1a. Preliminary Plat & Final to Subdivide Lyman Blvd. & Great Plains I CITY OF PC DATE: 3/4/92 l
CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/23/92
CASE #: 92 -3 SUB
1 B : Olsen:v
- STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Create One Single Family Lot and Two Outlots
1
I Q LOCATION: North of Lyman Boulevard, approximately 1/2 mile east of Great Plains
Boulevard
APPLICANT: Eugene Quinn Scott Harri
532 Lyman Boulevard VanDoren Hazard Stallings
1 Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 3030 Harbor Lane North
Minneapolis, MN 55447
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 10 acres
DENSITY: 1 unit /10 acre (gross) -1 unit /9.7 acres (net)
1 ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF /agricultural
I S - A2 /agricultural
E - RSF
1-� W - A2 /single family
1 d,
Li WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site.
I Lij
_ PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: There is an existing home and barn located on the site and a
manmade pond.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1
1
•
1
Oakwood Estates
March 4, 1992
Page 2
1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
Plat
The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into one single family lot and two
outlots. The single family lot, Lot 1, Block 1, has 3.07 acres in area and contains an existing
single family residence and barn. Outlot A has 2.1 acres and Outlot B contains 3.71 acres.
Both Outlots A and B are undeveloped parcels and will remain undeveloped. Outlot A is
proposed for preservation until sewer and water is available to the site, at which time it will
be further subdivided. Outlot B is being created to accommodate right -of -way for Highway
212. The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property to reduce the size of the lot
containing the home and barn to facilitate sale of the property. The proposed subdivision
does not change any of the existing conditions of the site. The site will remain as one site
containing a single family residence. The property is currently zoned RSF and is within the
' MUSA line. As of today, sewer and water is not yet available to the property. Therefore,
the site must still maintain a one unit per ten acre density and a minimum lot size of 2
acres. The proposed subdivision maintains these requirements.
' Outlots
1 Outlots A and B are not proposed for development. The outlots will have to be replatted
prior to any development of the site. The outlots cannot be replatted until sewer and water
is available to the site since the 1 unit per 10 acre density must be maintained. As the City
officially maps its wetlands, it will be determined if the pond on the site is actually a wetland
and how it should be treated. This determination will impact how many lots Outlot A can
contain in the future.
Streets
•
The gravel driveway currently services 4 single family residences. The City Code requires
any private drives servicing 2 or more residences to be improved to certain standards. Since
the existing conditions of the site are not changing and sewer and water will be provided to
this and adjacent sites in the future, staff is recommending that the existing driveway not be
required to be improved at this time. Once sewer and water is brought to the site and
future subdivisions are proposed, a public improvement project would be pursued to install
sewer and water within the proposed 60 foot right -of -way and the gravel driveway would
then be brought to urban street standards. Staff is concerned with a private driveway
located within a public right -of -way. To remove any conflicts with this, the City Attorney
shall prepare an easement agreement for liability and maintenance responsibilities of the
private drive. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and is not recommending a turn
around until the street is improved.
r
r
Oakwood Estates
March 4, 1992
Page 3
The site has public street frontage from Lyman Boulevard and the single family residence 1
is serviced by an existing gravel drive from Lyman Boulevard. The Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study recommends that Lyman Boulevard have a right -of -way of 120 feet
wide. Lake Riley Hills, located to the east of this subdivision, provides for the 120 feet of
right -of -way. The proposed plat should also provide an additional 27 feet of right -of -way
along the north side of Lyman Boulevard.
The plat is dedicating a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the existing driveway easement
(Quinn Road). The plat also provides a 60 foot wide utility easement continuing north of
the 60 foot wide street right -of -way up to the southerly lot line of Outlot B. To
accommodate future street improvements to service the property to the east, staff is
recommending that the proposed utility easement be designated as right -of -way so that a 60
foot wide right -of -way exists along the whole easterly side of Outlot A and Lot 1.
