7.5 Plat for Lake Riley woods /• 5
I C ITY O F, PC DATE: 3/21/90--- -
.
CllAI' 'HAEI'
CC DATE: 4/9/90 & 10/28/91
Il • ' •
CASE #: . 86-25 SUB
I STAFF REPORT
1
IPROPOSAL: Replat of Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition
I-
IZ LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and East of Hwy. A0:7 Cky 4.1,,,,fist ,r,
Qrood.—.. _
V 0;
APPLICANT: George Nelson and Associates {
I .1 1660 So Hwy. 100, Suite 428 W t ��_-_
0 Minneapolis, MN 55416 t>,�lp a4-Q1 __ '
I Q _ ... '17--------- ,.
_JD 7.48.1 _
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential
ACREAGE:
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
I LAND USE: N - RR and Lake Riley
S - A2; nursery
Q E - A2; single family
W - RR; single family
II Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Not available.
•
IW PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Site has been graded to allow for development.
Pineview Court has been installed and one home
is currently under construction on Lot 4.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Rural
I
II
ILake Riley Woods 2nd
October 28, 1991
Page 2
I .
PROPOSAL/COMMENT •
IOn June 15, 1987, the City Council approved final plat for Lake
Riley Woods 2nd Addition. The plat resulted in a creation of five
single family lots which are accessed off of a new cul-de-sac,
I Pineview Court, leading to Foxford Road which ultimately exits out
onto Pioneer Trail. The subdivision was developed under existing
ordinances which allowed for the platting of 21 acre lots. By
I agreement with the Metropolitan Council, further platting of lots
under these provisions was prohibited after July 1, 1987. Current
ordinances also allow 21 acre lots with 200 feet of frontage and a
I depth of 200 feet, however, at the present time the average gross
density shall not exceed 1 home per 10 acres.
After approval, the plat was filed and improvements installed.
I Pineview Court was constructed and a home was constructed on Lot 4.
The street has not yet bet been accepted by the City and we.
continue to retain financial guarantees as provided in the
Idevelopment agreement.
Staff was contacted by the developer and by the surveyor working
on the project. It has become apparent that the developer's
surveyor made a major error in the location of the street and of +
lot corners during construction of the plat. The error was
significant enough that the cul-de-sac was displaced approximately
1 50 feet north of where it was intended to be and additionally, the
home being built on Lot 4 has part of its drainfield located on the
adjoining Lot 5. The surveyor is proposing the replat as a means
I of resolving these discrepancies. The replat would have the effect
of shifting lot lines to place the Lot 4 drainfield on Lot 4 plus
give that lot the acreage the purchaser had expected. It would
I also result in the shifting of the right-of-way to the north to
accommodate the actual street alignment. However, the proposal
results in the creation of a variance. Lot area on Lot 5 would be
2 .2 acres which is 3/lOths of an acre below the 21 acre minimum
IIstandard.
Staff has reviewed the history of this matter and finds no
II rationale for supporting either the variance or the .replat as
proposed. Through the development process, the City made a good
faith effort to ensure that our standards were complied with and
that a compatible, well designed project would result. What we
I have here is the basic fact that the developer's consultants appear
to have committed a major error. We also note that there is no way
the City would have been aware of this problem. A registered
I surveyor is licensed by the state and assumes liability for their
work. The City in turn relies on the fact that the work prepared
by a registered survey is legitimate and finds no need for further
Iquestioning. We understand that a hardship results for the
II
Lake Riley Woods 2nd
AS
October 28, 1991
Page 3
II
purchaser of the home on Lot 4 and to the developer, who quite
probably has legal recourse against the surveyor he retained.
II
However, this does not constitute a hardship consistent with the
finding that is required to support a variance request. This is
clearly a self-created hardship. We see no reason for the City to
assume the burden of having to accept lots that do not meet our il
standards as a result of this situation.
We believe that there are several methods that could be considered
II
to resolve this issue. There are two situations that result from
this problem which need to be rectified. The first is that the
drainfield for Lot 4 is actually located in part on Lot 5. The II
second is that Lot 5 itself is undersized and with 2.2 acres
requires a variance. Alternatives for resolving this situation
include acceptance of the plan as proposed by the applicant which
would also require approval of 'the variance. The second
II
alternative is to eliminate Lot 5, merging it with Lot 4 so that
the variance situation ceases to exist. Staff would be opposed to
making an outlot out of Lot 5 since with 2.2 acres it is not
II
buildable in this district. A third alternative could conceivably
result in reconstruction of Pineview Court back to the approved
• location. This would allow the plat to be configured as approved,
II
however, it would not resolve the problem with the placement of the
drainfield for Lot 4 nor would it apparently result in the platting
of a lot that meets the expectations of the persons that bought Lot
4 . The drainfield on Lot 5 could be covered by a protective
II
easement. .
Staff is recommending that the second alternative be adopted. It
II
will result in the creation of a lot that is consistent with the
expectations of the purchaser of Lot 4, it will avoid the creation
of any new variances, and it will avoid the need to reconstruct
Pineview Court. Staff understands that this recommendation will
likely result in some financial hardship which we presume will
ultimately fall back onto the shoulders of the consulting firm that
prepared the plat. However, we believe that this is reasonable
II
given the source of the problem and our belief that this is a self-
created hardship that should not be approved by the City.
COMPLIANCE TABLE II
Rural Residential District
Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Home Setback 1
Ordinance 2. 5 acres 200' 200' 50' front/rear
10' rear
Lot 1 2.5 280 ' 370' N/A
II
Lot 2 2.5 220' 400' N/A
Lot 3 2.8 acres 210' 230' N/A
II
II
Lake Riley Woods 2nd
October 28, 1991
Page 4
I
Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Home Setback
Lot 4 2.5 250' 350' 70' front
230' rear
60' east
11 100' west
Lot 5 2.2 (V1) 302 ' 430' N/A
11 Variances
Vi - Variance of 13, 068 square feet to allow the platting of lots
1 as a 2.2 acre lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE/ACTION
The Planning Commission discussed this proposal at the March 21,
1990, meeting. The discussion was a lengthy one where a variety of
alternatives were explored and discussed with the representative of
the engineering/surveying company, Pioneer Engineering, who were at
fault in preparing the survey work, a representative of the
developer and the purchaser of the home being built on Lot 4. It
became clear that Mr. Fraser, the home buyer, had additional
concerns relative to this issue. It is his contention that the
home is mislocated on Lot 4. Not only is it located closer to the
' property line then they had originally anticipated because of the
survey error, but that the home was also misoriented so that
affectively its back yard area is located in large part in what is
actually Lot 5. This is due to the fact that the home is located
at an angle to the property lines and is oriented towards the
northeast rather than having a northerly or northwestly orientation
that would have provided a back yard area located on Lot 4.
•
The following is one of the alternatives that was discussed by the
Planning Commission.
1. The possibility of obtaining land from Lot 8, Block 2, Lake
Riley Woods First Addition which is located north of Lot 5.
The idea behind this is that if there is sufficient area on
this lot which is as yet undeveloped, that it could be
transferred to Lot 5 to avoid the variance. This would then
allow the lot lines to be reconfigured such that the
' drainfield for Lot 4 is located entirely on that lot. Staff
finds that there are two problems with this approach because,
the first and most important being that upon further research
' it does not appear as though Lot 8 has sufficient area to make
up for this shortfall on Lot 5. The second is a concern by
Mr. Fraser that his home is still misoriented and that a home
i
I
Lake Riley Woods 2nd 1
October 28, 1991
Page 5
could be built on Lot 5 in what he perceives to be his
backyard. I
2. The Planning Commission discussed ways of resolving Mr.
Fraser's concern about his perceived back yard area. If there
was a way to resolve this it could be used in a variety of
alternatives being considered. At issue is the City's ability •
to restrict a home placement on Lot 5 to an area no further
north then the north property line of the existing home. Thus
the home on Lot 5 would be built on the south end of the
property near the intersection of Pineview Court and Foxford
Road. Staff indicated at the meeting that we were unsure as
to what mechanism could appropriately be used to restrict home
placement. We noted that we could not establish unusually
restrictive setback requirements on this lot. Since the
meeting, we have had an opportunity to talk to the City
Attorney and believe that if the Council wishes to pursue this
option, that we could require a dedication of a conservation
easement over that portion of Lot 5 in which we do not wish to
have the home located, thus putting the home in where the
Fraser's would be considered to be a more appropriate
location. This option would leave the variance justification
question unanswered because it presumes that the variance
would be approved. In addition, we are not certain that it
would satisfy all of the Fraser's concerns.
