3. Preliminary Plat 6541 Minnewashta Pkwy C IT Y O F PC DATE: May 1, 1991
�,� �� CC DATE: May 20 , 19 91 ‘ .3
II
,� c H�ANHASSEN
i + CASE : 91-3 SUB
By: Olsen/v
IHempel
II STAFF REPORT
il
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 39,885 square feet into Two Single Family
I I Riparian Lots of 19,943 square feet and Variance Request
to the Lot Area and Lot Width Requirements
II Z :;V`.
Q LOCATION: 6541 Minnewashta Parkway � """
' J APPLICANT: Ken Lund and Dana Johnson /Z� /,1
Q_ 6301 Greenbriar
Excelsior, MN 55331 _.
5-�" /w
I Q r 5-ac-91
1
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 39,885 square feet
II DENSITY:
1 ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; vacant
S - RSF; recreational beachlot
IE - Minnewashta Parkway and RSF .
L� W - Minnewashta Parkway and RSF
r WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
IO PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site currently contains a vacant single
family residence, driveway access to
I W Minnewashta Parkway and a shed. The subject
site is a riparian lot with a DNR protected
creek directly to the north and located on a
I (f) portion of the subject property.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
I
I
I O p O Q �O i
Washta Bay Court I
May 1, 1991
Page 2
PROPOSAL
Lot Layout and Variances '
The applicants are proposing to split a single family residential
lot into two single family lots. The lot has an existing home
which has been vacant for two years. The lot is bordered by
Minnewashta Parkway to the west, a DNR protected creek to the north
Lake Minnewashta to the east and a recreational beachlot to the
south. The Zoning Ordinance requires riparian lots to have a
minimum of lot area of 20, 000 square feet and a minimum of 75 feet
of lot width at the ordinary high water mark. There is also a 50
foot setback for any structure from the protected creek.
The proposed lots do not meet the lot area requirement of 20, 000
square feet nor do they provide the required 75 foot lot width.
The proposed lots contain 19, 943 square feet in lot area, which is
57 square feet short of the 20,000 square foot minimum for each
lot. The lot width at the ordinary high water mark for each lot is
74 feet which is only 1 foot less than the required 75 foot width
at the ordinary high water mark. Although the lot area and lot
width of the proposed lots are just under the required minimum,
they still require a variance for the lots to be approved. The
applicants must prove that a hardship exists in order for the
variances to be granted. The buildable area on Lot 1, Block 1 is
also restricted due to the 50 foot setback from the DNR protected
creek.
Section 20-58 of the City Code lists the following criteria for a
variance to be granted: ,
A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met:
a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue
hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put
to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a- use made by a
majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet
of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that
blend with these pre-existing standards without departing from
them meet this criteria.
* Currently, the existing single family lot has reasonable
use with the ability to support one single family
residence. In addition, the surrounding riparian lots
within 500 feet of the subject property all contain the
minimum of 20, 000 square feet and 75 foot lot width.
II
II Washta Bay Court
May 1, 1991
•
Page 3
IITherefore, there are not pre-existing standards which
would allow the creation of a single family lot which
Idoes not meet the lot area or width requirements.
. athe conditions upon which a petition for a variance is
based are not applicable, generally, to other property within
Ithe same zoning classification.
* There are no unique conditions of the subject property
1 which result in the need for the variance. The property
simply does not have enough square footage or width to
meet the minimum requirements. The location of the DNR
protected creek with the 50 foot setback, imposes
I
restrictions on the buildable area of Lot 1, Block 1.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of
land.
II * The creation of two single family lots from one single
family lot does increase the value and income potential
of the subject parcel of land. The primary reason the
variances are being requested is so the applicants can
Iafford to build a home on Lake Minnewashta.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created
Ihardship.
* The hardship is self-created. The existing lot is
I conforming and the request to split the lot into two
single family lots results in the need for variances.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
I the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
I * The variances requested are very minor in terms of square
footage and lot width. The granting of the variances
will result in an additional single family residence on
Lake Minnewashta.