Easements 1
The applicant is providing the recommended easements along the lot lines.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT 1
Lot Front Rear Side 1
Area Setback Setback Setback
Ordinance 21 acres 30' 30' 10'
1
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 3.1 acres 75' 120' 30' 1
•
Outlots ** N/A 1
* * Setbacks apply when replatted 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat
#92 -3 to create one single family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February
3, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
1
1
1
1
Oakwood Estates
March 4, 1992
Page 4
1 1. The applicant shall provide an additional 27 feet of right -of -way along Lyman
Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the existing driveway
I easement and over the proposed 60 foot wide utility easement to the south lot line
of Outlot B.
' 2. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a driveway easement agreement releasing
the city from liability or maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until
the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards.
3. Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon until sewer and water are
available to the site.
' 4. The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street standards once
utilities are available and further lot subdivisions occur which utilize Quinn Road."
1
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' At the March 4, 1992, Plannin g meeting, meetin , the Commission recommended
approval with changes to staff's conditions #1 and #2, as follows:
' 1. The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right-of-way alon L
PP P g Lyman
' Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the existing driveway
easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will
continue north, turning east at the northwest corner of the Blosberg property, the
' exact distance to be determined by staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the city
releasing the city from liability or maintenace responsibilities over the private
driveways until the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards.
1 Emmings was opposed to the changes and wanted to stay with staffs proposed conditions.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92 -3 to create one single
family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3, 1992, and subject to the
following conditions:
1
1
1
Oakwood Estates
March 4, 1992
Page 5
1. The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Lyman 1
Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the existing driveway
easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will
continue north, turning east at the northwest corner of the Blosberg property, the
exact distance to be determined by staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the city 1
releasing the city from liability or maintenace responsibilities over the private
driveways until the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards. 1
3. Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon until sewer and water are
available to the site. 1
4. The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street standards once
utilities are available and further lot subdivisions occur which utilize Quinn Road." 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 26, 1992.
2. Topography of site.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 4, 1992.
4. Preliminary plat.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
1 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: February 26, 1992
' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Oakwood Estates
File No. 92 -4 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Van Doren- Hazard-
Stallings dated February 3, 1992, I offer the following comments
and recommendations:
' UTILITIES
There are currently no City utilities available to the site,
although the City has currently authorized a watermain improvement
' project along Lyman Boulevard this year. The City's plans do not
propose extending watermain service into this parcel. According to
City ordinance, the parcel is not required to hook up to City water
' unless the well on the property fails. Sanitary sewer service is
not currently available to the site.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Since this is basically a simple lot split, no grading is proposed
at this time.
STREETS
The applicant is proposing to dedicate 60 feet of right -of -way for
proposed Quinn Road along the easterly lot line of the parcel. The
' proposed road right -of -way dedication ends approximately 660 feet
into the parcel from Lyman Boulevard. The remaining 265 feet is
being proposed as a utility easement. In the future, Quinn Road
will be extended through the parcel to the east (Chadwick).
Therefore, it is recommended the proposed utility easement be
1
Jo Ann Olsen
February 26, 1992
Page 2
amended to be reflected as a road right-of-way. When Quinn Road is
extended easterly, any unused road right -of -way could be vacated.
The preliminary plat indicates 33 feet of right -of -way exists along .,
Lyman Boulevard. According to the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study, Lyman Boulevard is classified as a Class II
Collector which recommends 100 to 120 feet of right -of -way be
provided. The subdivision east of this parcel (Lake Riley Hills),
the developer dedicated the northerly half or 60 feet of the
required 120 feet of right -of -way along Lyman Boulevard. It is
therefore recommended that the applicant also dedicate 27 feet for
a total of 60 feet of right -of -way along Lyman Boulevard with the
final plat of Oakwood Estates.