3 . The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of moving
the home on Lot 4 to a more appropriate location and/or
relocating the street to the spot in which it was intended to
be placed. There is obviously significant cost involved in
this option but it would result in a plat and home location
situation that is consistent with the expectations that the
City had for this plat when it was approved. The Planning
Commission ultimately voted to deny the replat due to its
inability to support a finding of justifiable hardship for the
variance. The denial was on a split 3 to 2 vote.
Commissioners on both sides of the motion expressed desire to
see this issue worked out in some way. Since the meeting,
staff has spoken to the City Attorney and asked him to
research the matter. Should the City Council uphold the
denial of the replat? An issue would remain as to how the
developer would be required . by the City to resolve issues
pertaining to this plat. In particular, staff's
recommendation that Lot 5 either be joined with Lot 4 or split
between Lot 4 and Lot 8 to the north to eliminate the variance
problem and to avoid the platting of a lot which is
unbuildable and has no purpose.
11
I
Lake Riley Woods 2nd
October 28, 1991
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
On April 9, 1990, the Council City Council recommended tabling action on
this item. The applicant is now bringing the request back before
the City Council for their action. Staff's position remains the
same and recommends denial of the request to replat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to replat
Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition due to the fact that the resulting
variance is a self created hardship. We further recommend that the
City Council direct the City Attorney to proceed with measures to
bring the existing plat into compliance with conditions of
approval.
If the City Council denies the variance request and replat of the
2nd Addition, the road would have to be relocated approximately 50
feet south at the most westerly extension of Pine View Court. If
the City were to proceed with the relocation of Pine View Court due
to the time of the year, construction would have to be delayed
until spring of 1992. Staff; however, would immediately draw on
the letter of credit to cover a portion of the corrective work.
The additional costs involved in relocating the road would be
assessed back to the benefitting properties. There currently
exists one home on Lot 4, Block 1. The remaining lots are
undeveloped.
Should the City Council grant the replat of Lake Riley Woods 2nd
Addition, a new development contract would have to be prepared
incorporating some of the conditions of the 2nd Addition. In
' addition, the letter of credit would have to be extended, should
the remaining improvements not be completed yet this fall (see
Attachment #6) .
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Letter from Pioneer Engineering dated March 15, 1990.
2. Reduced copy of replat.
3 . Letter from Charles & Delores Frazer dated March 21, 1990.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 21, 1990.
5. City Council minutes dated April 9, 1990.
6. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 22, 1991.
7. Preliminary plat.
I
Pioneer Ens ineerins 6819488 P. 02
Ii
,he PIONEER
Cfvii Engineers • Land Planners •Land Surveyors • Landscape Architects
March 15, 1990
Memo To: Planning Commission & City Council Miambers ‘ II
City of Chanhassen t.
RE: Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition - Replat t I
P.E. Job # 89049
Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Planning Cannission Members: 1
{
We have presented a replat of the Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition plat �-
with a variance request for Lot 5 to be 2.2 acres in lieu of the
r
II
equired 2.5 acres.
,-- ,
The reason for the replat is the result of two (2) items, one is
construction staking error which resulted in the paved-surface of*the ' S
street shifting to the north. The second is the location of an
existing house on Lot 4, together with its septic tank and drainfields.
The distance the street moved to the north ranges from 0 feet at the II
intersection of the cul-de-sac street and Foxford Road to
approximately 50 feet at the center of the cul-de-sac. When it was
discovered that the paved Street,was not located within the platted
right-of-way, there was a choice to make between moving the street back
to the platted right-of-way or replotting the property to move the
right-of-way to where the paved street was located.
II
At the time the error was discovered, the first course of asphalt
• pavement had been constructed together with the crushed rock base,
II
street grading and a considerable amount of subgrade correction, which
involve excavating and removing unstable soil from under the roadway
and replacing this material with suitable stable engineering fill. The
cost of the street construction to this point was in the range of II
$30,000.00. In addition to the street having been constructed, the
underground electric has also been installed.
IIThe cost to relocated the street to the platted right-of-way would be
considerable. In light of this, it was decided that the practical
answer would be to replat the property., I
The replat is essentially the same plat as what was recorded with 2nd
II
addition plat. The net area for the five (5) lots remains the same as
the total area of the plat remains the same.
The request for the variance relates to the condition with the house
that has been constructed on Lot 4. Had there been no house I
constructed on Lot 4, the replat of property would not require a
variance request for the reduction in the lot area of Lot 5 from 2.5
acres to 2.2 acres. I
2422 Enterprise Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • (1512) 681-1914 I
Pioneer En9ineerin9 6819488 P. 03
1 •
Planning Commission & City Council m embers
11 Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition
March 15, 1990
Page 2
There
have been numerous meetings with the homeowners of Lot 4,
regarding the placement of the Amon lot line between their Lot (4)
and the adjacent Lot (5) . These meetings have resultedin the
placement of that lot line as presented on this replat. It is the
condition that exists with the location of the existing house which has
1 created the request for the variance. Relocating the street back to
the right-of-way would not result in removing the need for the variance
because the location of the common lot line would need to be the same
as presented on the replat clue to the location of the house and septic
tank and drainfields.
It appears at this point that our options with regard to the lot area
variance are to either request the variance with the plat or to move
the house . We do not believe that moving the house is a viable
option, or is it acceptable to the homeowner.
Thank you for your time and consideration with this request.
Respectfully,
PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A.
11 r. -09 a-- 1- -
Joel G. Cooper, P.E.
JGC:blh
Ar-
1
1
1
1
I
March 21, 1990
I
City of Chanhassen Planning Commission
Chanhassen City Hall
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Members of the Commission: 1
My husband and I would like to express of opposition to a variance being granted
on Lot 5 in Lake Reily Woods Second Edition. We own the adjoining lot (Lot 4) and we feel
very strongly that, due to the errors caused by the surveyors in placing the road and
consequently our house, the value of our property would be greatly depreciated if a were
to be built on less than the zoned 2.5 acres. There is only one buildable spot on Lot 5
which is literally in our backyard less than 50 feet from my kitchen window.
I understand that it is unprecented to permit development on less than 2.5 acres
in this town unless a severe hardship .exists. No hardship exists here meriting a
variance; the problem was caused by negligence and incompetence. We feel that if a
variance is granted, we would be taking the consequences of the surveyors mistakes. I
also understand that the staff recommends that your staff has recommended that Lots 4
and 5 be combined. I ask that you stand behind that recommendation since we see that
as the only solution to this matter. My house has been adversely affected and nothing
can change that. But the recommendations of the city staff will make it so that, with time
and landscaping, we can recreate the rural atmosphere that we came to Chanhassen for.
We request that you deny the variance and postpone any replatting of the subdivision
until this matter can be satisfactorily resolved.
Thank you for your time and consideration. 1
Sincerely,
Charles and Dolores Fra er
I
I
I
I
I
U
2422 Enterprise Drive
PIONEER t.ANDSURVILYORS•CIVII.INO NttE 1 Mendota Heights,MN 55120
�` engineering.. L ANO/LAMI<Ra•e,ANOSC*PtARCH,TTCTI
* (6121681.1914
* t **
5KETCI-I PLAN FOR; LOT 4, BLOCK I, LAKE RILEY Woons
ZND ADDITIo11
'''"" C>
NORTH
ve Deb
0` .'.
i 1 ,
\ I
40., \ . 1
\ " \ ,- --i
�DtrA t N r tCLO
♦ 1
I N \
=■ %.\ Poser, PttoPURT y
\ ' r t
He��4 ;X4-EPTIG— WES
• \ --)ti';- 4TACED PRor'eitry Links
\ PLQ7TPD RCePE2rr LINE I \` ,/~_
'— 1
I
I
I hereby certify that this survey,plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duty Registered Land Surveyor I
under the levee of the Stets of Minnesota.Dated this day of A.0.19
r C G I' e . l iOQ r e-I L
Inonrnt n clown-ft t c nfc ur. term
I
;a i 23411 i '4 E , •s• a I
Zo a , , _� 1?: I -- I hi - •i L = 1 i
4, 2 ss a^ 1P4Ii I A l I ; I !ii aS i • 5 1 31 k 2.1 L 2. 1:, i..ii, ! li II
i j is �:•si 4 ;j ! j' i . ijj A 111
� sl �t v i i ji; S a ' Iii I i i t ii III i j
Di i I 1 ' -i'l i III ! i j t i ! 1
J . 111 !j !. 1 t i i 1 3. i• ;'l I I i # Ali 1' I
:11 i I 2 'gill i -
i141 ii ' pis . - 11 i1 Ii 1 1 i a. 313;:1i •1 1 i • 1! i ji f I i d 1 At a PI
y i a as is 1,t3 a 3 41 - = D ' _ a x 41) t'l i1� x 9 Ti Z }i 3 sJ lig t i 1 Ji I
1, 1 11 .1 i ! A 413 • is ' 2 t z
8 $• � I
O • Cs , 41/"Ii i2 i i is ;t5,� i 14 e d I
:y 3 112-s-:1 41 ! i iiia I 13. a 1, 1 ! iY I i 1 i3
1 s i i s 3 E t g i i f .;g a s 6 g bit 13 1 is i i 1
Q I.i 8i ilii-:c l 11 ( Ili li li i -II: it IFI i is 1 !I i li f ii
Q - .