IIf. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property or substantially
I increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the
Ineighborhood.
* The proposed variance will result in increased density
over what would typically be permitted. This could be
I
Washta Bay Court I
May 1, 1991
Page 4
considered to increase the danger of fire or public
safety and increase congestion of public streets.
In addition to the lot area and lot width variance requests, there ,
is the potential for another variance request for the 50 foot
setback from the DNR protected creek adjacent to the north property
line. The preliminary plat shows the buildable area of Lot 1,
Block 1, with a 30 foot setback from the street, a 10 foot setback
from the side lot, 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark and a
50 foot setback from the creek. There is an area for a home to be
located but the buildable area is very restrictive. There is a
possibility that a variance would be requested to the 50 foot
setback to allow more flexibility in the location and design of a
home on Lot 1, Block 1. Currently, the existing home is
approximately 32 feet from the protected creek. Staff explained to
the applicants that if the existing non-conforming structure was
removed, any new structures would have to meet the required
setbacks. A variance to the 50 foot setback would be considered by
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Utilities
The existing house is currently connected to both municipal
sanitary sewer and water service from Minnewashta Parkway. An
additional sanitary sewer and water service hook-up is also
available to the parcel from Minnewashta Parkway.
Streets
The parcel fronts Minnewashta Parkway, which is a 22 foot wide
bituminous roadway that is in generally poor condition. As you may
be aware, the city is currently preparing a feasibility study to
consider upgrading Minnewashta Parkway to a 32 foot wide urban
street including curb and gutter, storm sewer and trail. The
proposed improvements will not require additional right-of-way or
permanent easements from this parcel.
Grading and Drainage '
The site currently sheet drains from Minnewashta Parkway to Lake
Minnewashta. The plans do not propose any grading or drainage
improvements. The northerly edge of the parcel borders a stream.
This stream is the outlet for Lake Minnewashta which drains
northwesterly under TH 7 into Lake Virginia in the City of
Shorewood. It is recommended that the applicant dedicate a
drainage and utility easement over the northeasterly 10 feet of Lot
1, Block 1, to protect the stream bank which extends into Lot 1. ,
The existing ground elevation at the proposed house pad locations
is between 947.20 to 948.50. According to the U. S. Department of
II
11 Washta Bay Court
May 1, 1991
Page 5
IHousing and Urban Development floodway map, Community Panel No.
270051 0005B, the 100 year flood elevation for Lake Minnewashta is
II 945. 00 (NGVD 1929) . This elevation may restrict the type of houses
built on these lots. City Ordinance No. 142, Section 23 , requires
residential basement construction be 2 feet above the regulatory
flood protection elevation (945.00) . This will require additional
II fill material to be hauled into the site. It is recommended that
the applicant supply the City with a development plan showing the
lowest floor and garage floor elevation for each lot. Along with
I a grading and erosion control plan to ensure proper drainage around
the house pads.
ICOMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lakeshore Creek
Area Frontage Setback Setback
IOrdinance 20, 000 90 ' 75 ' 50 '
II BLOCK 1
Lot 1 19,943* 152 ' 74 '* 50 '**
IILot 2 19, 943* 114 ° 741 * N/A
* Variance required
** Potential Variance
IISUMMARY
I What started out as a simple lot split has turned into a difficult
situation with the discovery of two variances required for approval
of the subdivision. This situation is made even more difficult in
that the variances are very minor. The lots are only 57 square
II
feet under the required 20, 000 square foot lot area minimum and
only 1 foot less than the 75 foot lot width requirement. The DNR
protected creek to the north of the property also creates a
I potential for a future variance request for the location of a
single family home on Lot 1, Block 1. Therefore, the lot split
could potentially result in the need for 3 variances to be granted.
II The DNR's position is that they would recommend denial of the
variances but if the city does recommend approval of the variances,
they would not make an objection (Attachment #2) .
