The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Vacation Baldur Ave -#.3 _ _ CITY O F P.C. DATE: �- 1 C.C. DATE: Feb. 12, 1990 CASE NO: 90-1 Vacation r• CHA11AE ' Prepared by: Al-Jaff/v II I STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Vacation of Baldur Avenue II— z IQ 5 V LOCATION: East of Horseshoe Curve, south of Pleasant View inII il. Road, north of Lotus Lake and adjacent to Lot 46, Pleasant View IAPPLICANT: John D. & Ann Danielson < 6607 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 PRESENT ZONING: N/A IIACREAGE: 15 sq. ft. by 300+ sq. ft. DENSITY: Acttati FN CRY Administrator II ADJACENT ZONING Worse y LJA AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family lidt'e- De:, 4-9 - 0 S- Lotus Lake . , Dote Stibtaitcd to CCM mission LAP E- RSF; single family Date Sebm d to Coma I (, W- RSF; single family ' n-` O IID W WATER AND SEWER: OMB • II PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Baldur Avenue is a paper street which is heavily wooded and has a steep slope. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1 I . . , I .. b . ii _ • - F . . p O O O O O O , .4.5.` m D on N O T q I I ► PIN COUNTY � CASTLE RIDGE COURT SCADE ORO E • n ç O r ,�r,,�iy •.�1/,� SMAETA CIRCLE /! �t� . ' 111110! WEST s �\ r P•,1_ �jr�•+ `I/.011Mi iI -VAT NRCLE ig ■1,111 '' -R �t©. L�..w : �MI ,1=; OLYMPIC CIRCLE ilk ` TRAPIINE t '•,� AiS� 6300 NI) reAla 10)4 CIRCLE - ..I .• �•�� ,`��1 CASTLERTID�,� ��: AMi►� COU L1I ► --76:11:11111: 6400 , �IF411„44 -< *vw.)■1- • / �w�'��I N NTERS r�r Af# �.i S �, �% NOLLOM.A % k^ 1j :Pat Ill a viii. �i ORI:i � . \ . r . _ �t.. i.•.— RSF pre_ ...� �� ii. . .4.., ■`�'�1:�J ��i7 r'' NO A :=41 G� —__ 6600 iti:t mkt N au'i i • . Oh --iR 1 . 'mu 1�:Uilif :fit. ��, r A, -- 6700 4,11 PI," Micat* , \„ A r 141 , fl.t. - ! Tr:Fin`,qv lo'..A \____fops �� eit`� , ( °. �� :•• 6600 IV ev G� 1 � � �■ � 6900 v M^� i - 1 L 0 V S r� . 4444 virltrIAIrral4". -6 .-priAli-INT1011111.15,,,iLN- - /7101-7-tat * a • ‘41511110 A�� A�� ■ , , 44 ,�„t�c � 7000.ire 03 t,i,, .4.4.11 . i vy / � ,.-' , -G NI,V.,-._-....-a._k --A- t_4t1 : 4e,vn11iza N., ,i �� fl ''III• f�r - A�• i• IIIIIv SHADOW MERE v --� ,•• i /. 91 !""et IV4 11107 \ 7200 4fr 1 1 !%,. % LAKE : ix o ■ 1A1.2 / ;"6 ..-" �'� 5'Iithat .4�\1■ ■nth d�' F w 'iii;• PT!*:71l��4 or ►.�i' 164 c� ��1i ..ir f 1r"I' 7400 ~ P .) IT::::411. g: \\‘ - 74.. fR ' , 1-11111■r". iv; ie.-. III) ft : 474, ....1, ti... mg i ti, irpie . , sr----T2-8 4-W"44 . „I-4W'. - ar...‘4 • Ir,V9 ir 0 ■ - --, i - . . _, _ • • . . _ 1/ Baldur Avenue Vacation February 12, 1990 Page 2 ANALYSIS I The applicant is proposing to vacate Baldur Avenue. Baldur Avenue exists as an undeveloped right-of-way. At the present time the applicant uses Baldur Avenue to access his property. The street was intended to be platted 30 feet wide, however, the easterly 15 feet of Baldur is under the ownership of Robert ' Sathre (see Attachment #1) and is covered by a permanent roadway easement. This 15 foot wide easement is used by the abutting property owner, Ronald Harvieux as a driveway access to his property. It is not known how this portion of Baldur Avenue was conveyed to Mr. Sathre but documents exist noting that this por- tion is under private ownership. The resulting lot configuration is highly unusual since Mr. Sathre's home is located some ' distance to the northeast along Pleasant View Road. A sewer line runs through the southerly portion of Baldur Avenue along the lake. An easement does exist over the privately owned portion of Baldur Avenue but not over the portion that the applicant is requesting 11 for vacation. Staff recommends that an easement be retained over the existing