request to the lot area and lot width requirements. The proposed lots were just below the minimum required 20,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. The Planning Commission I voted to deny the request by a four to two vote because it was creating two non - conforming lots (see attachment #1). The City Council approved the subdivision and variances because they felt I the variances were minor and that additional variances would not be required since the proposed lots had adequate buildable area. One of the issues discussed by the City Council was the fact that one riparian lot would now be two and the effect this would have on Lake Minnewashta. I In order to minimize any additional impact to the lake the applicant, Dana Johnson, stated that he and Ken Lund (both will own the two lots) would share a dock. The City Council agreed with this and added it to the conditions of approval (attachment #2). The City Council approved I the request with the following conditions: • 1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the proposed 1 house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing existing and 1 proposed fmished 2 foot contour elevations for review and approval. 3. The final plat shall reflect a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the 1 northeasterly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, to protect the stream bank from further alteration. 4. The City shall waive the requirement for a development contract due to the fact that no 1 public improvements are required for the subdivision. Is � 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 I Mr. Don Ashworth September 23, 1992 Page 2 I 5. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to limit the access points out onto Minnewashta Parkway. I 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any. I 7. The existing home must be vacated and utilities permanently disconnected before approval g P Y PP ' of the lot split. 8. A demolition permit is required before demolition begins on the dwelling. 1 9. No additional variances will be granted in the future. I 10. Only one dock shall be permitted for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 to share. 11. Park and trail fees are due at the time of building permit approval. 1 The applicant has submitted the final plat for approval by the City Council. The applicant has met most of the conditions except for conditions 1 and 2, and condition 10. 1 1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the proposed house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. I 2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and approval. I The applicant has not yet submitted these plans because the design of the homes has not yet been determined. The engineering department is still requiring these plans prior to final plat because 1 they are important in ensuring that the site is graded properly with minimal impact to Lake Minnewashta and the DNR protected creek. Therefore, these conditions must be complied with prior to recording the final plat. I 10. Only one dock shall be permitted for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 to share. 1 The applicant, Dana Johnson, is requesting this condition be removed. In the attached letter, Mr. Johnson has stated the following: 1 1. At this time, now and in the future, both owners of Lots 1 and 2 have no intention but to have one dock for both lots. 1 2. If one of us sells their home in the future, I don't know if we will get along with our new neighbor creating a major conflict with the dock. I cannot speak for the future. 1 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth 1 September 23, 1992 Page 3 1 3. The two lots would be the only ones on Lake Minnewashta restricted to one dock. Staff is in favor of removing condition 10 which restricts the two lots to only one dock. The 1 City Code permits each riparian lot to have one dock. Since the city permitted the two lots to be created, the lots should also be permitted to each have a dock. The only times the city has I required shared docks is when the docks and access to docks would impact sensitive areas such as steep slopes and wetlands. Although we wish it weren't true, the applicant is correct in stating that all neighbors do not get along. As staff witnesses every year, dock usage is one of the most I volatile issues between neighbors, and this condition could very well cause difficulties in the future. MISCELLANEOUS I In his memo, Dave Hempel pointed out that the elevation of Lake Minnewashta was incorrect I on the final plat. The elevation should be shown as 944.5. This correction is being made on the final plat mylars which will be recorded at Carver County. Condition 9 was also added by the City Council as a condition of approval. This condition can remain, but the Council should I understand that anyone has the right to apply for a variance and that this condition cannot predetermine any future action by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Council. All this condition can do is to serve as a caution to the lot owners as to the position the City may I have. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the final plat #91 -3 for Washta Bay Court as shown on plans dated t3' PP P Y P September 9, 1992, with the following conditions: I 1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan indicating the proposed house pad elevations, including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and approval. I 3. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to limit the access points out onto Minnewashta Parkway. 1 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any. 1 5. No additional variances will be granted in the future. 1 1 1 I Mr. Don Ashworth September 23, 1992 Page 4 I 6. Park and trail fees are due at the time of building permit approval. 1 7. An escrow of $ 135 is required for recording of the final plat and attorney fees." ATTACHMENTS I 1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 1, 1991. I 2. City Council minutes dated May 20, 1991. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 22, 1992. 4. Letter from Dana Johnson dated September 17, 1992. 