I Staff is in the same situation as the DNR. Even though the
variances can be considered minor, the lots do not meet the
ordinance requirements. Staff must recommend denial unless a
I hardship can be shown (not financial) . The hardship is clearly
self-created in that the existing lot is conforming and subdividing
it into two single family lots is resulting in the need for
IIvariances. There is no neighborhood substandard for undersized
II
I
Washta Bay Court I
May 1, 1991
Page 6
lots for which staff can recommend approval of the variances. 1
Using the criteria for which to grant a variance, staff cannot
determine that a variance is warranted. Therefore, staff has no
choice but to recommend denial of the requested variances and the
subdivision. The Planning Commission and City Council can
recommend approval of the variances if they feel that they are
minor enough that approval does not result in a significant impact
to the lake and surrounding properties. Should the Planning
Commission and Council recommend approval, reasons for the approval
should be stated so that a precedence is not set for future
riparian lots requiring variances. The Planning Commission and
City Council should also state whether a variance to the 50 foot
setback should be permitted, if requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On May 1, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
subdivision request. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to
recommend denial of the preliminary plat since it resulted in 2
non-conforming lots. The two Commissioners who voted against the
recommendation to deny the subdivision did so because they'felt the
variances were so small.
During the public hearing, an issue of drainage across the
southerly portion of the subject site was brought up by an adjacent
property owner. Staff confirmed with the Engineering Department
that whatever drainage is taking place on the site will be
accommodated by the 5 foot drainage easement provided as part of
the plat.
Planning staff is still in the position that we must recommend '
denial of the proposed subdivision since it results in two non-
conforming lots and a hardship has not been shown.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: '
"The City Council moves to deny the preliminary plat #91-3 as shown
on plans dated April 1, 1991, for the following reason:
1. The subdivision creates two non-conforming lots. "
Should the City Council approve the request, the following
conditions should be adopted:
1. The applicant shall supply the City with a development plan 11 indicating the proposed house pad elevations, including the
lowest floor and garage floor elevations.
1
I
Washta Bay Court
May 1, 1991
Page 7
2 . The applicant shall supply the City with a finished grading
plan showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour
1 elevations for review and approval.
3 . The final plat shall reflect a 10 foot wide drainage and
utility easement over the 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 public improvements are
required for the subdivision.
5. Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point, in
an effort to limit the access points out onto Minnewashta
Parkway.
1 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources
permits, if any.
1 7. The existing home must be vacated and utilities permanently
disconnected before approval of the lot split.
' 8. A demolition permit is required before demolition begins on
the dwelling.
' ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 24, 1991.
2. Letter from DNR dated April 24, 1991.
3 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 9, 1991.
4 . Letter from applicants.
' 5.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated May 1, 1991.
Preliminary plat dated April 1, 1991.
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
II
--
‘101vit
CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr . Engineering Technician I
DATE: April 24 , 1991
II
SUBJ: Proposed Lot Subdivision - 6541 Minnewashta Parkway
LUR 91-5
II
UTILITIES
The existing house is currently connected to both municipal 1
sanitary sewer and water service from Minnewashta Parkway. An
additional sanitary sewer and water service hook-up is also II available to the parcel from Minnewashta Parkway .
STREETS I
The parcel fronts Minnewashta Parkway which is a 22 foot wide
bituminous roadway in generally poor condition . As you may be 1
aware, the city is currently preparing a feasibility study to
consider upgrading Minnewashta Parkway to a 36 foot wide urban
street including curb and gutter, storm sewer and trailway. The
proposed improvements will not require additional right-of-way or
II
permanent easements from this parcel .
GRADING AND DRAINAGE - II
The site currently sheet drains from Minnewashta Parkway to Lake II
Minnewashta. The plans do not propose any grading or drainage
improvements . The northerly edge of the parcel borders a stream.
This stream is the outlet for Lake Minnewashta which drains II northwesterly under Trunk Highway 7 into Lake Virgnia in the City
of Shorewood. It is recommended that the applicant dedicate a
drainage and utility easement over the northeasterly 10 feet of
Lot 1, Block 1, to protect the stream bank which extends into Lot II
1 (see attachment #1 ) .