A private driveway easement currently exists where the proposed
Quinn Road is shown. Staff feels it is not necessary to improve
the street at this stage since utilities are not being extended
into the parcel and no additional lots are being created. However,
staff is concerned with the private driveways being located within
the proposed public right -of -way. It is recommended that the City
Attorney's office prepare an easement agreement for liability and
maintenance responsibilities of the private driveways. Since at
some future date we anticipate Quinn Road being extended easterly
through the Chadwick property and no roadway improvements are
proposed, it is not necessary to provide a cul -de -sac at this time.
The Fire Marshal should be consulted to see if a temporary cul -de-
sac should be provided.
1
Miscellaneous '
According to the subdivision ordinance, the applicant is required
to enter into a development contract. However, since no public
improvements will be constructed with this development, the
requirement for the applicant to enter into a development contract
with the City may be deleted.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Outlot A
and Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat as right -of -way (Quinn Road).
2. City Attorney's office should prepare a driveway easement '
agreement releasing the City from liability or maintenance
responsibilities over the private driveways until the street
(Quinn Road) is constructed to City urban standards. 1
1
Jo Ann Olsen
February 26, 1992
Page 3
3. The applicant shall dedicate the southerly 27 feet of Outlot
A for Lyman Boulevard right -of -way.
1 ktm /jms
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
./ — 4! .' t e - % ' . ____,..4 p tilt • " -_-,e' /.,,, // --/-,•,./ -/ - ;.-. /,'-.- 7,- -.. ''' 4.-- ,•; \-te - t , , - 4 .*,-..v. u . 4 -. -- s if ... . _.., - _� 3 �/ r • ; .c - < .y. 1/4... � .r ..
> t. - - - ac 1 t ... _ �t_�/ i i i r' 9 � g•_
' .• ;i - sue: � _- �`" •,
- x
- - V- :ii P.$1#: i i
l *fir
f .4\
1
' w li - , c . ' T ' - tF " iCi3 -. "� b
- 4
J _ - = - _ s e r t ` • te 71. , .,, ,R 3 �/ s ib
_ 1, 1111 �tt
, _.____. - , - -...... .-..,.-. - .-,, --. 'VII, ".. ... ,, .. ' , ,,, , . / ...bi _ a,_ 4,, . - ,,,,,---..„--, _,,,_,...... rZ i Y S. _ y . t 1.'' r-
y �
` -�-7 ; , i + � r . ' L - L s J r', +; a � yam( ^ 1 ' . •
a j, i .,_ j 1 ( . , l ' I • - sl s + 3r
e
Y.� �' x �, r_ ic. IE
t , :..„_,,,,.... if fy �^` �' ��, 1
IL
s ie > � .(
4 , ) V . - . i- _ r ---
(<'.. .. _ --__ os ' ' -
1 4 . ... - 4; •,, , .;. . :... ...., , - Ili -„,• t" ,i . - .\ --.:,; - -r• ,.3-. - ---• -
- ... t 4 --.4--_, , - i '. i - 4
it- - R te - =� j z �.�, -.Y t - 1 , 4 -. . .- A s- �'. 1
3 +
- Vi`+,•:�1- - - s _ .� \ - <, - ` - �� f - +
../
�*-*- -. ',4.-.':.-',, SS / • . • a G.s- -� 4. \ / ! f
1
I / ....., . ) ... i 4. , , 1
• . . . �
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 4, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m...
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli,
' Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II
and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.99 ACRES INTO 1 SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
' LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, EUGENE QUINN.
Public Present: -
Name Address
Gene & Therese Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd.
Russell & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd.
Dixon & Diane Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd.
Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd.
' Mary Lou Jansen
Scott Harri 500 Lyman Blvd.
Eden Prairie
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff, report on this item. Chairman Batzli
x called the public hearing to order.
Scott Harri: Mr: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Scott Harri. I'm representing the Quinn's, the applicant in this matter
before you this evening. And I'd like to introduce Therese and Gene Quinn,
sitting in the second row and also their neighbors in here. The crux of
the proposal that you have before you, I think Jo Ann covered most of the
pertinent issues but again the main objective of this proposal is to create
and divide the property so the Quinn's can sell their single family lot and
as a result of that retain a portion of the property which is identified as
Outlot A, the parcel adjoining Lyman Blvd. for future development. And
since about 10 years ago the Quinn's have been, I don't know if tormented
l is the correct word but have been confronted with the TH 212 and it's
location studies in what's going to be the possible impact on the property.