E
f
a I
y/
. - •r;VV.> 1 . , . ...,,..
. ; II
Q 1 ai. -i. ��.�wI 11
i II
'ice' 1 1
240 ...„..40.s I ' - ti s t Z 3
ii
i Et I 16_ _a C i 8$ g�g j�
_ ; _.---.. , ,_-
.
:----cJ ' ;IF_ jj_i.,:- 3.=.� I - 41.1
IM
4400 I
i al Al 1
' i
„ 1IIR �
•. 2 r .`, Iii ■ ` v :' -�
J \ „, ■— ■-- ■— ■ ■— — �! �.? S i illy 1
IT S 1 H i Il� -I030D�H:HIGHWAY —S1Sl9—' ,/). �rl�i j 69r jjTfl s - }aow ' i
" - , .. ;-:' Lil : • 1.2
^ Y • . I
.rte - i Q l* • •
�Y��� i
•
yYS! -iii 1
2i
: §a —I—
-
• 6t I
a z a I i g i I
t a. a
IIItIi
a i a
I -d 1 - � e-g yy _ 1 ... .. 1 � r it
gp 3 •�k�
la .111 flit . $ i i I �� �: 41
•• .' ''..;■•■•-1,4,41* --- .
•
. 5 :... ,....-0-A ,. ! 1,1!i
II I 11 L
i -%.2
Alt(AVIV 1 54 ��� Ii 3'' W"i T 7 a-_--., .:ammzt, ti J Q� l ii
; ~ I
i ' . t=::=N
Elk i
I y
�\ Z
0
4 0101
it w
\ .: '''A'; \\\ \ I ) \ I \ _g 4\ \ \� . :Ai: \.\\1�r i \ 1 a, ....„,,
Ce el
I1 \ _,..„,,,
1 ........„..c.:,. -- -.:-....-L.--,....7.-rzt..\A fir! 11/17Pt.11 Z
\ /,\1`_- i 1 �• ti i i II 1 cc-t—;% j,IY:i4.- ,:ti, w - tvt: . .._
, it g k
' i\ `
� i b�
,..._
- \\ \\ / ‘ •011.•i t}!
5TH 1 i ��l03.GD;-1-I;GHIA/AY �.,t NO. :c ri wr ti'
I 17--M
1 i'i
i
r
. Ill
i
1 I . !Ii
—Q = = i!
II
$ i • d
:i .
• - - .. -• ..;;,............--.-..;'-•;:-....-..•`.±a_'wi'_r--514r. ,ra..+za...Uw '. 7- ++. ' '7� '
f...,. -a4: -.::-...-it...........-,,t,._,-.v s_-_.,_ _ ..
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 21, 1990 - Page 18
II
•
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION. TO CORRECT A
PLATTING ERROR, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES. II
Public Present :
IIName Address
Joel Cooper Pioneer Engineering
II
Jim Peterson George Nelson Associates
Mr. and Mrs. Fraser Lot 4, Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition
II
Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called
P the
public hearing to order.
Joel Cooper : My name is Joel Cooper . I'm with Pioneer. Engineering . We'ril
the engineering firm that was fortunate enough to have made this mistake.
I guess I take exception with Paul ' s statements. I guess our position is II
obviously we've made a mistake and it's not a little mistake. It's one
mistake that' s compounded to another mistake. We have in good faith tried
to resolve this situation in a manner in which we think is reasonable and
most prudent for all concerned . We've had several meetings with the
homeowners on Lot 4 trying to resolve a lot line that would meet with thei
satisfaction in this replat. Had met with that satisfaction. The line
that we have moved it over to is at a location where they previously
II
thought was their lot line and contains all the improvements that is on
their lot. The net result of this of course is that the corner lot
requires 2. 2 acres , or is reduced to 2.2 acres. We realize that this is II
substandard but we feel that .3 of an acre shortage in a 2 1/2 acre lot
doesn' t make that lot deficient in the fact that it can still function as a
' lot. You can still locate drainfields on it. You can still place a house
on it and can meet all the other needs and can support a house. Also, wit
this replat is the net platted area remains the same. The only difference
here is that one lot is .3 short and I guess we feel like this is the best
solution for all concerned. I guess I don't know what else I can say.
II
Erhart: Thanks Mr. Cooper . Go ahead Steve. Do you have a question?
Emmings: I 'd just like to ask you a question while you're up there. Has II
anybody estimated the cost of moving the road to where it ought to be?
Joel Cooper: Well, to construct the road where it is presently cost. . . I
Emmings: No, that's not the question. I know that cost.
Joel Cooper : Well okay. To move it to where it would have to go would bell
approximately the same cost. Basically what you'd have to do is you'd have
to tear up the whole street. There was extensive earth correction work
done. That would have to be redone into the new location.
II
Emmings: So your best estimate is that it would be the same?
IIr
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 19
I
Joel Cooper : You'd basically be building the street over again, yes. In
addition, there would be costs in locating the electric that's presently
there and I 'm not sure what that cost would be.
11 Erhart: Okay. Mr. Cooper , maybe if you'd just take this front seat there
in case we have any other questions. Is there any other comment from the
public on this?
Delores Fraser : My name is Delores Fraser and I'm the owner on Lot 4. I 'd
like to express my opposition to the plat being replatted and a variance
given on Lot 5 because we feel that with the position of the way our house
1 is on the land, that it would seriously depreciate the value of our house.
The only way I can really show that is to show you how our house is sitting
on the land. You have the same map but I think I have it too. . . .the way
the house is oriented , the surveying company that surveyed the road and put
the road in also staked our house. The ideal was with the road in straight
that they have the house flush with the cul-de-sac and the back of our
house should be looking back into the road that comes here and here houses
and here is the back of their 2 1/2 acres and our house should be looking
straight back into the 2 1/2 acres. Instead with the road coming in at an
angle and they staked the house, it was staked back into the development as
1 a results of the skew of this road. The only buildable place on Lot 5 is
on this ridge right behind our house so the house is pretty much on the lot
line very close to our house which could have. . .back yard literally. 50
feet away and it would be really close together . We feel that that is an
' unacceptable situation. Another point that wasn't brought up by
engineering , when you' re looking at these maps , the way they use the center
line of the road it should have been. . .the lines that are on the ground are
not the lines that are on there now. This is the way that it looks now.
Emmings: Another thing you might do is we've got a new map from the
1 • engineers and why don't you tell us if this looks kind of accurate to you.
Delores Fraser : It is.
Mr. Fraser: Do you have a red marker?
Olsen: This might work.
Mr. Fraser : When we got this piece of property this is what we thought. . .
It was staked along that line there. That's what we thouught. . .and in
reality the problem was found when another survey company came in because
somebody was going to buy Lot 5 and jumped the gun a little bit and had the
house surveyed and when he surveyed the house, he put it in the most
obvious spot. The stakes are still sitting there and that's where it is in
our backyard because it happens it all low lying in the front and you can' t
see the picture but it's actually swampland almost. . . That first high
point is the most obvious place to put it but it ends up in our back yard.
Then when they came in, they staked it. They put the corner stakes really
where the line is, 10 feet, 5 feet from our house. That' s how close it is
to our house, the corner stake. That's really where the whole problem was
found by another surveying company coming in there and. . .the way that lot
is existing, the two houses will be about 75-65 feet apart. We' ll look
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 20
I
out our back window and see this house and we bought a 2 1/2 acre lot. . .
Part of that location problem is when we put this house where we. . . and
they showed it on the map to us after they surveyed it and put it on there'll
which had to be wrong because they used the wrong lines so it couldn't be
right. And then when my wife got the paper, she told them something' s
wrong here. This looks terrible. It looks really. . .and it's really wrong
so they brought somebody out to the back of our house. You're looking at
lines on a piece of paper. In the field there is no line. It's just like
this and we find out later , 2 months later that the person who came up
and. . .was a computer programmer and did not anybody of any knowledge and w
raised. . . Part of that is due to the fact that the survey company, when
they placed the house and we did bring up the point that my wife, when shell
picked it up, something doesn' t look right. We didn't know what because w
weren't knowledgeable enough.