11
II
I
11 Jo Ann Olsen
April 24, 1991
Page 2
•
The existing ground elevation at the proposed house pad locations
is between 947 . 20 to 948 .50 . According to the U.S. Department of
I Housing and Urban Development floodway map, Community Panel
No. 2700510005 B the 100 year flood elevation for Lake
Minnewashta is 945 .00 (NGVD 1929 ) . This elevation may restrict
the type of houses built on these lots . City Ordinance No. 142,
Section 23, requires residential basement construction be 2 feet
above the regulatory flood protection elevation ( 945 .00 ) . This
will require additional fill material to hauled into the site . It is
' recommended that the applicant supply the City with a development
plan showing the lowest floor and garage floor elevation for each
lot. Along with a grading and erosion control plan to insure
proper drainage around the house pads .
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1 . The applicant shall supply to the City a development plan
indicating the proposed house pad elevations including lowest
floor and garage floor elevations .
' 2 . The applicant shall supply the City a finished grading plan
showing existing and proposed finished 2 foot contour
elevations for review and approval .
3 . Final plat shall reflect a 10 foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the 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 public improvements required for the sub-
division .
' 5 . Each lot should be restricted to one driveway access point,
in an effort to limit the access points out onto Minnewashta
' Parkway.
6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources
permit, if any.
lap
c: Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer
11
I
i ,v, vl o
a' so 5
7 v . 0
\ •C_ r 9� \� I III
� `-�_ pp may .", \nom/ .1"•* *2---.
NY.), ' 9„M h yso.e S- I
a,"/ N` - 1 931 .9 -�
'`9,86-5----„,-.;;;;_.//39� Iq K�Y�•- � 0 �� r f�,
�1 _ � 1 5q86-'''''',7.... ^//6 Z6�• "�" \�\ ¢96 949- X'9gJ J 'v
4 \ / c 89,,, �
\P f 5 ��‹ _ non /° {90
495 P , . /., ._.„/ /' y
4j D .
O IA'/A/A'/A// � c�
v� �� ms`s�6 '� /
/ • .,..,.,:///
9
49 g7,;;>:,,,,:
/ .V .,./.// s nB 9
sT 4 1D • f''_,. , ,
m• / *34B a U 24, -/ iso s y9
:11 S Gj\I '�'j / /// _
4 Tod °\ /j '6 \C�
/Bi_6 /tip./ / / / /
6 S ` 6 Ga' t /,/�/ / •
'5- _ ,/9.')' - �_- _ / /�yZ — — — /
Rjs4` B L X 57
/7 "2' '- PROPOSED 10FT. EASEMENT
r
� s
\� S/ �\
,V,// „7, i
\ 9.S \- /
4 %.:�� I
�kF \ e /�/ X/' ///
w� �, �d/ Sy ,.^ I Ai ks
�a /-G'/=��e So c�zS/g 'Y
4r' .7r��,.[ .9/
f',)„ S.:1/4„,_,...
.c -
I
I
1
I
I
ATTACHMENT # 1
I
1..)1VR IltIKU Ktb1UN b ItL : b11-2 b-1rb3 Hpr 24 , 91 14 : 40 No . 010 P .02/C
STATE
�hh rr�� Trr��T O F
E
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Rd. , St. Paul, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772-7910 MA NO
April 24 , 1991
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: VARIANCE REQUEST, LUND AND JOHNSON, LAKE MINNEWASHTA (10-9P) ,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY
i! Dear Ms. Olsen:
We have reviewed the variance request (received 4/4/91) for the
above-referenced proposal . The request involves subdividing a
39,885 square foot parcel into two lots of 19,943 square feet with
lot widths of 74 feet; therefore, a variance from the minimum lot
size -of 20, 000 square feet and minimum lot width of 75 feet is
required. We recommend denial of this variance request. We
recognize there are substandard lots that were subdivided prior to
the city's adoption of shoreland regulations, however, creating
additional substandard lots would be contradictory to the intent of
the city's shoreland regulations.