1 5. Final plat dated September 9, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 1, 1991 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings, II Joan Ahrens, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 39,885 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHICH WILL REQUIRE A LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE (LAKESHORE ' WIDTH) ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6541 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN LUND AND DANA JOHNSON, WASHTA BAY COURT ADDITION. Public Present: 1 Name Address Ken Lund 395 Hwy 7 . 1 Dana Johnson 6301 Greenbriar Charles Anding 6601 Minnewashta Parkway Tom Krueger 3860 Linden Circle Joan Simpson 6560 Minnewashta Parkway Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Dana Johnson: I'm Dana Johnson. I live at 6301 Greenbriar in Excelsior, II 55331. Ken Lund: I'm Ken Lund. I live just down the street at 395 Highway 7. 1 Dana Johnson: Well first of all I want to thank you for the opportunity today to be able to come in here and talk about the variances here and so II forth. Ken Lund and I have lived in the area for quite a few years. Ken has lived here for 25 years. I've lived here for 15 years. We do both have lake access on the Lake Minnewashta at this present time so we have II enjoyed the lake quite a bit and know the surrounding area quite well also. We know that we are a little short. 12 inches on both lots on the lake frontage and the size of a walk in closet on the existing 20,000 square foot per lot. It isn't a lot obviously but we still don't meet it. We're here today basically just to kind of plead our case to see if you will okay the variances. One of the things about it is, first of all we're not developers. We're not in here to make any big money on this. We're just II here to try and build two existing single family homes. Build it with pride and take pride in the lot. The lots that are around there right now. One of the things too is that we are squeezed in between the lake and the II road and that's one of the hardships we've got here also in trying to make II Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 2 the amount of the frontage and the square footage also. Can I approach the bench? I do have some pictures. I don't know if anybody's been out there to see the home. The surrounding homes. I went out and took some pictures of the house that's existing there and you know, it's not in great shape at ' all. It's got holes in the roof on one of the out buildings that are on the lot. It was built way back in the 40's so it's a pretty old home. I've taken pictures of the surrounding homes around there. What we want to try to do is kind of make the area a little bit better looking by developing two lots there. Now you can also say that it could be just, you can build one home there. Well, if somebody came in there, they could come in there. Keep the existing home that is there right at this point and live in it the way it is because you can live in that home. So that existing structure could still be there if you deny us our permit or not. But I did take some pictures of it. Emmings: Why don't you just give them to Tim and then he can pass them down. ' Dana Johnson: The first three are the existing home and then the rest are around the area. The houses next door and behind it. Every which way. I'm not a professional photographer so. Right now the house has been vacant for a couple years. It is in poor condition in this point and we would demolish the house and put it up. And you know you talked about the lot next door to it too. I take pride in the things that I do and even the creek, the creek is full of bottles. Full of cans that people have thrown in there. That could be cleaned up also. I definitely would be taking care of even though it isn't on my property, I would improve the look of that also. There's a snowmobile trail right along side that that a lot of people toss stuff along as they're going along the lake. At one time too, there are two sewer and water hook ups on that piece of property. ' Emmings: It's stubbed in from the street? Dana Johnson: Right. So at one time the city engineers thought that could be dividable. In fact when I took, I went and when I did my survey on that lot, they do an aerial view of the city water. I saw an aerial view of it. I don't know what it's called. There were actually three on there so at one point I'm sure way down the line they had this divided up into three actual lots. We could only state that there's two because. Farmakes: Who purchased the association access next to the property? Dana Johnson: I'm sorry. Farmakes: From whom did they purchase the association access next to this 1 property? It's about 30 feet. Dana Johnson: You mean in the, there's two lake associations. II Farmakes: There's a fenced access just to the south of the property. It's about 30 feet wide and it goes down to the lake. Do you know who, from whom? It looks like the lot was purchased from the property owner where that home is. 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 3 Ken Lund: I don't think so. I think the person who had the land across the street, because I know years ago, I remember when that was for sale. I think that person had land across the street actually had a 30 foot access. He actually owned his land right across the street and when he developed that property, the people that lived across the street had their own little!' access to the lake. Dana Johnson: We've even pursued it on one side of the, there's accesses II on both sides of our lot. One's about 50 feet on the creek side and then obviously the larger access. We even went as far as to pull the deed on the creek side to see who actually owns that to try to even purchase that. I Due to the fact that there's about 50 names on it and it says in the Schmidt Tract which is 8 which is across TH 7 and there's a number of homes in there. The deed really wasn't very clear because there wasn't any II single name on that that we could go actually right to that person and ask them that. It just says the Schmidt Tract and the deed is dated back in 19, what was it 13 or something like that? 1914. It was a real old deed. Farmakes: This is the abandoned home to the north? Ken Lund: No, no. The abandoned home to the north, there's the little I tiny parcel between that and the house that we're dealing with right now. Farmakes: Oh, the wetland area