And as a result of the recent actions, it's sitting right in their back
' yard right now. And in addition to that has been the land use changes to
the parcel to the west from a residential land use for future land use to
now mixed development allowing some commercial development which may have
an impact on the property values as far as single family and then most
recently what Jo Ann mentioned was in October the public hearings
concerning improvements, utilities, sewer and water to Lyman Blvd. to serve
the Lake Riley Hills subdivision and the impact of those assessments to the
property kind of really changing the whole complexion of this part of town
here. In looking at the staff report and some of the most recent trips
that the staff made to the site to look at the right -of -way issue, the
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 2
Quinn's feel that conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the staff report are totally
agreeable and that part of condition 1 relating to the right -of -way
dedication of the change in the 27 feet to the 7 feet on Lyman Blvd. is
also acceptable to them. We would however like to pursue a little bit of
dialogue regarding the extension of Quinn Road from where we propose it to
end and give some reasons why we think that it might be more prudent to
look at the development or the actual amount of right -of -way given for
Quinn Road at a time when the property to the east is developed. Right no
the roadway and the gravel driveway that serves two houses to the east of
Quinn's, sits right on the top of a hill. Any further roadway extension t
the north would be down in an approximate 4:1 or 3 :1 gradient. Therefore,
to make that a feasible road connection, a fair amount of earth work and '
cutting and filling and this sort of thing which would totally change the
character and the heavily wooded area once you move north of this site so
there are some physical constraints to the site both on the property to•th
east, which is identified as the Chadwick parcel and also the Quinn parcel
as far as topographic features. And right now what the Quinn's have put i
place is an easement for roadway purposes. Driveway easement between the
Chadwick parcel and their parcel which would allow for a future access to II
the right -of -way on the Quinn parcel. And then a final right -of -way could
be defined at that time which would then only reflect what is needed for a
future connection going east over there. And it's not that the Quinn's ar
opposed to the right -of -way issue but it becomes more of a practical matte
of the timing and their cooperation I guess would be•best served if
development plans to the east were more forth coming and then they would b
I guess in a position to work with this group and the developers on the
other side there. And just as I guess a footnote to this whole issue of
the parcel, currently they have, and I'll just talk in very round numbers,
10 acres of property of which .2 of an acre is the right -of -way on Lyman II
Blvd. as it currently exists. The proposal submitted to you tonight
without the conditions or the dedication requested in item number 1 would
result in the Quinn's either dedicating or end up having sell to MnDot II
4.8 acres of their 10 acre parcel or 48% which by most measures is
extremely high and in fact those longer term members on the Commission
probably have never seen a subdivision come in that was going to either
dedicate or end up giving right -of -way to 48 %. The conditions of item
number 1 would add almost another half an acre of requirement to the amoun
of right -of -way pushing this to almost 54% of the site just consumed by
right -of -way. So we're looking at hopefully some sympathy toward the II Quinn's. Not that they're opposed to the right -of -way issue but to work
with them on the timing issue of extending and actually platting right -of-
way to the north on Quinn Road. One of the final things that we would likil
to have entered into the official Minutes here tonight also is that a lot
of value of the property is in it's wooded nature out there and right along
Lyman Blvd. it's fairly heavily treed with a large stand of mature trees.
We would like, and we know that the City is very sensitive toward
preserving trees and the reduction of right -of -way requirement from 27 to
is really a positive move. We would like that to continue to reflect a
condition that as many of those existing trees be preserved because that
truly does provide ! guess a buffer to whatever development takes place in
the future on Outlot A on the Quinn parcel. So we are here and available
to answer any questions that either you have or that comes from the
audience. So with that I'll close my remarks.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 3
II
Batzli: Before I ask for other public comments, Jo Ann. Have we looked at
I the slope and whether that would even be a feasible roadway to put it in?