Emmings: Do you know how far in fact your house is set back from the true l
lot line that divides 4 and 5?
Mr . Fraser : . Oh I know. It's about, the true lot line, I have less than 1011
feet from the corner of my house because the stake ended up. . . That's
where the stake ended up.
Emmings: That was the stake showing that lot line. ,
Mr. Fraser: That was the other survey.
Emmings : The platted lot line.
Mr. Fraser: The other survey showed the lot line there. I
Delores Fraser : We feel the only way... .is to go along with staff' s
recommendation. . .so we' re hoping that you don't approve the variance
because we think it' s going to. . .
Wildermuth: Would you lay your overhead back on there. You show 3
cul-de-sacs. Which is the actual cul-de-sac now? I
Krauss: The actual one is where the solid line is.
Wildermuth: The most northerly one? I
Krauss : Right. The right-of-way is the dashed line underneath.
Wildermuth: I guess there are only two. It seems to me I saw three.
Joel Cooper : Some of what the Frasers said is true here. However, I guesil
I have to take exception to a couple of the comments they've made. First
of all the location of their house, they mey our survey crew out on the
site and they located on the site where they wanted their house and how
they wanted to orientate it. The lot line that we' re showing them right II
now is the exact same lot line that they thought they had at the time they
orientated their house.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 21
I
' Erhart: Let' s let Mr . Cooper. finish.
Joel Cooper : We in good faith met with the Frasers at their house more
than once trying to establish a lot line that would meet with their
satisfaction. What we've shown on the replat at that time had met with
their satisfaction. We agreed also at that time to provide them with
financial money to help then screen themselves from Lot 5. Create some
' privacy in their backyard. We sympathize with them. However, we have to
also bear in mind that although the house is skewed, they also had the
opportunity out at the site to look at how their house was sitting on their
lot to get the orientation they wanted and they chose this orientation
because at that time they told us their excavater , they wanted a walkout
lot or a walkout on the corner of their house and told them that this was
the best way to get a walkout on their house so this is how they selected
how they wanted their house orientated to get the walkout to reduce or
minimize their grading costs which be it as it may is basically as I
understand it is how they selected how they wanted their house orientated.
As far as the distances from the existing lot that they're platted on,
their house is presently 20 feet from the existing lot line as platted. It
meets setbacks. The only encumbrance that we've been able to find is that
their septic system encumbers onto Lot 5 in it's present condition or it's
1 present location. I think the drainfield as we located it is still on Lot
4 as platted. The purpose for putting the line over there where we've
shown it on the replat was to try and create a back yard to the same
' conditions as what they thought they originally purchased. I guess that' s
all I have to say.
Erhart : Okay, why don' t we let the Frasers speak one more time. We don' t
' want to get this into an argument but why don't you go ahead and if you
would cone on up.
' Mr. Fraser : The original lot line is obviously always a straight line
because that' s, and when they made the error it was still a straight
line. . .so all that area in the front there would have been included in our
property also. . . And when we net with Pioneer, to us the optimum solution
and would allow a house to sit on Lot 5 was . . . if it was up farther . . .we
would have been a lot more amenable but they said that's not possible. You
can't put any covenants on property whatsoever because, it just requires
grading to do that and that was what it would take if they. . . So right now
we feel that the. . .and the way the replat is shown, actually we have more
property. . .
Erhart : Let me phrase what I thought you said. You said that you would be
better satisfied if the house on Lot 5 was moved towards the front of the
lot line? Is that what you said?
Mr. Fraser : At that point it would have been. . .but even now the way the
property is and stuff, I have trouble. . .because I have an additional
problem with the house being. . .which I still think is Pioneer Engineering' s
fault because if the road was straight that wouldn't have occurred.
' Erhart: But because the house, where you think it has to be or on that
plan is so close to your view. That's a significant problem for you?
Planning Commission sleeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 22
I
Mr . Fraser : . . .significant problem in that I 'm looking straight into the II
development. . .
Erhart: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address!'
this issue?
Jim Peterson: My name is Jim Peterson. I work for George Nelson
Associates, the developer and I don't know if I 'd necessarily like to
address this issue but I will as long as I 'm here. I feel empathetic for II
all parties involved. I sold the Fraser's the lot. I'd really like them to
be happy in their new home and I don't like to see them going through this,
stress that this is causing them. I don't appreciate the mistake being
made but it happened and I have to live with it and I don' t see a real
point myself being vindictive towards the engineer or the people that made
the mistake. I really want resolution to get on with things if at all
possible. I feel if there's any hardship here, that I 'm probably affected
as much or more than anyone. It's my ultimate obligation to satisfy the
Frasers. Not only in title but their happiness to some degree. It's my '
ultimate responsibility to correct the problem. I put the road in. Paid
for the road. Provided financial sureties to the City for the road and I
can't sell a lot until this is resolved. It' s not of my doing, not of my
causing but I ' ll do what I can do to help solve the problem. As I sit her
and listen to this , I 've been involved in this from the beginning and I
hear two sides and they don' t, I don't know that either one of them are
completely accurate from my perspective. And I 'm not in a position to pica
sides here with either of these people but some errors that I 've heard in
the discussion of this. One, I don' t know that anybody objects to the
replat per se. i think, and correct me if I 'm wrong, that staff and the II
Frasers and Pioneer are all in agreement that it probably doesn't benefit II
anyone to move the road. What I need to know is do we move the road or do
- we not move the road and that' s the first thing that I have to know. So
that has a bearing on Lots 1 thru 3. To maintain their lot sizes, their
lot lines would be different if we moved the road versus if we didn't move
the road so as we work around, then we get into Lot 4 and the Fraser's lot
and the problem with Lot 5. When I first started to look at resolution of"
this problem, the first thing that I wanted to see happen was that the
Fraser ' s were comfortable with their easterly lot line. Moving it where it
was moved, it was my opinion at the time that this is where they thought i
was originally except for the portion in the front where it turns and come.
toward the new road. But it was shaped that way to put it where they
originally thought it was. I think part of the problem is the
orientation. They didn't really understand I don't think that this is howl'
their house would face either until it got built. I think part of that is
the road and then part of that is just they're not understanding. But as
we look to resolution or as you make your decision here, there's 3
different recommendations that the staff has outlined. As far as I'm
concerend, I 'm just looking for resolution because I 've got to get on with
my program here. I would ask though if when you consider Lot 5, with Lot
5, if you leave it a lot and we don' t, like Joel says, we don't exceed the
overall density. What I told the Fraser's was that I couldn't sell that
lot and guarantee that someone would build their house where they wanted
it. I wouldn't say I wouldn't do it. I said I'd encourage it. I 'd try till
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 23
I
get them to build down low but I can' t guarantee it because people have a
way of changing their mind after I sell them the lot so I just didn't want
to get involved in something I couldn' t personally guarantee but there are
other adjoining land owners that could use Lot 5 also and it may have some
residual value . Be it to the Fraser 's. Be it to the other adjoining land
owner , I would still like to see that portion marketable even if it's not
buildable. At least so there is some recovery cost and if that's the
solution that you come up with. I 'm available for any questions. Thank
you.
Erhart : Okay, thanks Mr. Peterson. Any other input from the public? If
not is there a motion to close the public hearing.
Emmings moved , Elison seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : Okay, let' s do something different this time. Let ' s start in the
middle. Annette, why don't you start? I bet you weren't ready for that.
Elison: That' s why i choose the center . I can always hear at least one
I opinion before me. This reminded me of a nightmare when I read it in the
first time. Then I kind of read it over a few times. I can certainly feel
for the people on Lot 4 and I know that mistakes can happen and yes, they
have consequences when they do. What I 'd like to see and maybe I should
ask the applicant if it's possible, I agree with Mr. Nelson I guess that. . .
Jim Peterson: Peterson.
Ellson: Peterson. One of those common names you know. But is that I 'd
like to see some sort of compromise is possible. I don't like the idea of
' absolutely turning that one into dust balls because of this mistake yet I 'm
wondering if maybe the staff can answer, is it possible to put a
requirement that the house can only be built in this area and have it
marked. That this is a buildable lot only if the house is here and it
11 would be someplace toward the front and preferably on the right or
something like that. I don't know, do we have any jurisdiction over that
sort of thing?