there? ' Ken Lund: Right there. It's a little 50 foot tract that, it's like a gate house. Lake access for people from the Schmidt Acre. Dana Johnson: Which is across the street from TH 7. Ken Lund: By Minnewashta Church. ' Dana Johnson: By Cathcart. Up that way. Ken Lund: In fact somebody had mentioned to us that if we could purchase 1 one foot of that from them, then we'd meet the requirement. We went down to the County. They said that it would take a long time and a lot of paperwork and a lot of legal to try to do that because they didn't have a II real clear deed owner on that property. It belonged to too many people and went back too long. Nobody really claimed it. They said actually we could claim it or go after it but it. Dana Johnson: It would be a year and probably too much money for us. Ken Lund: It would take about a year to do it and a lot of money to get that one foot to make the lots legal. Dana Johnson: But basically you know, it is a small variance and I hope II you take a look at it. This is Ken and I's kind of first dream to be able to afford to get on the lake. We see it as a great opportunity and we really believe that we can better the area with two homes on that instead 11 of one because always remember, somebody can just move in there and just Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 1, 1991 - Page 4 redo the inside and keep the outside the way it looks, as you just saw. Thank you. Emmings: Okay, thanks. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak on this? Please come up. Charles Anding: My name is Charles Anding. I live next door to the association lot. 6601 Minnewashta Parkway. I understand what you folks are saying. I do have some concerns however and I would like to make one correction. You stated the home had been vacant for over 2 years. Dana Johnson: Year and a half. Charles Anding: I think it's closer to about a year but it has been vacant for a period of time but the property has generally been fairly well taken care of. There is again one out building that does sit next to the association lot that has for a number of years that I've looked at it, a hole in the roof. I think it was from a collapsing chimney. I can't speak about the actual house itself. A couple things that I wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was aware of. On the south side of their lot running along the, what do you folks call youselves? Linden Circle Association? Tom Krueger: Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition Association. Charles Anding: Okay, whatever it is. The folks up there off of Linden Circle, Linden Drive. There's a drainage area that runs from along the property line there about 5 or 10 feet into their lot that of course would be of concern. That's a natural drainage area to the lake and I would be concerned about development affecting that drainage area. Number two point that I would just like to point out. That this property sits on a very small bay. If you were out there today you probably would have seen the amount of curve along that shoreline and I live inside of that curve along with my neighbor on the south of me and we've found that the traffic that would occur on the lake would be difficult with the docks coming out from two properties in that small bay and that we all have to have this shared area off the end of our docks. I'm fearful that if we put two lots in there and extend docks off of that area, which is a very shallow area, those docks are going to extend quite a ways and it's going to cause more of a congestion problem on the lake than what we'd probably like to see out there. I've talked to my wife. I've talked to a few of the other neighbors and generally we're concerned about this particular split occurring. Of course we can't make a recommendation. Only express our views but we are concerned about it. Conrad: Your last comment. It's hard for me to track what you just said. Charles Anding: About the bay? Conrad: Right Explain that a different way for me. Charles Anding: I don't know if you folks have these things but that shows the curve of the bay better than of course what this does up here. But 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 5 what we're saying is that the way this bay, the small curve in the lake II forces us to essentially, the way the docks would have to point to get out towards the deeper water. 'If you extended them another 50 feet would be very close to each other at the end. I guess is what I'm trying to state. II Recognizing that the association lot in here doesn't have the ability to put in a dock, it would still cause a congestion of boat traffic out here at this specific point. My only point being that if we have to split that into two lots, I assume that there would be two docks coming out there. Conrad: From a motor standpoint? Charles Anding: There is one other point I'd like to make. If you look ail all the homes along in this area, we're all running minimum, minimum of I think of 120 foot lots out there so the other consideration would be that ' if we go to something that's 75 or 85 feet wide, it's not going to be following the context of the rest of the homes along the shoreline. Emmings: Is there anybody else that wants to address this? , Tom Krueger: I'm Tom Krueger. I live at 3860 Linden Circle which is just up the street going to the west or on the top of the chart. I'm the third II house back. I did look at the property. I did put a bid in on it on the basis of a single family dwelling. That was based on the fact of seeing Paul Krauss who basically said that the lot was really not splitable. It I was also based on the aesthetic point of view of the lot. From the aesthetics, no matter how you split the lot, one person's front yard ends up in another person's front yard. You end up with very little privacy and you can put a nice little house on each lot. You can put up a 2 car ' garage. With the road improvement going up, you're left with a house that would not be of the same size and the same aesthetics as the other houses on the lake which is why I gave up looking at splitting the property or I anything like that and going in on a single family dwelling. The beach to the south, we've applied a number of times for a dock through the association. We've probably done it wrong both times. But