Olsen: Right. If you look on the second page of the plans you can see
I that there is still some area even between where the slope and the trees
actually start beyond where they're giving the 60 foot right -of -way. That
area is potential for where the curve in the road could exist and until we
know exactly where that's going, we really want to have that right -of -way
II
because now is when it can be dedicated. We've explained to the applicant
that once that road is determined, that right -of -way that is not necessary
we can have vacated. If we do not get that right -of -way at this time, and
II the Chadwick property is developed in the future, then it's difficult to
obtain that right -of -way. We would have to possibly pay for it or condemn
for it so right now it's to the City's benefit to retain as much right -of
I way as they think is necessary. So yes it is possible still to have the
road actually go into beyond where they're providing the right -of -way at
this time.
II Batzli: If we didn't do it at this time, what is the most likely way that
you'd be able to get access to Outlot B? Would it be over the Chadwick
property here somehow?
II Olsen: Outlot B will be Highway 212. You'll never need access to that.
If you can see where the driveway is sketched in, the dotted line.
II = Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to make comments? Can
you give your name and address please?
Gene Quinn: My name is Gene Quinn and that's our property there that we're
k looking at. When I first looked at selling this parcel of land, okay first
of all you've got 4 acres that's I guess legally mapped now for the freeway
1 so I'm really forced into subdividing this to ever sell it. Because the
Highway Department won't buy it right ,now and who knows what it's worth.
And so I have to go through this whole process. You know basically all I
want to do is put in about 6 property boundaries. I'm not changing land
I
use. I'm not changing how many people live there. That road has been
there for, I don't know, 15 or 20 years at least. Everybody that's lived
around there, it's been there for 15 years. I feel overall it's, why are
we looking at having to even look at that road at this time. You know I'm
not looking to subdivide it. At the time that people want to subdivide
that land, they can come in and look at the whole picture of it.
1 Batzli: Anything else?
Gene Quinn: Especially the piece up to the north of that, I've got an
easement to Chadwick.' In fact Dick Chadwick wrote it up himself. He's an
attorney and he owns the property up next to it. I guess I don't feel that
we really have any justification for taking all that right -of -way up there.
I I would leave it going up to the property line and maybe up 16 more feet to
get to Chadwicks but to take it, that's 200 and some feet. From there up
to the freeway line.
II Batzli: What is your easement with Chadwick's say?
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 4
Gene Quinn: Well it's a 60 foot by 60 foot easement that would extend jus
north of where I'm showing the road parcel.
Batzli: But that's just to get on Chadwick's?
Gene Quinn: Would get onto his property. Right now the road goes from
that corner. It goes along east. So there's an existing gravel road there
and all that serves them other two houses.
Batzli: You don't have an agreement with Chadwick regarding going over his
property to get to what is going to be Outlot 8?
Gene Quinn: No, I don't need it.
Krauss: Unless Outlot 8 is not acquired for 212 for some reason, which is
possible.
Gene Quinn: I'm going to keep an easement straight north up to where the
land that the freeway's going to take just so it's not landlocked. And i
you stand out there and look at that road, to ever get it down the hill, it
makes no sense at all. It makes no economic sense.
Batzli: Okay, well thank you.
Gene Quinn: Well thank you. 1
Batzli: Anyone else?
Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz. My land abuts Mr. Quinn's. I'm very
familiar with the parcel of land. Mr. Quinn said the road was only there
for 15 years. The private road or Quinn Road. Gus Grippendrof who lived
to be nearly 100 years old lived there for about 50 years. I think was on
�
of the first houses, was the only house on that 40 acres at that time and
that's where he laid out the road because it was the most appropriate and
best place for a road to go into the property. When you look at the map II
there, just beyond where the road turns, there is a considerable steep
slope. I'm sure that those lines on there are 2 foot contours and you
count those lines and there must be a drop from the space between the two
wider lines just north of the pink line there of about 18 to 20 feet. And 11
I think that's why Mr. Chadwick feels that's where the road should have to
turn because of the future possibility of even fitting a house into that
corner lot. If you went down the hill a little further, the house would II
more than likely sit down in the wetlands. But if he could keep enough
land into the slope of a hill for a walkout home, and keep the road
approximately where it shows on the line or just A. little bit further to II
the north. It would make it much more feasible for Mr. Chadwick and to
extend that 60 feet down to a new highway proposed 12 which really runs
down into some pretty low land. In fact you try to walk out there in the
spring or right now, you'd be walking in water. Thank you. 1
•
Batzli: Anyone else like to address the Commission?