II In this particular situation, we recognize that the lot sizes and
widths are very close to the minimums. We also recall that the
ii original survey for this parcel indicated a much larger lot. Based
on these considerations, we would not object if the city granted a
variance for the proposed subdivision.
You also asked me to comment on the possibility of a variance from
the 50 foot setback from the creek on the northern side of the
parcel. We would not object to a variance as long as the
reconstructed structure is no closer to the creek than the existing
structure. Basically, we do not want to see the current
11 nonconformity exacerbated. If a more extreme variance is
1: considered, we would need to determine whether hardship exists.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-
7910 if you have questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
CA‘-.9 .-4-4------p,v.
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
cc: Chanhassen shoreland file
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
CITYOF
i III
. , ..,
0 CHANHASSEN 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: JoAnn OIsen , Senior Planner 1
FROM : Steve A. Kirchman , Building Official
DATE : April 9 . 1991 II
St-13J : Planning Case : 91 -3 SUB ( Lurid & Johnson )
II
1 . Home must be vacated and utilities permanently disccgnnecte_d
II
before approval of lot split . Permits required for utility
disconnect .
2 . Demolition permit required before demolition begins on 1
dw€ 11ing .
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
11
II
I
r
I
April 1 , 1991
6301 Greenbriar
Excelsior , MN 55331
Tel . 474-0103
' Ms . Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Re : Proposed Washta Bay Court
Dear Jo Ann:
We are proposing to subdivide into two lots the Cecila E.
McClenaghen property on the westerly side of Lake
Minnewashta . The existing property contains 39 , 885 square
feet . This is 115 square feet less than the required 40 , 000
square feet . Also, the rear or lakeside has an existing
width of 148 . 00 feet which is 2 . 00 feet less than the 150 . 00
feet required.
I 'm asking for two variances on said property and why it
' would better the Minnewashta/Chanhassen area .
The proposed plat , therefore , will require two variances :
' First , each lot will have 19 , 943 square feet which is 57
square feet less than required by City ordinance .
Second , each lot will have a rear or lakeside distance
of 74 . 00 feet which is 1 . 0 foot less than required by
City ordinance .
a . Taxes on said property now are as of 1990 , $2 ,092 .
The tax base after the division will be at a higher
tax rate .
b. Houses will be valued at $225 , 000 to $250 , 000 .
According to the tax assessor , that would be
$4600 . 00 each. Total extra taxes would be $9200 . 00 .
per year .
c . There will be two single family houses built on this
property .
I
i
1
I
1
d . It apppears on the sanitary sewer plan that there is
two sewer and water services to the property. At that
time the city engineer and the city must have thought
this property was dividable .
e . The house has now been vacant for two years and is
in poor condition. It would benefit the surrounding
properties by having the house demolished and
replaced with the two new homes . We think it would
greatly improve the area look.
f . I know my feet on the lake side is short , but it ' s '
only 24 inches short of the 150 square feet . That ' s
only 12 inches per lot . And the square footage is
also short by a total of 115 square feet . That ' s 57
square feet per lot ; the size of a walk-in closet in
a house .
I 'm squeezed in between the road and the lake . I
I know I do not meet the city subdivision
requirements , but the difference is so small . Dana
Johnson lived in the Minnewashta area for 15 years .
Ken Lund has lived there for 22 years . We both have
lake access and our families have always dreamed of
living on Lake Minnewashta. This was the first
affordable dream lake lot in the years we 've lived
there that came up on the market .
I hope you will kindly ok our Washta Bay Court variances on
our subdivision. The new homes will greatly improve the look
of the area .
Sincerely ,
Dana Johnson Ken Lund
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE .
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
¢L U` (612) 937-1900
( , EVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
C���c��� r���--�-
,��1I �JL �111/�� v� L'e3Gi� 4
ck
APPLICANT: OWNER:
ADDRESS: S L l C.-!`E C ws -��``ic�r'�
ADDRESS: 3� Pc`tic'-L i1 C.