we're learning okay so we'll probably get there one of these days. It is a 60 foot piece of property already. Not 30 feet. So there in that case you'll end up with three 60 foot separations or less between docks maybe eventually which is a concern to us. Also a concern is with that many docks and in that area, it is a swimming beach. We have 40 children up in that area. In thell Addition up there. For matter of reference, the Addition and the outlot for the beachlot and the separation of the other properties to the south were part of the Burkee estate which is the older house up on the hill with, the pillars. Kind of kitty corner off and away. So considering all and I placed my bid in and everything, not having won of course but still it would seem to me that common sense would prevail and a single family dwelling would be allowed there considering the property, the association, the creek drainage. I don't think buying a foot on the other side of the property does anything because the creek is still there and that confuses II the issue. The association supports 36 families. There are 40 children inll there and the number of docks would definitely concern us with the number of boats in there and the traffic that that would bring. .Thank you. Emmings: Thank you. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 6 Joan Simpson: Hi. I'm Joan Simpson. I'm at 6560 Minnewashta Parkway. I'm ' the pink house on the hill. We've only lived there 2 years and I understand what you say that you want to bring the old home up to standards for the area because it is an old home. I think one nice home would bring the area up to standards because I think there is a lot of homes that have area on the land and I think trying to put two homes on that piece of land will make it very crowded. Speaking from the association that just talked, ' as I am a member and just talking with the people that I have who a lot aren't in attendance, there's a large dissatisfaction with the idea of splitting the land. We don't have the say in whether it's split or not but the dissatisfaction is very prominent from the members. As far as leaving ' the house as it is, you know how can we say that that's what would happen or not? It would depend on who moved in. Hopefully it would be brought up to standards and I would imagine at some point it would be. I have ' attended an estate sale there and I have gone in and it is very liveable. It's very small but it is very liveable and I think just as a recommendation, I would say I would just hope to see one home go in. Speaking for the association. Thank you. Emmings: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public? Do you want to respond or say something else? Go ahead. Dana Johnson: I'd like to address a couple of those issues. Speaking of the dock situation. Number one, we've already talked about just putting ' one dock out there in the first place. You know I've lived on the lake long enough, for 15 years and that's what all of my neighbors have done. Just put one dock out and that's exactly what I would do too. You know when you talk about, if you put one dock out is it going to crowd, is it ' going to hinder boat traffic or whatever? Well, there isn't any docks to the right of it because it's all open land up there. If you look at the plot, there's no homes for probably 700 -800 feet of lakeshore. And the ' association doesn't have a dock either at this point either. So basically I just wanted to address those two issues on that. Again, you say one home or two homes. You say it's going to be crowded. Well, we can put on one ' lot, we can put a 60 foot home across on Lot 2 there to the left and on Lot 1, we've already been to our builders and we can put a 50 to 52 foot home on the other one so there's plenty of space to put a house that's up to the sizes of other homes in that area. We're both talking about doing ' walkouts. Two story homes so that will go right along with the other homes on the lake also. I just wanted to address those issues that they brought up. Thank you. 1 Emmings: Okay. Any other public comment on this application? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? 11 Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Erhart: For my piece of mind here, Jo Ann or Paul, the surrounding lots on the lake are what size in general? 11 Olsen: Well they all meet or exceed the 20,000 square feet. 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 7 Erhart: 30,000? ' Olsen: Well the ones near it are closer to 20,000 to 30,000. They're not real big but they meet the. Erhart: And the general frontage on the lake would be, on the surrounding lots would be what? Olsen: Area right there? Erhart: Well yeah. Down the lakeshore there. Olsen: Well they really vary. But the ones that have homes on them, some of them have like 100. Around that. More than 75. A lot of the lots are just those narrow little strips that will never be buildable sites. Erhart: You say that there's a lot of lots there that are unbuildable? Olsen: There's some, if you're saying what's really going on around Lake 1 Minnewashta. Like where Stratford Ridge was. Do you remember how a lot of, it's just a narrow strip on Minnewashta Parkway. Erhart: Oh you mean narrow this way? Okay. Not narrow perpendicular to the lake? Olsen: Right. There's no depth so those have a lot of width but they're II not buildable. Erhart: Okay. I'll tell you a couple of things concern me about this. One' is the fact that it's next to a recreational beachlot I think has an impact in that I think we really want to try to keep houses as far away from the beachlot as possible to avoid conflict. Here we have a situation where actually we're really encouraging someone to build a house closer to the beachlot. The beachlot to the south. The second thing is, the effective width of Lot 1 really is about, it looks to be about 60 feet. If you look II at the piece that comes down. The flag so to speak. Real perpendicular width is only about 60 feet there even though when you get down the lot because of the angle it may be 75 feet. Plus part of that is being II absorbed by the setback from the creek. I just don't think this is a two lot parcel. I guess I would be opposed to the split. Conrad: The creek. Does that creek, what's the value of the creek? ' Olsen: It's