Krauss : The City would not be in a position to do that. All they can do
is enforce our setback requirements which gives them a lot of latitude to
build wherever they wish. The owner could presumably put some covenants or
restrictions on the property that we would not be in a position to enforce
that may in fact do that but we couldn't guarantee it.
' Elison: I 'm wondering, can we approve it asking that this covenant ' be
done? It sounds like yeah, you could ask it. It still doesn't have to be
done. They' ll put it anywhere they want to and we have no. . .
Krauss: Theoretically you could I suppose but you' re depending on a third
party that we have no control over to carry out an action and they might
' never record the covenant. They might void it out the next day or whatever
and we don' t have any recourse.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990
24 1
Erhart: If I could follow on that point. I guess I find it hard to
believe that someone coming in for a variance request that we can't ask fo
that and get it.
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, you can ask but we can' t enforce it. 11
Erhart: We don't have to provide the variance either so I mean it just
seems, just by practice that it could be.
Ellson: We 'd get more for a variance because it's out of the ordinary
anyway. I
Erhart : Yeah. Anyway, go ahead.
Ellson: I guess that' s my concern. I'd like to see that it could be pullet
off or if necessary to people on both sides or at least a portion of it. I
don' t want to see them build a house they way it's on that and for the sam
reasons that they mentioned. I -mean you don't buy a 2 1/2 acre lot so tha
you have somebody next to you like you're living downtown. Nor would I '
think the person building there probably would want that so I think it
would be hard to sell a house that's going to next to it either so I guess
if we can' t control where the house would be, then what I would want to do
is. I don' t know what is it that I 'd want to do? If I want it allowed to
be sold but I don't want it allowed to be built. What do you do? If you
still plat it the way they want it but then you say unbuildable?
Krauss: Well what you would do in that case is plat it as an outlot which
we would have a problem with and our recommendation would be to you that
that not be done. The reason being is that it has no purpose. This is a
lot that' s not buildable under current and presumably future ordinances in
the City. What typically happens to those is that they're not maintained. "
They become nuisances . They go tax forfeit. Frankly we don't care and
really don't have any authority to tell anybody how to dispose of that
piece of land except to the extent that Lot 4 has to be made whole. They
shouldn't have any setback variances of it's own. If there was a way that
the lot to the north was going to pick up some property, I mean there's
only 2 choices. There's only 2 lots that border the site. If it was
disposed in some manner that gave a share to each, we wouldn't have a
problem with that either. I guess the fundamental issue here though is th
City accepted a plat that on the face of it met all our standards. We had
no comprehension of the fact that when it was actually built it wouldn't. II
We accept surveys and subdivision proposals on good faith that they're
prepared accurately and that they' ll be developed accurately and in this
case it didn' t work.
Ellson: Well that's my comment. I'm interested to see what the other
people have to say but I guess I'm fishing for a middle ground. Not easy
to get though. I
Enmings: Now the replat, would the replat push the line that divides Lot 4
and 5 further away from the house that's on Lot 4?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 25
I
Krauss : Yes .
Emmings: So in a way, I'm not sure what's best for the folks in the house
on Lot 4. Nothing's real good but at least the replat gives them a bigger
side yard than you'd have if we deny the replat. My first reaction to this
was that it's very simple, and I 'm not so sure it is but we never would
have approved this lot at 2.2 acres. Ever. So I don' t know why we want to
' accept it now unless it does something maybe good for the people on Lot 4
and as to what ought to be done, it's easy. It ought to be fixed and the
folks who made the mistake ought to pay for it. That's what I do everyday
as an attorney and when I screw up, I have malpractice insurance and people
don't hesitate to come and get their money. And that's why I've got my
insurance for and I invite them to come and get it because that's what it's
there for. And that would certainly be my reaction to this if that house
wasn' t sitting there on Lot 4. If it was just the road issue in there, I 'd
say sorry Pioneer. Fix it. It's your fault. You've admitted fault. Fix
it at your own cost and get it done. But I don' t really know if that's the
best thing for the house on Lot 4 and I could go with, I don't like the
replat except that it gives them a bigger sideyard. I could vote for a
plan to eliminate Lot 5 as a lot. If we did the replat, I 'd just as soon
eliminate 5 as a lot but I do like, I kind of like the notion that Annette
brought up, I hadn't thought of it, was conditioning approval of the replat
on the house being built to the front of the lot. Are you telling us that
that absolutely, that we don't have the power to say. . .
Ellson: To enforce it.
Emmings : Put it on as a condition of the plat. That the house is built on
Lot 5 will , the front of it will be at the setback line or something like
that.
Krauss : We have no authority to enforce private covenants, if that' s the
mechanism that's used.
Emmings : No. It's not a private covenant. That's a condition on the
plat. You see it's interesting because on the map they gave us, that's
where they put the house. They put the pad right where we' re saying we'd
like to see it.
Krauss : What they did there is they simply put conceptual P ads at the
setback line.
' Emmings: But they sure 'as hell meant us to think that that's where it was
going to be built and it was maybe a little misleading in that way but
' I guess I 'd be interested to know if you think you could sell that lot to
somebody. If that would be a reasonable place to put a house on that lot.
It would be attractive to a purchaser.
' Jim Peterson: I don' t think it's the first site. I'm not always, whenever
I look at a site, it's not. . . The reason we put that house there was not
to mislead you but to lead the buyer and as I told the Fraser ' s, I' ll do
' everything in my power to get that person to build. . .but when I put a
covenant on the lot which I can do, enforcement still remains the problem.
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 21, 1990 - Page 26
I
The. . .and let' s say they say okay, we' ll buy the lot and the covenants
there. The ordinance says. . . I
Emmings: But maybe we could catch it when they come in for the permit.
Jim Peterson: . . .but I don't know that I can honestly guarantee. I
Emmings: Oh, no. I 'm not asking you to guarantee it. I guess I 'd like t
know. . .
Jim Peterson: . . . it's really hard for me to guarantee that.
Emmings: Okay. We're not asking you to guarantee anything. Can we put all
condition on the plat? I guess I 'd like a yes or no answer . Can we put a
condition on the plat as to where that pad will be?
Krauss : I don' t believe you can. You're creating a condition that' s
applied to no other lot in the city.
Ellson: That ' s because of a variance. We can ask for all kinds of things
on those can't we?
Krauss : Well that' s true but getting in the mind set of exchanging i
something for a variance is not necessarily an ideal place to be.
Emmings: Well yeah and that' s a good point because under our standards I
right now there is no hardship here and we shouldn't be granting a
variance.
Krauss : Now there is a possibility. Jo Ann and I were talking about it, 1
that you could do something like require the platting of a conservation
easement over part. You know over the back, north part of. the lot that
would prevent any construction and we have control over it. As you crowd II
that lot through to the front, there is a drainage pond on the corner there
that precludes building real close. It's outside the setback line but
their yard , their front yard in essence would slope down into a pond that II
had water in it when I was out there a couple days ago.
Emmings: It seems to me if he thought that he could find a buyer for the II
lot with the house to the front and the house to the front would satisfy
the people on Lot 4, then maybe I could swing with the replat. Otherwise
I 'm opposed to it.
Erhart: Okay, thanks Steve. Joan?
Ahrens: I think that's a sensible solution but Steve are you saying that II
you would recommend approval of a lot size of 2.2 acres then?
Emmings: No, , and there' s no grounds for a variance and I would never go 11 along with it except it might be the best thing for the people on Lot 4.
That ' s the thing that really, like I say, to me this is simple. You make
Pioneer fix it but that doesn't really help the people on Lot 4 because it
winds up bringing their lot line in closer to their house. That I don' t
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 27
I
think is real fair to them so that' s my hang-up on this.
Ahrens: So in order to comply with a variance ordinance, we'd have to see
that there. . .
' Emmings: We can't.
Ahrens : We can' t do it right. Well if we can' t do it because there' s no
' hardship, what's the discussion about?
Emmings: That's a good literal application. The trouble is it hurts those
' folks.
Ahrens : You know it bothers me also but I mean somehow we do have
' ordinances and we are supposed to be interrupting those and making
decisions based on our ordinance otherwise we can change the ordinance.
Emi' ings: It' s cold but true.
Erhart: Sometimes the human comes out on us . Paul?
I Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one thing we did not look into that theoretically I
suppose could be investigated is the possibility of the developer stealing
a little bit of land if you will from the lot that's to the north of Lot 5.
' Erhart : He stole my idea.
Krauss : If they have sufficient area and I 'm, aware if they .do or not.
Erhart: It would appear , if you look at it, it appears. . .