Al Klingelhutz: Oh, there was one other thing I was going to say. Those II
trees along Lyman Blvd. have sort of been a beautiful landmark, especially
1
1
' 'Planning Commission Meeting
II March 4, 1992 - Page 5
II in the fall of the year. They're huge oak trees. The first time I can
remember when I lived on that land 70 years now, and it'd be almost a shame
to destroy any of them for right-of-way. I did talk to the Carver County
engineer on this and he said there's a good possibility when they would .
1 take a look at it if Lyman Blvd. ever became a county road, which is
proposed in the eastern Carver County transportation plan. That they would
try to avoid as much of those trees as possible. Plus the fact that two
I houses adjacent to Lyman Blvd. just to the east and I think the City here
is taking a good hard look at that because they did reduce the amount of
right -of -way along there. It would almost bring that right -of -way up to
their doorsteps. And just a little further east there's about a 2 1/2 -3
II acre wetland which would be encroached upon too.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else?
II Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1 Erhart: It's shown on the plan here as a utility easement. Is there a
need for a utility easement aside from the desire to have the street
easement?
II Olsen: We're not exactly sure where the utilities will go once they're
brought to that site.
1 Erhart: Would you bring it across the freeway?
II Krauss: Well from what we know on the current feasibility studies, no.
There's no utility crossing proposed over there. We didn't sketch that
utility easement on in that area.
1 Erhart: It was put in there by the developer?
Olsen: Right.- The utilities would come up from Lyman Blvd..
1 Krauss: Or come along this new road that may extend.
Erhart: You mean that wasn't put in at the same time the 60 foot dotted .
I line was? Or they put that in afterwards? I don't understand that.
Krauss: Commissioner Erhart, what we're saying is we requested a 60 foot
II right -of -way for what is now Quinn Road. The utility easement extending up
to the highway is not something we requested. It was on a survey.
I Erhart: Oh, somebody just put that on there?
Olsen: So we're requesting that that also be.
I Erhart: Alright. Then I guess for one thing, I guess tradition has it, if
you feel you have, well I'll just say I guess it would seem to me that
going beyond what would be needed to curve the street there to the east
11 would be unnecessary, particularly if we don't feel that there's ever a
utility easement needed to go up to the freeway. If we did feel there's a
utility easement, it would be certainly less than 60 feet wide so I guess I
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting '
3 March 4, 1992 - Page 6
would have to, in this rare case agree with the developer that going beyon
some point where you would start to curve to the east and then add what it
would take to complete the curve would be as much as you'd reed.
Olsen: We might not necessarily need it all the way up to Outlot B but yo1
do need it beyond what they're giving.
Erhart: Beyond because I'm not sure where that it but it has to be enough,
so you can make a nice curve to the east. I don't know exactly what that
is. I kind of scratched something in here but the other thing is, where
the current driveway goes over the Blosberg property, does that mean, I
assume that there's no easement to start the curve further south or is
II
there?
-
Krauss: No. I
Erhart: No. So we really have to start the curve at that intersection of
property line I'm assuming. Then I guess my recommendation would be that
staff figure out how much more space you need to make a safe curve and sto
the easement at that point. Other than that, it's pretty simple.
Batzli: Tim, so you don't, you're not uncomfortable at all that Outlot B 1
may be landlocked even though that's where the freeway's going? If the
freeway doesn't go through, we've created something that's landlocked.