an outlet to the lake and it's important enough that the DNR has marked it as a protected creek. So that setback is to maintain open space around that. Emmings: Lake Minnewashta outflows to Lake Virginia by that creek. Conrad: Outflows? Emmings: Yeah. 1 Planning Commission Meeting tang May 1, 1991 - Page 8 Erhart: Excuse me but what's on the north side of the creek then? ' Olsen: The north side of the creek is that little strip that provides access for Schmidt Acre across the street. It's not a trout stream or anything like that but it's protected. Conrad: So the 50 feet is from where on the creek? Olsen: See where it's right on the top. Conrad: Are you able to build, would you build 50 feet away from the ' creek? Dana Johnson: Sure. I've already done, I'm just going without the I variances at this point and that's the way I'm assuming that I'm not going get the variance on the 50 foot and made my plans accordingly to build 50 feet from the creek. I can build a home 50 feet from the creek no problem. No problem at all. If it would have been a problem, I wouldn't be here tonight. Believe me. Conrad: I have to go back to the context that these lots are in. Jo Ann, are these smaller than what we would see in the neighborhood? And Tim asked you the same question. Olsen: Yeah. All the other lots do meet the requirements. They all meet the 20,000 square feet. They all have the 75 foot at the ordinary high water mark. That's where we measure at least within the 500 feet. Not across the street. No. But along the lake, yes. Conrad: And to the south we have the beachlot and then we have a lot of lots that really don't have houses on it. Olsen: well no. Just to the south you do have homes and those do all exceed the 20,000. It's as you go down. Emmings: ' gs: Ladd? Maybe I can fill you in. As you go south from this property there's the beachlot. And then I'm not sure how many homes there are. There's 5 or 6 homes and you get down to a couple more beachlots and then it gets narrower and narrower until you get down to Cedar Cove. Remember when we did Leach's thing and then you've got Red Cedar Point there. And to the north of this property there are large undeveloped ' tracts for probably, there could be 800 feet of shoreline or more. I don't really know how much but it's a big piece. There's 3 or 4, 3 tracts in there that I think are totally undeveloped. And then you get around to where I live and in there it's, on the north shore they're, I have 100 feet. My neighbor has 150 and there's a lot of 100 foot size. Lots in that area. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Olsen: I have a location map if you want to look. 11 Conrad: Yeah. I looked at that Jo Ann. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 9 Olsen: It kind of gets confusing. But they all, this would definitely be I setting a precedent. Erhart: If I could interrupt. What is, on a 15,000 square foot lot with the normal setbacks, how many square feet do you normally have there that's buildable? Olsen: With the regular setbacks? 1 Erhart: Yeah. Olsen: Quite a bit of it because you only have typically 30 foot. , Erhart: Let me ask you this. Is the area that you've got on there that's buidable, you've got the lines drawn. That area, is that bigger than, significantly bigger than a normal buildable area in a 15,000 square foot lot? Olsen: On Lot 1? 1 Erhart: No, when you combine the two. Olsen: The whole two? Erhart: Yeah. That would be what? Significantly bigger than the ' buildable area on a, well. Olsen: Well that 50 foot setback cuts in. Erhart: Well yeah. That's what I'm saying. Olsen: And the 75 foot setback too so I don't know that you would have significantly larger than typical. Erhart: Because of the setbacks, there just isn't that much buildable areal left and then to take that and divide it in two. Is what you're really dividing in half. Conrad: I guess in context, and Steve I'm going to ask you a question. In , context will this be out of place? Emmings: On that stretch? Well, Lake Minnewashta has old development on II it like Red Cedar Point where there are a bunch of narrow lots. And I don't know how wide the lots are there. I expect they're somewhat narrower but I don't really know that. ' Ken Lund: ...40 foot lots over on Red Cedar Point. Emmings: Yeah but a lot of them have. ' Ken Lund: 40 to 60. Most of them are 60. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 10 Emmings: It appears to me some of those have been combined over the years so they're double wide so I'm not clear on exactly how wide they are and it's also a situation where it's narrow beachlots. You know we have, they say their's is 60. Is that right? Tom Krueger: That's correct. Emmings: You know and we know that the Minnewashta Heights is 25 or, it's 1 very small. So there's kind of a mixture. But these are smaller than the typical lot on the north, that exists on the north and west side I would say, yeah. Olsen: On the north and west side? Emmings' Yeah. Olsen: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. I guess I've been trying to rationalize the split because when things are so close, I want to give the applicant every opportunity to make it happen. If it's 20,000 square feet, you miss it by a few feet, I'm not too concerned. I'm looking for the intent of the square footage requirement. I'm looking for context of how things fit. And I still can be persuaded by the rest of the Planning Commission who actually I apologize for not visiting this site. I should have. I think that would have made me feel a lot more comfortable with what I'm going to say but I'm looking for the rationalization and it's looking like we're trying to squeeze too much out of the property right now with the setbacks. And based on what I'm hearing on the context of where it's found and my concern with the creek. I guess we don't have the control over the creek and variances and I don't want to see a variance on the setback to the creek. I simply don't. I think creeks are extremely valuable and if it's a protected creek, I don't want to see that. We dont' have control but my biggest concern right now is that plus the fact that it's looking like we're trying to squeeze a little bit too much out of the property and therefore unless somebody can persuade me another way, I would vote right now