sanitary sewer line. The City has no use for Baldur Avenue other than using it as an access to the existing sewer line. The steep slope of this area makes it impossible to drive a vehicle to the sewer line. The area is also heavily wooded. The applicant wishes to vacate Baldur Avenue for preservation purposes by minimizing public use of the strip. The City Council should be aware that Mr. Sathre has a pending , application for a subdivision before the Planning Commission. He is seeking to divide his parcel into two lots. His application has tempoarily been withdrawn after the initial Planning Commission review. Staff anticipates requiring the acquisition of the 15 ft. strip of land covered by the easement to avoid the creation of a remnant parcel with no legitimate use. Copies of the staff report on the subdivision and Planning Commission meeting minutes are attached. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff is recommending approval of a resolution for Vacation Request #90-1 for the vacation of Baldur Avenue with the following condition: 1. A sanitary sewer easement should be retained/conveyed to the City over the portion of the existing sanitary sewer line. 2. No tree removal shall be permitted on Baldur Avenue. I/ Baldur Ave. Vacation February 12, 1990 Page 3 a ATTACHMENTS 1. Location of Baldur Avenue. 2. Location of utility easement. 3 . Application. 4. Sathre' s Subdivision Staff Report and Planning Commission minutes dated January 3, 1990. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I ' i z ' 1 //2 SEC. / , - T /1 . -; R 4, .. . .. 0 , 4, cyt+,4644, ‘A - / /, __Qi iti241-0 . . ' 4t I Ket5 \ so. 3 411.\`'. ow- , ., 4' 1PP' 25 441 � `f' . o S s9� 2 ' Y „h- \'%4, .... .to NOW' 4CP/ v. .:\ .; % A (o 3 4. 4711''" 4 o9 #, Q oa "...03 49 -DONALD 28 �� ' J ,A • ,23. �'• a�� STEVENS ! C.•‘) TION ■ qt. I O \ ,+.o ; / I 1 / i \ *vire 0 I . // ( .e.•1 �Gf w @ 40• -`•IIIIIIIAWrllr ‘0' 111111 ,.."3.--- te tr.co % 7°'-- _.----:-_-■=-; -- - ..__ to,.. t 'I- ?"i.v..-">.- ..9 /elie • "it -:-_,.., c / 3 r 46 , - 51 � : / - B A L D U R AVE .' A r AiiiiNiis4 tdog D f _.rya% , , /' , , ., _ Illp, / • 1 3 . • f 2 1 4 1• , h. _ '4L._ he ca. ,mr,; . 7„,, .y q, •� Atafes, D,Taiii\it, _,...„ , I• 6 ‘ ....-••• 4teitrip4 0?, asf ' / '11 ii _ . 0,,,, iv ie,. __,..... Oftlig4 . d 4°, Ws's,J4, •ie x cd. dee.'"" 01'0 viv ii ‘s \ es , : �j ` 'e"• i � � ti 48 1 . a. OF$TE *� � `, �K • 33, P 101 w �� I I 1 % 46 1 . A g ‘s 0•It I I ,Actr4 fl II ,. , .e. Swisal.. 1 1.• 1/ - _ !I•pkti4 0009., 44 .1 � ♦ /r : wills ' . ' • .... Ili of' 1 kJ ....tI r -40„ NI('•+ � °•- itik I • 44 450‘L4•4 %/4' ► LOCATION OF r"W • SANITARY & 1 , i 1 SEWER EASMENT A - • ' < ,i&lb i, , r j►,400.o�a f. N . ` .. •' s /4 !ow W . / .b5JI7//47 " .ewder laSeendiN4 1 . . I • • 17 • . • *is • / Aa�11\m&44 •4:# 2 /.. / • . . . . - i (/ . . .% LAND DEVELOPl(ENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: JOHN D. & ANN DANIELSON OWNER: SAME ' ADDRESS 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE ADDRESS CHANHASS N 55317 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) (W) 853-6769 TELEPHONE (H) 474-6504 , REQUEST: Zoning District Change _ Planned Unit Development , Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit X Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit ' PROJECT NAME NOT APPLICABLE PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RES 1 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RES PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING RSF USES PROPOSED NONE SIZE OF PROPERTY 15' x 300 ± 1 LOCATION ADJACENT TO IDT 46, PIEASA TVIEW REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST PI',ESERVE AND