Wildermuth : That doesn' t resolve the homeowner 's problem.
Krauss: You would still go through the replat so that Lot 4 would be in
compliance with the ordinance. It may not resolve the owner on Lot 4's
concern about the placement of the house.
Wildermuth: There is an interesting option that does resolve the
homeowner ' s problem though. The question who would pay and that's to move
the house.
' Ahrens : I thought of that too.
Wildermuth: You'd still have to replat but you could replat without a
variance. Without the requirement for a variance.
Ahrens : I mean even if there's a variance and there's a house built
towards the front of the lot on Lot 5, they're still not happy 'with where
' their house is because it faces the rest of the development.
Emmings: That's their claim against these folks. I don't know, maybe we
shouldn' t be getting into this.
Planning Commission .,8eting I
March 21, 1990 - Page 28
I
Wildermuth: Yeah , but they're not happy with the way their house is
situated in relationship to the lot line at the present and potentially in
the future is because the cul-de-sac got shifted to the extent that it did
But even if the cul-de-sac didn't get shifted, their house is not in a very
good position any way you look at it. For whatever reason. 1
Erhart: Joan, do you have anything more? •
Ahrens : I guess I can't go along with the staff recommendation on this .
can't go along with any of these. I would like to see a solution of the
problem. I mean I think there is a big problem here. I'd like to see the
Lot 5 sold so the developer can make some money off of it. I'd like to sell
the people, the Fraser 's satisfied but I don' t know how we can approve a
variance when our ordinance doesn't allow us to.
Emmings : So you agree with the staff recommendation? '
Ahrens: Is that what?
Emmings: They're saying to deny it. ,
Ahrens: Oh, okay. I agree with you. Brilliant.
Erhart: Are you done Joan? Jim?
Wildermuth: I think it's been said several times before. There' s no basis "
for a variance here but the one attractive resolution, maintaining 5 lots
is still to move the existing house. Failing that, then the second
alternative discussed in the staff report is probably the way to go.
Costly for the developer because it would eliminate one lot but it would II
certainly eliminate the problem with the position of the house in
- relationship to the lot lines.
Erhart : Okay, thanks Jim. I am not in favor of not making Lot 5 buildable
because it would be a waste of land. I think you know that I think 2 1/2
acre lots are already in my opinion a tremendous waste of land and to make ll
a 4.7 acre lot is even a bigger waste of land. It would prevent a
potential citizen of Chanhassen moving in. Prevent us for collecting taxes
on that lot which you pointed out Paul. Creating that lot has, the reques11
to replat has no adverse affect on the environment. It has only adverse
affect on the Fraser's as far as the way the subdivision would be laid out
and certainly moving the street doesn' t make any sense at this point.
Regretful as the mistake is and I agree with Steve that quite frankly that 'll
there is a substantial potential liability here that I don't think that the
City is in a position to try to reduce that liability. I think we' re
purely try to address the issues I just listed. I'd like to see Lot 5
developed and to resolve it. My feeling then is, my recommendation would II
be to approve the replat with the condition and recommend the variance with
the condition and only recommend a variance and the condition that the
house on Lot 5 would have to be built so that none of it would extend any
further north than an east/west line from the northeast corner of the
existing house or some other terminology that perhaps would be agreeable to
the Fraser ' s and to the staff to the same effect but I think that kind of II
Planning Commission meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 29
I
sums it up. I think that was what Annette and Steve were kind of looking
at the same thing. Paul?
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, if that resolution were to be supported, I guess we
would ask that you consider continuing the item to let us get a reading
' from our City Attorney as to what mechanism we might use to guarantee that
the home is where you expect it to be.
Erhart : Okay.
Emmings: Tim, how do you justify granting a variance?
' Erhart: Well I think if you look at my 3 years history on here, I think
I 've recommended variances in cases other than pure hardships. I think my
personal feeling is that sometimes and given precedent. Given that you' re
' dealing with precedence, still sometimes common sense prevails. That' s
all I can answer. I think the adverse affects. I think little is gained
to anybody to deny the variance and there's a lot of adverse affects I
'
think on the City to deny the variance. So if that's common sense, than
that common sense prevails in my opinion.
•
Wildermuth: But we don't meet the test for a variance though.
Emmings: He' s not saying we do.
Erhart : I 'm not saying we do. That' s why I 'm not on the variance board .
I think that Paul 's request is reasonable. Can I get some input from the
other commissioners?
lEllson : You say that in other words you'd like it tabled so you can look
at it or you'd like us to have more weeks between us and the Council to
take a look at it?
Krauss : Well either table it or direct, if you approved it, direct us to
get a reading from the City Attorney if (a) there is a mechanism that we
can use to guarantee that that condition is enforceable, and (b) if there
isn' t, we can bring it back to you so you can take another look at it.
Erhart : I would prefer to have us vote on it and bring it back if you
can' t enforce it. That'd be my preference. Steve?
Emmings: The Fraser 's. You understand what's being proposed here is that
we approve the replat but on the condition that any house going on Lot 5
would have to be built, could not be built rearward of your house. A line
drawn across the back of your house. What do you think of that?
' Mr. Fraser : . . .his lot is on the hill there.
Emmings: Well nothing can be guaranteed. Let's not talk about. . .
Delores Fraser : I feel that Pioneer Engineering who made all this happen
is kind of getting away with. . .and we' re the ones paying the price.
Planning Commission meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 30
I
Emmings: But you understand that if we deny it, that that lot. The road
may be moved and that lot will be sold and someone will still build back oll
that hill . Do you understand that?
Mr . Fraser : At that point we'd be forced to literally sell our house
because our angle of our. . .
Ellson: Right, so this option might be better for you.
Emmings: Well now, that's up to them.
Mr. Fraser : We would be so far off that road. . . 1
Emmings: Alright. Thank you.
Krauss : If I could add too. This is a little bit, this is really unusual "
and I really need to sit down with the City Attorney and find out what sort
of legal recourse the City has because we did not get the subdivision we
bought. You. normally expect a registered survey to be accurate. That' s II
the whole point behind state registration. In this case, it was not. In
my opinion, this lot is not a buildable lot as it sits right now. We would
have to, I believe would take some action through our City Attorney to mak
sure that that lot is not marketed in it's present shape because it is notll
a legally conforming lot .
Erhart : But aren' t they saying that? I mean aren' t they coming back in II
with this application admitting that it's not sellable unless.. .
Krauss : This is true but if we deny the application tonight, what happens "
then? The situation could exist until possibly there's some sort of a
civil suit brought by one of the developer or the homeowner against the
' engineer. I think the City has a stake in this too and our stake is that
we approved a lot that met all our standards and we did what we were
supposed to do. We didn't get that lot.
Erhart: I understand but that's one of the options that the Commission hall
here tonight is to deny it in which case you're exactly right. Then you
have another whole set of issues to deal with.
Krauss: We need to take some action, right. ,
Erhart : And if the potential exists that we could resolve it here tonight
given. The potential exists here we could maybe resolve it tonight and not,
be an issue.
Ahrens : Let me ask a question. There is, Paul just stated earlier that II
there was a lot of standing water out on that lot during the last rain.
I'd like to ask, whoever can answer this question, is this lot even
buildable in the front of the lot? I mean is that even an option? The
developer , I don' t know Paul?_
Krauss : There's quite a bit of property there and what you have is you
have a storm water pond basically. It's fairly well defined. It's down
Planning Commission .,eeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 31
I
near the street intersection and the land rises rapidly above that. It' s a
well defined pond. It may not be something ideally you'd want in your
front yard , especially if the home were pushed towards it but you could
build around it.
' Ahrens : So if we required that a house be placed in the front of this lot,
are we in essence creating a situation where there's never going to be a
house built there anyway because nobody would want their house standing
' above a pond?
Krauss : Well if you draw a line someplace through here. If you draw a
' line across the back corner of the home that's being constructed, you still
have a fairly sizeable area. Just scaled it off and it's somewhere around
100 to 150 feet depending on where it is. That should be large enough to
' accommodate most any home.
Erhart: Anything else?
' Ellson: I have a question. You're saying that if we approve anything
versus deny it, then the City doesn't have as much ground to stand on if we
wanted to go into, you're kind of talking along that line? Is that where
' I 'm getting that? In other words, it might be better for us to deny it.
Pass it along to City Council with all our wonderful Minutes on what our
concerns were and then if indeed we chose later through our own city, we
could do something like that. Yet if on the City record there were city
leaders that said that's fine. We' ll move it. Then we have less ground to
stand on ourselves if we wanted to look at something like that? Is that
what you' re talking about? In other words, you didn't get what we paid for
' but if we' re accepting it, then you are getting what we paid for? You sort
of confused me when you talk about that.