Erhart: One thing, if that would be a concern, then the easement we ought"
to be requesting ought to be 30 feet, not 60 because tradition has that we
take half from both property owners along a line if we consider that '
someday that we would need a thru street. Is there some doubt about the
, freeway at this point? After all these years. That's a real question. Oh
boy. Let me think about that one. Can anybody respond? Your question is
is there some doubt about.
II
Batzli: I don't know. It seems to me that's why the condition is in there
because it would be vacated if, there'd be no reason to extend it if the II
freeway goes in.
Erhart: Then I misunderstood it. If that's the purpose of asking for 60
feet, in case the freeway doesn't go in. 1
Batzli: Is that right Jo Ann?
Olsen: The main concern we had was to accommodate the road to service, II
that's going to be servicing Chadwick was the main concern. To accommodate
that curve. I think we have more confidence that 212 will go through.
II
Batzli: So you just want to accommodate a curve into Chadwick? You think
212 is going to go in, that doesn't matter?
Olsen: That was our primary, but it's a good point that Outlot B would bell
landlocked. I mean that's a good point.
Krauss: Well, you can always resolve that and maybe Gene's probably II
willing to consider taking a private easement over his property so he can
1
1
•Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 7
11 give himself access to there.
Emmings: Didn't he say he's already done that or he's doing that?
' Gene Quinn: I'm going to keep an easement to the north..
Emmings: How wide?
' Gene Quinn: How wide? I can keep 60 feet. I would keep that until you
know, it would expire when the freeway land is purchased.
Emmings: Yeah.
Erhart: And we'd put that into the conditions.
' Emmings: No, that's private. He's doing that for himself.
Conrad: I have nothing to add.
Emmings: Just a comment I guess. If he's going to keep a 60 foot easement
to make sure that Outlot B isn't landlocked in case 212 doesn't go through,
it doesn't seem to me to be much of a burden for us to say that that's a,
that we want to retain some options there and this is the time to do it.
So I'd concur with the staff report on this with the understanding that
' once we know that 212 is through and once we figure out how to get into the
Chadwick property, that the rest would be vacated. That seems to me to be,
that preserves the most options for the city so that's what I like. The
only other thing I'd say is that the northern boundary of Lot 1 would come
south. Are the plans on the highway final enough so we can say there's no
chance that that property line will change to accommodate the highway?
' Olsen: I just talked to them last week and there has been no changes.
They're still working on the EAW so there's always still the potential but
that they don't see it changing here. But there's no guarantee that they
might acquire more land.
' Emmings: Okay. I don't have any more.
' Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Ahrens: Just one question for Mr. Quinn. You don't have any objections to
the long right -of -way the City wants north of, or south of the current
driveway? That runs along the east side of your property.
Gene Quinn: I have 60 feet.
Ahrens: That driveway that runs along the property. You don't have any
objection to that right -of -way I take it?
Gene Quinn: You mean this piece?
Ahrens: Right.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 8 1
Gene Quinn: No, I didn't hav6 any objection to here and I'd go up even 60
more feet. To me this, if you had to put a road here you could do it the
same as the intersection in the city. I mean I don't want a 30 mph curve.
Ahrens: I understand the applicant's concern. I think the City should
only take as much land as is necessary to make the curve to Mr. Chadwick's
property. As long as there's going to be a private easement...
Batzli: Does that need to be a condition or do you feel comfortable that 1
that's a private matter between Lot 1 and Outlot B?
Ahrens: I think that he's going to have to do it because he doesn't want II
to eliminate his options for any development of Outlot B if in fact...
Batzli: I don't have anything other than I guess what Joan and Steve and I
Tim's comments. A motion?
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92 -3, dated February 3, 1992 with change"
to condition number 1 to read, that the applicant provide 7 feet of
right -of -way along Lyman Blvd. and will dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of-
way
over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for
establishing a future street which will continue north, turning east at the
northwest corner of the Blosberg property. That distance to be, that exac
distance to be determined by staff. All the other conditions to remain th
same.