' �h °_,rCt ( \A' S S33
, rr r`1 Ssy
TELEPHONE (Day time) i 7V0 TELEPHONE:
1 7y0�
t. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Subdivision
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
3 Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. Sign Plan Review
10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property wners within 500 feet of the boundari es o f the property must
included with the application.
' Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
I
PROJECT NAME V\% Ci-s k-1-cL. lam./ Co�.;-T I
LOCATION
1 /
LEGAL DESCRIPTION L G / &A,'d i Ai) Sc�v� W t s7 t �tcdQ: Cif
�'�C ��``'`"'
U) uctfer Ce Sec---h c r,-) 5-, Icnwt.1Se,; P ilto R4oye 3 I
I
S PRESENT ZONING `\S (—
REQUESTED ZONING Rs F- I
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION cS ,a Q vi-Li 4 , L0 v'J ckd,,) `,i-ki
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION P C S;deKAI c(2 /C v.) df? ► L s 4 y
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SC. •1;�),! , S .v
i�i�� jC;�.lv''��. ( ec O` l�ti.0 Lt",�1
f1
�cc t i l ,., 1`�'i�.�j E U u.. i c �_
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information I
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. I
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ,
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further I
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best I
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's ,
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Vi q
Signatur of Applicant Da e
—_, /
ijote . ti,Lie,------ L'. ."'""-c------- \--7-5q/ 9/ I
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Applion Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. I
cati
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on . 1
I
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
II 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 ,
Joan Ahrens , and Jeff Farmakes
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
II 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
IMINNEWASHTA PARKWAY , KEN LUND AND DANA JOHNSON , WASHTA BAY COURT ADDITION .
Public Present :
Name Address
I Ken Lund 395 Hwy 7
Dana Johnson 6301 Greenbriar
Charles Anding 6601 Minnewashta Parkway
Tom Krueger ,3860 Linden Circle
IIJoan 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 ,
55331 .
Ken Lund: I 'm Ken Lund . I live just down the street at 395 Highway 7 .
IDana 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
I 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
I 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
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
road and that 's one of the hardships we 've got here also in trying to make
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1 , 1991 - Page 2
I
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 II
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 11
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 foi 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 II
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 alongside 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 I/
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 . II
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 . I
Farmakes: From whom did they purchase the association access next to this
property? It 's about 30 feet . I
Dana Johnson: You mean in the , there 's two lake associations .
Farmakes : There 's a fenced access just to the south of the property . It 's II
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 . I
I
PlanninD Commission Meeting
Ma - 1 , i1 __ Page 3
I
Ken Lund : I don 't think so . I think the person who had the land across
' th . stic, t , because I know years ago , I remember when that was for sale . I
thin; fh,TA person had land across the street actually had a 30 foot acceEe .
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
on both sides of our lot . One 's about 50 feet on the creek side and then
obviously tho 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 .
Due to the fact that there 's about 50 names on it and it says in the
Schmidt Tract which is B 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
single narn= 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
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
' one foot of that from them , then we 'd meet the requirement . We went down
to the County . They said that it would take along time and a lot of
paperwork and a lot of legal to try to do that because they didn 't have a
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
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
of one because always remember , somebody can just move in there and just
I
I
Plannin;, Commission Meeting
May 1 , 19°1 - Page 4 1
reds 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 . I
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 frbm 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-) I
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 II
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 . II
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 II
the curve of the bay better than of course what this does up here . But
I
' Planning Commiaaicn Meeting
May ] ` Paqe 5
��
==
whst p(= ^rp sayino is that the way this bay , the. small curve in the lake
force u- to essentiaIly ' the way the docks would have to point to get out
tuw~rdc 1h^ deepe) water . If you extended them another SO feet would be
ver/ close to each other at the end . I guess is what I 'm trying to state.
RecoonizinQ that he 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 .
Conrd' From a motor standpoint?
Charles Anding : There is one other point I 'd like to make . If you look at
all the homes along in this area , we 're all running minimum , minimum of I
thin!, 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 .
Emmln5T : 3c there. En/bod> else that wants to address this?