PROTECT BAIDUR A a - IN ITS NATURAL 1 STATE Zn k.LOoW 4NTATER RUN-OFF AND DRAINAGE FRCS' ABOVE AND 1-UNDIE72 EBOSICN OF SOIL INTO IOTUS LAKE. THIS WILL ALSO PFEVETT POTENTIAL ABUSES CREATED BY PUBLIC , DISTURBANCES IN THE FUTURE. I HAVE MAINTAINED AND PIO'1'ECTED THIS AREA FOR 20 YEARS AND IZUID LIKE '10 CONTINUE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) ADJACENT TD LOT 46, 1 PIEASANTVIEN. I City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 1 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten Or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ' FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies ' that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances. • Signed By % ` Date 01 1i 9D App icant The undersigned hereby certifies that the authorized to make this application for the property has been described. Petty herein • Signed By Date Fee Owner Date Application Received ' Application Fee Paid. City Receipt No. r * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. 1 r s • � . ITY OF r ^,. DATE: Jan. ' 3, 1990 `•� CHAHAEC.C. DATE: Jan. 22, 199 CASE NO: 89-20 SUB II , • Prepared by: A1-Jaff/v STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 3.2 Acres into Two Lots of 2.08 Acres and 0.78 Acres Imo Action by City Admtntst'1lt i, Endo!sct ✓ A" SigIC VRejected LOCATION: 365 Pleasant View Road pEta �.z/ap/�9 Dote Submitted to Ccrrn?ssioll — Dete Stet-":::: to Council Q APPLICANT: Robert Sathre 365 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 { • PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 3.5 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- Lotus Lake E- RSF;' single family Q W- RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. (75 PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is a riparian lot between Lotus Lake and Pleasant View Road and heavily • -wooded with mature trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 11 b - - .1 • ' u C ( CAr*� A�'1.DE CHR/ T A . / I NEr N, COUNTY "uR- 111 leSw' •, LAKE / aril, • ,- . -• ,, , ; kWICNI. Wli411:1121 I ir--7-- . RD P I. • ( TRAP.MBE__ treetvdt, •4:1 Vit - 4,41•Av. 1 eirpolopl cf.%,,..0,„ . \lot 0 1......1.., . c•Lg.A,.._-.• -:".....,•346L1§k",I i stosiP, al-. • 'I -- '44 4 15c-A4 *. e lan trOANIII 7Ar Nte '1 4� ` - ; •., : 1.,,i;,'MI ii NI leM3121191M,t,::::" "ir iib . ), ..,...,...ti,_ ; ,i.g,p.,- 11111111111111Mratak tit • „--; -ge oE __ .. _ .::‘ - 1 „. mrimiseas le*x*214 . . NE g -. ,,,;w4ratil eft li,4,-.4., . . t:.--''S'■ d i ivies ik- , , v. . Ak-7-_, I wilviLir,N3 s s - Iy ,,. is ir...., „ma:a. iv ....0 V �' i, c� sa �� \ D 1/t Pair-/it ' nu • *0 . r - `ril: -va3,�r . cation. O • .:,A4.41311%■ �� ■■ Jan � ;,=. ' - ro osed Subdivi , i• ,.. .1..„„-.. .. ., 7-ifliNmiing ,R.4,_ ,w • 14' - \' /1 a 77111fitIti..\ . & 1 ILI r: ri:;'-.4 ,;: ' af:1,. limo b .!zr-illill4, ::?, 111114,k, ' ,,,,.V. tti, owl II Z. r..7"= :11 111110 �dw", i �� /!• +'~ r► el, Alla . •:h Pa z ,,, ... .,, ,.• , „,,: ,.... ��►� �� mid \,• �' A.ow i..::=�� •fin° '.. ..,,. ... y f�",�/�. •.An•.. . •.. -., f 4.1..-.1 k., .F ...7Ru .', i, ,,.....„• ,,4. _ ,•_ ,) - ,.. ., 40.„. 4410.\\‘ L A AT \imps,-. i l• or Sill 1111110 ' ...) it .•e. - -e ‘ st :3,..... ...i7jor I, .:... '. ' v.:111 A . ' 1:1 1tir; ;10b111 Valk:1 kr...r, -.\,., 11 . , 111:4 INS ) '• 1 is "r •Allaslills R4 j ',ice + I. 1 . 1 1 ..!'tA.:. I 41a. t.i ,V. . AgiatTg! Vidal ..i ''. \ -=. . irmilsil warm ,„,r, ...j. tir.