Conrad: I second that.
Batzli: Discussion.
Conrad: We didn't talk about the trees and the concern for the trees and I
the 7 feet of right -of -way. Do we need any comments on that?
Krauss: We really have no idea at this point what the impact, if any will I
be of the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd.. Only taking 7 feet of right -of-
way at this point would tend to limit any intrusion.
Ahrens: Are the trees located in that? I don't have any idea if the tree,
would be located in that area.
Krauss: I was out there today with Gene. I'm not certain. '
Olsen: Some will be within there but the road will probably be centered
within the right -of -way so what we're doing is really pushing the right - of.
way to the south, which is farm field. It seems logical that that's where III
they'd go.
Emmings: Any street, the fact that the trees are in the right -of -way 1
doesn't mean they're automatically going to get knocked down I take it.
Number 1. Number 2. The City of Chanhassen, what role does the City have
if the County should upgrade and widen that road? 1
Krauss: Well the fact of the matter is, it's not a county road.
1
1
! ' Planning Commission Meeting
;II March 4, 1992 - Page 9
I Emmings: Oh it's not. What is it?
Krauss: It's a city street. It probably should become a county road at
some point.
1 Emmings: If it's a city street then we have control over what trees get
knocked down. If it's a county road, do we have control?
111 Olsen: We can still comment.
Emmings: Okay. I don't see we can impose any conditions on the
1 subdivision that are going to affect those decisions later.
Conrad: Basically what that does, this decision has put the right -of -way
1 more to the other side of the road and that would be acceptable.
Batzli: .I have a comment on item 2 actually. I'd like to propose that we
I amend that to read, applicant shall enter into a driveway easement
agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or
maintenance responsibilities, etc., etc.. In other words we'd cross off
the first words, the City Attorney's office shall prepare and add, the
I applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to
the City.
Erhart: I so amend.
1 A
Batzli: Do you agree with that, your second?
1 Conrad: Oh sure. I so second.
x _
Batzli: Any more discussion?
I Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92 -3 to create one single
I family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3, 1992 and
subject to the following conditions:
1 1. The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right -of -way along
Lyman Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the
existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing
a future street which will continue north, turning east at the
I northwest corner of the Blosberg property, the exact distance to be
determined by staff.
I 2. The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement
satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or
maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until the
street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards.
1 3. Outlots A and 8 cannot be replatted or built upon until sewer and water
are available to the site.
1 4. The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street
standards once utilities are available and further lot subdivisions
1
1
i Planning Commission Meeting -
i March 4, 1992 - Page 10
II
occur which utilize Quinn Road.
II
All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 1.
Batzli: And your reasons for opposing.
Emmings: I just go along with the staff report on this.
il
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SECTIONS O'
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE A -1, A -2, AND RR DISTRICTS BY
ELIMINATING THE 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL AREA.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli 1
called the public hearing to order.
Aanenson: I did have a few phone calls on...concern was people who alreadI
had 2 acre lots, could they split their lots and that's not the intent of
this. This is for someone who has 10 acres. I think that's where the
confusion came in because they thought they could split their lot and if I
they could still get the two septic sites on it...
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 1
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: I, have no comments.
I
Farmakes: No comments on this either.
Emmings: I can't understand something that you've written here. Number 3'
says that each site must have at least 1 acre of area which can support 2
septic system 'sites. I suppose there should be a comma there.
Aanenson: We're thinking one area. Instead of taking one acre, we want t'
take out the acre and saying one area.
Emmings: Okay. It's one area which can support two septic system sites, 1
building pad and a well.
Aanenson: That's what's existing right now in the rural lot.
1
Emmings: Okay, but the it says with a slope of 25% or less. Does the
slope of 25% or less go with the area or does it go with the septic
I
systems?
Olsen: It goes with the area. •
Emmings: Okay, this is real conf - using. It needs punctuation real bad. I
Aanenson: What it is...
1
Emmings: It's what?
1