not to grant the variances. ' Emmings: Annette? Elison: I agree with these two gentlemen. I don't have anything new. I 11 think it's just too much in a small space and there's not really a good enough reason to give a variance. Emmings: Jeff? Farmakes: I went out to the property today and had a look at it. It's a nice lot but I do think it's a single home lot. I guess I'd disagree that the house that's on there is to be described as an abandoned piece of property. The house is relatively in good shape from what I could see. The shed does has a hole in it but it's an out building shed. It would seem to me that if you took the park away which is now a very narrow road, and saw that in the future as being widened so it actually has a shoulder 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 11 1 on it, those cars would be coming awfully close to your front door. And these setbacks as it stands now may work but I think it'd be a real problem" in the future if they do widened that road. I can't see anywhere on the work that the staff did here. It says a variance can be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council only if all of the following criteria are met and there are several criteria that you're not meeting. It's not just a walk in closet issue. There are several issues. A lot of them have to do I think with the worth of the property and I think' if you put two pieces of, two homes in there and make two lots out of that, that it certainly would be beneficial because I think some of the surrounding homes that are there would not fit into that category. They're larger homes with more space around them and I could see where it could be , an advantage to the person who's splitting that lot but again, I think it would be a disadvantage to the surrounding homes. I think it should be one lot. , Ahrens: 7o Ann, is there any, there was a drainage issue raised here. Olsen: On the south side? ' Ahrens: Right. Is that? Olsen: The engineering department didn't point that out. We did go out to the site. If there's actually a drainage area on this lot, we would want to protect it with an easement. I can't say. Do you recall it being on this lot or is it on the recreational beachlot? Resident: No, it's on this lot. Right along the south border of that lot. Olsen: We didn't notice it. We can go out and check it again. That's something we didn't notice. Ahrens: Is that something that was just maybe missed on the report? I'd like to know that because I'd like to recommend approval of this. I think the variances are very small. I think these people are going to go out and build houses that are not going to fit in. I mean they're going to spend alot of money to build houses on these lots. They're not going to build something that's going to be an eyesore for the rest of the community. I , think that the idea of the shared dock meets the concerns of, or just one dock was going to be shared, meets the concerns of the neighbors that there's going to be too much traffic on that one area. Variances are just so small here. On the other hand I hate to set a precedent for the next person coming in saying well our lot's only 200 feet smaller than the lot that you just approved. But this is so close and I think that if they think that they can build a nice house on these lots, I don't see how we 11 can say that no, they can't build a nice house on these lots. I mean what kind of standards are we using anyway? I would though like to see, I don't know if we can do this. Can we set as a condition of approval that that 50 foot setback from the creek be maintained? That no variance be approved? We can't do anything like that? Emmings: It.'s a different body. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1991 - Page 12 Conrad: That's the problem, we have no control. ' Emmings: Well we do. It's the Board of Adjustments and I guess we could tell them that that's the way we feel about it but what they do, they do. 1 Krauss: I think you could put in a condition. It wouldn't firmly bind a future action. However, it would clearly state that the intent in creating this lot was not to create additional variances. Olsen: Right, but they can still apply. Ahrens: They could still apply but if we had clearly as one of our conditions that they had to maintain that setback, how likely is it that they will say well we think it's good, we'll allow a variance? Krauss: It shoots a hole in the argument that could be made that you created a lot that's unbuildable without further variances. Olsen: It will definitely be a self- created hardship and they'll have a hard case. Ahrens: Well that's the way I would go with it and I'd recommend approval on this. Emmings: Okay. As for me, I think I have to say, before I say anything else that I know Ken and I know Dana and his family. My children play with his Dana's children and I don't think that matters to me. I've thought about it quite a bit and I don't think I have any problem acting on this issue. We're not close friends or anything like that, and we especially 1 won't be after this. No. I basically adopt Joan's comments. I think that the issues that we have to look at, the variances we have to grant to allow this subdivision I think are so small that I don't have any problem supporting the proposal. It does seem like the lots are a little narrower on the lake side than the lots immediately around it, although there's a lot of undeveloped land and we don't know what's coming in on those and 75 feet is what's required so we can't really hold up a standards of 100 or 125 feet because 75 feet is what the ordinance says. I think they're going to have difficulty building a house on Lot 1 but if he says he can do it and it satisfies them, then I don't have a problem permitting it. I don't 1 see why I should tell him he can't build a house there so I do support the subdivision. The creek is an important issue and I would support the notion that no further variances should be granted. So with that, are there any other comments? Does somebody want to make a motion? Okay, time out. Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of I Preliminary Plat #91 -3 as shown on the plans dated April 1, 1991 for the reason stated. The subdivision creates two non - conforming lots. El.lson: I'll second it. Emmings: Any discussion? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - 11 May 1, 1991 - Page 13 Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Preliminary Plat #91 -3 as shown on the plans dated April 1, 1991 for the following reason: 1. The subdivision creates two non - conforming lots. All voted in favor except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Emmings: Denial is recommended by the Planning Commission. This will go II to the City Council? Olsen: May 20th. , Emmings: On May 20th and you should follow it there. Alright. We don't have too much else on the agenda. , APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 1991 as presented. 1 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: There were relatively few Council actions on the last agenda. The Council did vote to approve the chemical toilet ordinance on a split vote. They did add a modification however that the Satellite units that be used be designed to incorporate, I don't know what the technical word is but it's the sump in the vent line so that if it tips over that there's a reservoir to catch the material. Satellite told us that they designed that into their new ones anyway. We changed the ordinance accordingly. We brought a proposal to the City Council to fund a Comprehensive sewer and water plan. This is a follow up to the relatively cursory look we provided in the comp plan thus far to how we're going to serve the new MUSA area. We've been talking very seriously to several parties, one of which you're II real familiar with, Lundgren who wants to proceed with actual design. There's another office /industrial developer who's looking at three possibly developments. Two certainly but possibly a third. And people are asking us questions like where do you want the sewer to run? Where do you want the watermain to come in from and we don't have a real good handle on that right now and we want the City to be out in front of that issues instead of playing catch up and trying to figure out if the developer's proposal which , is obviously good for the developer is good for the city in the long run. We went out and got RFP's and brought them back to the City Council. The City Council authorized us to retain the firm of Bonestroo, Anderlick and II Rosene to undertake these studies. What we said is we're going to hold off on signing contracts until we get Metro Council approval. Trying to prudent with spending the money before we go. Bonestroo is working with us right now on our comprehensive plan application with the Metro Council. In ' the absense of a city engineer, they've been helping us respond to questions the Metro Council's been raising regarding sewer. In fact, they II reworked our entire sewer section and recalculated sewage flows which are the critical number and using what they think is methodology that MWCC will accept. They work for MWCC on a lot of projects. They've actually come up with a much lower flow rate than had been anticipated originally in the f Cirt,ler: It's G number I picked out of the air; a" =3 I/ 4 . a: rkren: Why don't T s your >• � �ecor,, you. motion so we can talk about it. :'r ..'rim: about. 26 was picked out of the air too. Cc. Wc •kn.n Ca..'t we approve the $26,000.00 and say. ler • Have it? 11 FE we don't know or how or what and we don't have er__ =- - .•_ -_. h )te. we need to table until we know. II :ir :er: Well I would prefer to get bids on the study and then make - ✓ our &cizic from that but that's assuming that we can use the remainder on cl! End w. don't know that at this point do we? =: Fr^ CIE= Gee don't. I would think the answer's no because I think we've oc•-e 4J.ic befo -e. I think the answer's been found out to be no but we can check inc that. I don't know that there's a deadline on this that has to t: a;-r - c..E: tcnic`,t. Do yo- remember Don? I'm not sure. Hour c - i I would think that there isn't any real hurry presently if we can gc' c= tFe clarifications that have been brought up right now. And•I think 1 the": t -ue and we sho.ild before we even decide to move on it. If you would . - wi,. _ motion. Dirler: I will withdraw my motion. Mayo- Chr:el• Will the second remove that motion? Cour, :L ren Wcri on: YES. Cc.:ncilwe^_ C:irler: Then I will move to table. 4'cri rr,an: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the reallocation of Year XVI Community Development Block Grant Funds for more clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 39.885 SO. FT. PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHICH WILL REQUIRE A LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE (LAKESHORE WIDTH). 6541 ' MIN!;EWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN LUND AND DANA JOHNSON. WASHTA BAY COURT ADDITION. to Pan Clser: The applicants are proposing to subdivide one existing single family lo* into two single family lots. It is a shoreland lot so it gets into ' ' the So regulations. You have to have 20,000 square foot for each lot and 75 foot width at the lake. The ordinary high water mark. The Planning 16 1 Ken Lund: &'e_12 one of the concerns at the last meeting by one of the residents, 11 Mr. Anding, which I've talked to several times afterwards, was how close we would be, or I would be to the private beach there. I've laid the house out where I'll be well over 40 feet away from the private beach so there will be quite a distance between my house and the private beach. Mr. Anding's house is a little lees than 12 feet from the beach so I'll have a fairly good setback. II That was one cf his concerns for that and he did have some concern about that and if he weren't on a business meeting right now, he'd be here tonight in support of oL r development. Dana Jc•Frs ^n: And as you can note there, we'll be 45 feet from the road ' literally. Well within the lot lines. The City ordinance plus the footage from the lake and the creek and all the city setbacks. One other thing I'd like to show yo.; too. I don't know if you've been out there. I just wanted to show you some pictures of the house that's existing that we be tearing down and be building on there. You know somebody else could come in too also and live there too. I guess we're trying to improve the area also you know by building two single family homes. Also when there are pictures of some homes surrounding it also. Mayor Chrie:: Okay, is there anything else that you'd like to say? 1 Dana Johnson: No, not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: I'll give you these pictures back. Okay, we'll move this along. I guess dne°_ ar'one have any questions? Tom? Councilmen Workman: Why is this not in front of the Board? Jo Ann Olsen: When variances are part of a subdivision, now it goes in front of Planning Cbrmission and Council. Councilmen Workman: I guess I knew that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard? Councilmar, Wing: I don't have a comment on it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Tom, do you have any? Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot of problem. Okay, Mike? 1 Councilman Mason: I read this over a number of times. I've talked to a number of people. I've gone back and forth a number of times on it. It's-so close to 1 what's acceptable and I know now someone's going to say, well how about 38,000 feet? Well, I guess you'd have to deal with that one on a separate issue. It looks like it's very well thought out. It looks like these guys know what ' they're talking about. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a question. I want to make sure that this subdivision will require no further variances in the future? Is that correct? 11 18 1 C' ' - May 20, 1991 2. 'hc a.' :_icEnt shall supply the City with a finished grading plan showing 11 e•_ a proposed finished 2 foot contour elevations for review and ar . �.1. 2. TnE lip::._ plat shall reflect a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement ' o.c- northeasterly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, to protect the stream bar, frc further alteration. ' 4. T Ci{' shall give the requirement for a development contract due to the fact that no public improvements are required for the subdivision. 5. Ea:` lct should be restricted to one driveway access point, in an effort to hr.;' the access points out onto Minnewashta Parkway. 6. The ap"'Iicart shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed 1 District and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any. 7. Ttf existing hone must be vacated and utilities permanently disconnected be pre approval of the lot split. 0. r• deTr1f'ic permit is required before demolition begins on the dwelling. . 9 9 9. Nc ad:itionel variances will be granted in the future. 10. Onl Y one dock shall be permitted for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 to share. All voted in favor and the notion carried unanimously. ' RELEASE OF TEMPORARY UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOT 12. BLOCK 1, SUNSET VIEW; PW052E. Dave Ne -rc': I've recently been contacted by a resident, Mr. Richard Powers at 2C ril' This request is similiar to the request the City Council ' addresc_c : rE = .Eve 2 weeks ago regarding the adjacent property next door. Mr. P :: : 'r the process of refinancing and his title company discovered a terr7,rrEr> ec.ss -c blanket easement over the parcel. Thus had some problem financir. The City was previously granted this easement back in April of 1987 along with the storm sewer project that was constructed. The City was to release this temporary easement contingent upon a permanent easement being conveyed to the City by the property owners. However, through the paper shuffles or w' the permanent easements were never obtained. Therefore the current owner. Mr. Powers is requesting the City release the temporary drainage easement over his property and he is willing to convey to the City the 1 permanent easement at this time. Staff would be preparing the legal description for the permanent easement to be conveyed. Maya- Chr.iEi: Thank you. Any discussion? It looks like a normal kind of thing. Resolution «91 - 52: Councilwoman Oiler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to grant a release of the temporary drainage easement conditioned upon the applicant, Mr. Powers executing a permanent drainage and utility easement with the City over the appropriate utility and lot lines in Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset View Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 20 • 1 1 f CITYOF r i 0 CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 DATE: September 22, 1992 SUBJ: Final Plat Review of Washta Bay Court (Replat of 6541 Minnewashta Parkway) File No. 91 -5 LUR 1 Upon review of the final plat dated August 19, 1992, I offer the following comments and I recommendations: The final plat is relatively straightforward with the exception of the ordinary water elevation 1 indicated on the final plat. This elevation should be 944.5 in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Staff has contacted the surveyor and received permission to change the elevation on the mylars. 1 One of the previous conditions of approval for this subdivision request was the applicant supply the City with a finished grading plan showing the existing and proposed finished two- t foot contours along with a development plan indicating the proposed house pad elevations including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. Therefore, it is recommended that the final plat be approved contingent upon receipt of a finished grading plan /development I plan showing the existing and proposed two -foot contour elevations along with the proposed house pad elevations including the lowest floor and garage floor elevations for this development. 1 ktm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 eir t� 1 f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 1 1 September 17, 1992 1 City of Chanhassen 1 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Attn: JoAnn Olsen ' JoAnn: I would appreciate your consideration on the removal of the single one dock for Lot 1 and Lot 1 2 on Lake Minnewashta subdivision request (#91 -3). 1. At this time, now and in the future, both owners of the Lots 1 and 2 have no intention 1 but to have one dock for both lots. 2. If one of us sells their home in the future I don't know if we will get along with our new neighbor creating a major conflict with the docks. I cannot speak for the future. 3. The two lots would be the only ones on the lake restricted to one dock usage. 1 4. What I'm asking is to show final plat al p at each lot having one dock. 1 Thank y. Dana Johnson 1 DJ:aj 1 1 1