Tom Krueger : I 'm Tom Krueger . I live at 3860 Linden Circle which is just
up the street <Doing to the west or on the top of the chart . I 'm the third
hous= baek . I did look at the property . I did put a bid in on it on the
basis of a sir/:Jl * family dwelling . That was based on the fact of seeing
Paul Krauss who basically said that the lot was really not oplitable ' It
was also based on the aesthetic point of view of the lot . From the
aesthetic: , 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
Qarc7e . With the road improvement going up , you 're left with a house that
woul -i not be of the same size and the same aesthetics as the other houses
on the lal-e which is why I gave up looking at splitting the property or
anythir-j 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
ok� 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 th/ ee 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 the
0� 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
N� 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 ,
0� the creek drainage . I don't think buying a foot on the other side o-f the
property does anything because the creek is still there and that confuses
the issue . The association supports 36 families . There are 40 children in
N� 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 .
U�
I
P] anni r Cc,nri iseion Meeting
May 1 , i^<'! - Page £ 1
Joan c:' 5mrncn: 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 standard=
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 .
Speain; fcr the association . Thank you .
Emmin a : Thank you . Are there any other comments from the public? Do you
want to respond or sa/ 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
or= dock cut 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
assc•cirtion 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
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 II
on the lake also . I just wanted to address those issues that they brought
up . Thank you .
Emmings: Okay . Any other public comment on this application? If not , is II
there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : For my piece of mind here , Jo Ann or Paul , the surrounding lots on II
the lake are what size in general?
Olsen: Well they all meet or exceed the 20 ,000 square feet . ,
1
-~ fll : ir7 Ccffr.i,-- n Meeting
Ma 2 ` `7.--_'` - Pale- 7
Fr��, t : 3O ,On��
II0] -" n : i./ l ] the ones near it are closer. to 20 ,000 to 30 `000 . Thp> "re nct
real big ',cut the/ meet the .
I Frhart : And thp ,eneral frontage on the lake would be , on the surroundin`
-ot� ucrl :1 b what?
Olsen : Arez 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 ha«e like 100 . Around that . More than 75 ' A lot of the lots are
just the narrow little strips that will never be buildable sites .
IIErhart . You asy that there 's a lot of lots there that are unbuildable?
Olsen: There 's some , i ' you 're saying what 's really going on around Lake
I MlnnaFh+ i Like where Stratford Ridge was . Do you remember how a lot
of , it 's just . narrow strip on Minnewashta Parkway .
Erhart : Oh you mean narrow this way? Oka� ' Not narrow perpendicular to
��
the lake?
IOlsen: Right . Ther* `s no depth so thnoe have a lot of wldth but thcy ^re
n:t b2ild' bl� .
Erhart : Okay . I "] l tell you a couple of things concern me about this . One
I 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
becchl�t as possible to avoid conflict . Here we have a situation where
Iactuclly we `re really encouraginQ oom*one to bulld a houee 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
at thc- piece that comes down . The flag so to speak . Real perpendicular
I 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
absorbed by the setback from the creek . I just don 't think this is a two
I lot percel ' I guoso I would bo opposed to the oplit -
Conrad: The creek . Does that creek , what 's the value of the creek?
IOlsen : 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
IIspace around that . .
Emmings : Lake Minnewashta outflows to Lake Virginia by that creek .
II Conrad : Outflows?
Emmings : Yeah .
II
II
I
Planninj Commission Meeting
- F' S I
Erh ; t : E:> use me but what 's on the north side of the creek then?
Olsen : Thy- n, ,rth side of the creek is that little strip that provides
access for Schmidt Acre across the street . It 's not a trout stream or
anythir,_; like that but it 's protected . 1
Conrad: So the 50 feet is from where on the creek?
Olsen: See where it 's right on the top . '
Conrad: Aye you able to build , would you build 50 feet away from the
creek? 1
Dana Johnson: Sure . I 've already done , I 'm just going without the
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 fro 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 .