' - Krauss : We recommended denial because we didn' t see the hardship. It was
self created and there was no neighborhood standard that supported it or
any of the other typical measures we use for a hardship. In thinking about
it this evening and talking with Jo Ann, it occurred to me that if the plat
' is denied and everybody leaves here tonight, the problem's still not
resolved.
' Emrrings: You've got the drainfield for one thing.
Krauss: Well clearly you have that. Now presumably and this is a guess. I
mean there would be some civil action amongst some of the 3 parties that
' are out there tonight to rectify that but that doesn't deal with the City's
issues and I would assume that we would have to ask our City Attorney, or
the City Council would have to direct him to take some action. And I don't
I know what that might be because I 've never seen this before. To revoke the
plat or to make this thing whole again because the plat that we approved is
not the plat that's on the ground.
Erhart: This isn' t the first time that somebody' s come in and asked for a
replat in the middle, after the fact.
' Olsen: But not with variances .
I
Planning Commission meeting 5
March 21, 1990 - Page 32
I
Krauss : Well in fact the Ersbo Addition is coming back to the City Council'
next week.
Ahrens : For variances?
Krauss : No. They found, remember there' s a cul-de-sac in the Ersbo
subdivision and that we wanted that to align with I think it was Arlington
Court to the north. They tried to backtrack through the surveys and when II
they were actually out there staking lot corners, they realized that
Arlington Court was 30 feet west of where they had shown it. Now in that
case they were able to rectify the situation without causing any new ,
variances which we're recommending that the City Council approve, or going
to when it comes before them. If this didn't have any variances attached,
we would do the same here but that's not the case.
Erhart: Does anybody want to make a motion?
Ahrens : Me? . Which one are we working on here now? I
Erhart: Staff is recommending simply to deny it.
Ahrens : Yes , I see it. I move that the Planning Commission approve the II
staff recommendation here that states that the request to replat Lake Riley
Woods 3rd Addition be denied due to the lot area variance that results
on Lot 5. '
Erhart : Is there a second?
Wildermuth: I ' ll second it. 1
Ahrens moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
denial of the request to replat Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition due to the
lot area variance that results on Lot 5. All voted in favor except Elison
and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Erhart: Annette, would you like to add anything already to the Minutes? 1
Ellson: I 'd just like to try to see a compromise.
Erhart: Okay, thank you. I' ll just basically refer to the points that
I mentioned earlier. Okay? Thank you for your comments.
Jim Peterson: I 'd just like to ask a question to make sure I understand II
it. You recommend that the whole replat be denied right? Not just the
variance but the whole replat, street and all?
Emmings: Yes. '
Jim Peterson: Okay, for me that's major. I can move the street back. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 33
I
Erhart : Excuse nee, I failed to explain what happens here. This will go to
the City Council on April 9th, unless you request that it be delayed at
which point I believe you can come up with alternatives and resubmit the
application. Is that right?
Krauss : That' s correct Mr. Chairman. The application could be resubmitted
again for your hearing. In fact, for example if this were resubmitted with
Lot 5 being parceled up somehow, without there being any variance, I'm
pretty confident that staff would recommend approval of the street in the
current location since it doesn' t seem to harm anything else.
Erhart: You' re suggesting finding another .3 acres someplace and adding
it?
Krauss : Or lacking that, eliminate it and come in with a plat that has no
variances.
Erhart: I think with a 3-2 vote, I think what that says is that, if you
' could do some more work on it perhaps and solve some of the problems that
some of the commissioners have, you could avoid going to the Council with a
denial recommendation.
Emmings: And you understand our action isn' t final . It's only a
recommendation to the City Council.
Jim Peterson : Yeah. No, I understand that but that's the worse possible
solution. . .not necessarily for nee.
I Emmings : Well what is? That' s what he asked for so it may be the worse
for him in your mind. It kind of is in my mind but he seems to be
satisfied .
Mr . Fraser : My point was, what I was looking for was what staff had
recommended.
Emmings : That is what the Staff recommended.
Mr. Fraser: But then they said• • •
1 Elison: No, option 3 is the one that we opted for.
Mr. Fraser: . . .lots 4 and 5 together?
' Krauss: We don' t have the authoirity to order that. I am going to ask the
City Attorney though to tell us what our opportunities are to resolve this.
I mechanism Now maybe there is a mechanism where we can force the replat and a
resolution somehow in that manner but I frankly don't know. I 've never seen
this before.
' Wildermuth: Probably the least expensive way out is to move the existing
house and replat without any variances and still retain the 5 lots. And
that would make Mr. Fraser happy.
1
11
Planning Commission aeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 34
Erhart: Thank you very much for coming . I hope we can resolve that one.
That's very unfortunate.
11
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE T
REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIll
THE CITY.
Erhart: Is there anybody who would like the staff report on this? I
Apparently not. Is there anybody in the audience that would like a
report? If not, then we will not have the report. Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to comment on the proposal to change the
ordinance? If not, I would request a motion to close the public hearing . II
Ellson moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Wildermuth: And I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft
ordinance.
Erhart: We have to have some discussion. Does anybody have any
discussion? Anybody on the Planning Commission?
Emmings: I guess I 'd like to know, the only thing that concerned me about
this was the cost. The $100.00 rental fee with a $100.00 deposit and that '
really seems, it doesn' t seem like a big deal to a developer . What is the
smallest development that this would apply to?
Krauss : The platting of 4 lots.
Emmings: I guess then it doesn' t bother me too much. I know that in
Minneapolis I went through a variance proceeding when I lived there and
they gave, I think they gave us the signs and they were kind of flimsy
cardboard signs that disappeared after the first rain but you didn't need
to have them up very long and they were bright orange the whole idea was tli
bring attention to the property in a quick and cheap way so that the
neighbors knew something was going on. But I didn't think that was a bad
system. But as long as this doesn't affect something that's very small ,
I. guess that doesn' t bother me.
Erhart: Any other comments from other commissioners? I have a question.
Why did Eden Prairie phase out their program? 11
Krauss : It wasn' t clear. Sharmin talked to them. It sounded like some of
their signs disappeared and they just decided it wasn't all that important
I don' t know. In my experience, I worked in a community that had a sign
program and it was not only very effective but it was something that the
City Council was very supportive of because it did get the word out
effectively. Once you start something like that, it's kind of hard to
believe you could stop it but apparently Eden Prairie did.
1
1
I Q& -.
II r- I,
``-'..
I .
I ,
I Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
I
State of Minnesota )
I )SS.
County of Carver )
INOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Stan Rolfsrud,being duly sworn,on oath says that he is the publisher of the newspaper known as the Chaska Herald
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN (A)This newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper,as provided
I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that_ by Minnesota Statute 331A.02,331A.07,and other applicable laws,as amended.
' the Chanhassen Planning Commission ?
will hold a Public Hearing on Wednes- (B)The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.3// ,was published on
day,March 21,1990,at 7:30 p.m.in the the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part
I Council Chambers in Chanhassen City of this Affidavit Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the
Hall,690 Coulter Drive.The purpose of lower case alphabet from A to Z,both inclusive,and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and site of type used
this hearing is to consider the application in the composition and publication of the Notice:
of George Nelson Associates to replat abcdef hr klmno rstuvwx
I Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition to cor-
rect a platting error,Eson tate property zoned ''
A-2,Agricultural Estate and located east
of T.H. 101 and north of Pioneer Trail.
A plan showing the location of the By: AIL
I proposal is available for public review at Stan Rolfsrud, eneral Manager
City Hall during regular business hours. Subscribed and sworn before me on
All interested persons are invited to
attend this public hearing and express
I lopinions with respect to this pro- '
,their posa
Jo Ann Olsen,Senior Planner this • day of /._ . 1990
Phone:937-1900 / t NOTARY LAURIE&HARTMANN
I (Published in the Chanhassen Villager SOFT COUNTY
ursday,March 8,1990;No.331) .yam AIV COMM!ss E)0�'RES5 .m Lii
`otary •ubli .a......�«...«...s.......�......:
I RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ....$6.68 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ..„..„.„ .„ $6.68 per column inch
IRate actually charged for the above matter „„...„ .„...„.„ $5.56 per column inch
I
I
I
city council meeting - April 9, 1990
2c? s
6. Prior to any work being dame on the site, the applicant shall submit for
City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
1
7. If the property owners can present proof to the satisfaction of the City
Staff that the wetland did not extend into their properties from the lake as
far as they are being required to remove fill, than that should be taken
into account and the amount of fill to be removed should be adjusted
accordingly.