Conra _' - T ha ,' to go back to the context that these lots are in . Jo Ann ,
are the,-,= smaller than what we would see in the neighborhood?. And Tim
as ke-e 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
acrora the :treet . 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 .
Olssen : 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: Ladd? Maybe I can fill you in . As you go south from this I
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 .
Conrad: Yeah . I looked at that Jo Ann . ,
1
P1,7nning Commission Meeting
II
M: 1 , c 1 - rage
01 �en: It kind of cets confusing . But they all', this would definitely be
settin: _7 pre: edent .
Erhart : If I could interrupt . What is , on a 15 ,000 square foot lot with
II the ncrm..�1 setbacks , how many square feet do you normally have there that
buildable ?
e ?
�1
Olsen : With the regular setbacks?
SErhart Yeah .
IOlsen: Quite a bit of it because you only have typically 30 foot .
Erhart : Let me ark you this . Is the area that you 've got on there that 's
IIbuidablc , 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?
IIOlsen : On Lot 1 ?
Erhart : no , when you combine the two .
II Olsen : The wh,il .. two?
Erhart : Ye-6h, , That would be what? Significantly bigger than the
IIbui 1d-*- l -- ,-re,_: on a , well .
Circa' Well that 50 foot setback cuts in .
II Erhart : Well yeah . That 's what I 'm saying .
I O1eer : c-nd 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 area
I left and then to take that and divide it in two . Is what you 're really
dividing in half .
IIConrad: I guess in context , and Steve I 'm going to ask you a question . In
context will this be out of place?
II Emmings : On that stretch? Well , Lake Minnewashta has old development on
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 .
IKen Lund: . . .40 foot lots over on Red Cedar Point .
IIEmmings : Yeah but a lot of them have .
Ken Lund: 40 to 60 . Most of them are 60 .
Mi
II
II
I
P15nni rg C-mrii ssinn Meeting
May 1 , -- ca,;E 10
Emmina=_ : It appEEare 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 '< lsc. situation where it 's narrow beachlots . You know we have , they
say their ' , 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
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?
Emmi ng - : Yeah . I
Clear, : Yeah .
Ccnrad: Okay . I guess I 've been trying to rationalize the split because I
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 to: 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 II
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
squez: 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?
Ellson: I agree with these two gentlemen . I don 't have anything new . I
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 , II
and saw that in the future as being widened so it actually has a shoulder
I
I
P1annifl: - = mia= lcn Meeting
on i t . t hn-e cE- rs would be coming awfully close' to your front door . And
I th_s sntshec k'a 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 Adjustmctts and Appeals and City Council only if all of the
follouin? 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
lunge, homes with more space around them and I could see where it could be
an advante to the person who 's splitting that lot but again , I think it
would L : a disadvantage to the surrounding homes . I think it should be one
I lot .
AhrFn-, : 7o Ann , is there any , there was a drainage issue raised here .
' Olsen ' Cn the south si,ae?
Ahi f_ - Fight . Is that?
' Olsen: The engineering department didn 't point that out . We did go out to
the sit: . If there 's actually a drainage area on this lot , we would want
' tc 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 a:e 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 ■,ar; ances 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
' 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 .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1 , 1921 - Page 12
11
Conrad: That 's the problem , we have no control .
Emmings : Well we do . It 's the Board of Adjustments and I guess we could II
tell thee, that that 's the way we feel about it but what they do , they do .
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 . I
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
II
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
II
created a lot that 's unbuildable without further variances .
Olsen : It will definitely be a self-created hardship and they ' ll have a
II
hard case .
Ahrens : well that 's the way I would go with it and I 'd recommend approval I
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
won 't be after this . No . I basically adopt Joan 's comments . I think that 'll
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 ,
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
Preliminary Plat #91-3 as shown on the plans dated April 1 , 1991 for the II
reason stated . The subdivision creates two non-conforming lots .
Ellson : I ' ll second it . -
I
Emmings: Any discussion?
II
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1 , 1993 - Page 13
11
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
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 .
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
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
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
1 questions the Metro Council 's been raising regarding sewer . In fact , they
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
I