All voted in favor and the notion carried ominously.
*Note: Steve Christenson, Attorney for the Pfankuch's, picked up the
photographs submitted by Mr. Bob Pfankuch from the City Council after the item
was completed.
=IX/NARY PLAT TO REPLAT I AKE.RIIEI =DS 2ND ADD/TIQI TO CORRECT A PLATTING
, G RQ�9Qd ASSOCIATES
This item was tabled. 1
CONSIDER ESSTABLISHMENT CPA ND PARKING ? AL 3 THE WRIER= CORKER (WHIM
HIGHWAY 101 Aim W 'ST 78'IIi STREET. •
Councilman Johnson: Did anybody show up for item 10?
Mayor Chmiel: No. '
CoutncilTr n Johnson: I didn't know if those property owners involved were going
to be here or not.
Councilwoman rimier: It was pulled.
Councilman Johnson: I know it was pulled but at that point nobody was here.
I'm wondering if anybody is here right now. Okay, because I don't recognize any
of the property owners. Met than once.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd remember George.
-Councilman Johnson: No, it's not George Nelson. It's the guy that bought the
lot. That's the other people that I was concerned might be here.
Mayor Chmiel: You're on. -
Jim Chaffee: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, several Council meetings ago we looked at
this issue of actually the problem that staff felt was a problem of the cars
that are parked for sale along southbound TH 101 near the intersection of West II 78th Street. It was Council's desire for staff to look at it and came back with
a proposal. I've been working With the engineering department, specifically -
Dave Herpel in trying to determine what our best course of action would be to
prevent what we feel is a dangerous situation. We have came up with a
recommendation that the City Council, by resolution establish a no parking zone
for that specific area and with that we believe MnDot would then stake out the
• property lines and post signs for us and we should then be able to get a handle I
.51
1
C I TY 0
I i :
I
0,‘r°1„... . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. B47• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 OX 1• FAX (612) 937-5739
I
II MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
IFROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician fr
DATE: October 22, 1991
I SUBJ: .
Proposed Replat of Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition
Project No. 89-15
II The City currently holds a letter of credit for this development in
Y Y P
the amount of $11,000. The letter of credit is scheduled to expire
I on December 31, 1991. The outstanding improvements left to be
completed in this development consist of a 1k-inch bituminous
overlay with gravel shoulders. , The estimated cost of this work is
II approximately $8,000. At the January 14, 1991 City Council
meeting, the developer requested an extension to complete the
improvements. The City Council voted to grant one further
Iextension (6 months) until July 14, 1991.
Since then the developer has apparently been able to come to an
agreement with all the parties involved, contingent upon replatting
II the 2nd Addition. Staff, from an engineering standpoint, has no
concerns with the proposed replat of the 2nd Addition. The
appropriate utility and drainage easements are being proposed
Itogether with sufficient road right-of-way.
If the City Council denies the variance request and replat of the
I 2nd Addition, the road would have to be relocated approximately 50
feet south at the most westerly extension of Pineview Court. The
intersection of Foxford Road and Pineview Court would remain at its
existing location. Staff has calculated an estimated cost for the
I relocation of the road to be approximately $35,000. This estimate
does not include any relocation costs involved with other public
utilities which include telephone, '-electric and gas.
If the City were to intervene and proceed with the relocation of
Pineview Court, due to the time of year construction would have to
I be delayed until spring of 1992. Staff, however, would immediately
draw on the letter of credit to cover a portion of the corrective
work. The additional costs involved in relocating the road would
be assessed back to the benefitting properties. There currently
II ot
t or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
i
I
Jo Ann Olsen
October 22, 1991
Page 2
exists one home on Lot 4, Block 1. The remaining lots are
undeveloped. ,
Should the City Council grant the replat of Lake Riley Woods •2nd
Addition, a new development contract would have to be prepared
incorporating some of the conditions of the 2nd Addition. In
addition, the letter of credit would have to be extended should the
remaining improvements not be completed yet this fall.
ktm 11
•
•
• 1
1
I
i
1
1
. 1
I
1
1
I
1
10 24 91 12:05 Z 6.12 542 1711 NELSON GROUP �+1
I
I
(fe : ' . ))1ik1
' (t 1MAJJ10
1
Telecopier Transmission Cover Sheet
Date: October 24 , 1991
Joanne Olson
' City of Chanhassen
FAX NUMBER: 937--5739
Frio m
James Peterson _------_--.
Number of Pages, Including cover sheet_•.3___
If problem with fax, please contact Donna at number
below-thanks
1
1
1650 South Highway 100 • Suite 428 • Minneapolis. MN 55416 • (612) 542.8474 • FAX (( 12) 512.1711
CORP(); ACOUISITiONS RFAi ESTATE DEEVf I C)PMI-to
1
10'24'91 12:06 Z 612 542 1711 NELSUhl G POUF 02
I
1
I
On January 31, 1990, George Nelson Associates (GNA) discovered that a
surveying error had been made by Pioneer Engineering (Pioneer) in the
construction of Pineview Court and also in the staking of a home for Charles
and Delores Frazer (Frazer) on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition.
Since we discovered the error, we have continuously attempted to resolve
this problem. Resolution has been difficult for many reasons. We hired
Pioneer to provide surveying and engineering services to build the road. We
sold the Frazer Lot 4 based on information provided to us. The Frazers then
hired Pioneer to stake their house on their lot. Contractual relationships
exist between GNA and Pioneer, GNA and the Frazers, GNA and the City, and
Pioneer and the Frazers. Pioneers offers to settle typically would place us
in the position of providing a release from the Frazers, thereby putting us in
the middle of their contractual relationship. In my opinion, neither Pioneer
nor the Frazers were initially willing to accept a realsistic assessment of
damages.
On March 7, 1991, Pioneer filed suit against GNA and the Frazers forcing
us to retain legal counsel, thereby increasing costs of settlement and making
resolution more difficult and time consuming. Pioneeer also turned this claim
into their insurance company, adding another party to the settlement process.
During this period, we have been unable to sell any lots on Pineview
Court. Timeliness of settlement has been of paramount importance to us and I
feel that we are the party most injured by the lengthy negotiations. We have
done everything we could to resolve this problem as expeditiously and fairly
as possible. We have finally reached settlement among all the parties
involved with the exception of the City. At this point, we would like to ask
the City to help with the final resolution of this problem.
As part of our agreement, we are asking the City to approve the replat
of Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition and grant a variance for Lot 5 to allow a 2.2
acre lot.
We believe that we meet all the conditions required to grant a variance
as provided by ordinance:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
The scope of this problem goes far beyond a mere inconvenience.
In addition to the economic hardship of not being able to sell
lots or the loss of a lot, not granting the variance would create
a residual 2.2 acre parcel with little or no value. The Frazers
have said that they do not care to have an additional 2.2 acres to
maintain and pay taxes on that has no value to them on sale of
their house. The City has stated that an Outlot is not acceptable
to them.
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings,
shape, or topographical conditions of the land.
In this case the hardship is caused by the physical surroundings,
the erroneous location of the Frazers house on Lot 4 relative to
the easterly lot line. To maintain reasonable setbacks and to
contain the Frazers septic system within their property, this
variance is necessary,
10 24 51 12:06 Z 51 542 1711 NELSON GP'DJF 07
■
I
1
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are
unique and generally not applicable to other property.
Certainly the road placement error compounded by the house
placement is unique to this situation only and would not be
encountered on any other property.
4. The granting of a variance will not be auhgrantially detrimental
to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of
' this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
Under the existing zoning at the time of original plat approval,
5 lots were allowed by the City on a 13.2 acre parcel. If the
variance is granted, there would still be only 5 lots on 13.2
acres and the overall density of the parcel would remain the
same. This is in accord with the intent and purpose of the
ordinance. Lot 5 would retain its original septic areas and
' still have room for a building site. Granting the variance
would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare.
' I also disagree with the Staff Report that states "this is clearly a
self-created hardship." GNA, as developer and property owner, is applying for
this variance. A prudent developer should be expected to hire licensed or
registered consultants to perform the technical work for them. we did this.
Staff states that there is "no way the City would have been aware of this
problem" and that "the City . . . relies on the fact that the work prepared by a
registered survey is legitimate and finds no need for further questioning."
' The same applies to us. In no way did our actions contribute to this error.
We are a innocent victim of this error.
In conclusion, I would appreciate your consideration and help in the
final resolution of this most unusual problem.
lThank you.
t
1