`13,-;,* Ai \..t. iii R 12,_ •I _ �■� �� n Sri�f , � 4 ',. .,� t IM V:. Sathre Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 2 I BACKGROUND On August 19, 1977, a 15 foot sanitary sewer easement south of ' Lot 1, Block 1 and south of Baldur Avenue (which exists as a paper street) was acquired by the City, Also, a 15 foot wide driveway easement was dedicated to the City to allow access to the lift station located on the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 (Attachemnt #1) . ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 0.78 acre lot from a 3.2 acre parcel. This lot will be made available for new construction. The remaining 2.08 acre parcel contains an existing house. Both lots meet all of the requirements of the RSF District. The standard utility and drainage easements are being provided along the lot lines of the plat. Public utilities are available at the site. Both lots will be served directly by driveways from Pleasant View Road. The lots are large enough that both have sufficient area to be further subdivided. Lot 1 could be spilt into several additional home sites at some point in the future but at the present time variances would be required for lots having no frontage on a public road. Staff is in the process of developing ordinance revisions that would clarify this issue. ' Lot 2 could not be subdivided due to lot width criteria. Streets i In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses the utilization of existing Pleasant View Road for access. He is requesting that the proposed driveway for Lot 2, Block 1, be located to the extreme easterly edge of the lot to provide ade- quate sight distance from the corner of Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe Curve. On busy streets such as Pleasant View, staff would normally consider the feasibility of requiring that the two lots share a driveway since reducing the number of curb cuts pro- motes traffic safety. In this case, due to topography and tree coverage, shared driveways are not recommended. To insure that future owners are aware of the required driveway location on Lot 2, an appropriate notice should be placed in the Chain-of-Title. The City is requiring 33 feet from the center of Pleasant View Road be dedicated for the existing street and potentially future expansion of the road. The existing lot is currently platted to the centerline of the street. Baldur Avenue exists as a paper street. The westerly 15 feet of Baldur Avenue was vacated. The applicant is in ownership of the easterly 15 feet of Baldur Avenue. The Baldur Avenue situation is quite unusual in that it is a "tail" extending from the lot Sathre Subdivision . January 3, 1990 Page 3 II that will be severed from it when the Pleasant View right-of-way II is dedicated. The applicant wishes to retain ownership to pro- vide some means of accessing the lakeshore although he is aware of ordinance restrictions on its use. Baldur Avenue is currently II being used as a driveway access for the property southwest of the subject property. The property using the driveway for an access can be subdivided in the future. In order to prevent these lots from being landlocked, an easement for right-of-way for future I lot access will need to be secured. The northerly portion of Baldur Avenue will need to be dedicated to the City to provide access to these lots and ROW for Horseshoe Curve. The remaining I privately owned portion of what would have been Baldur Avenue ROW should be platted into an outlot since it is unbuildable. Staff has also proposed a condition that would restrict clear cutting of trees over 4" caliper on this outlot since it is visible from ILotus Lake. Park Dedication IThe Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plat at their meeting of November 29, 1989. It was their recommendation that il II park dedication fees be required in lieu of park land. K Easements I The City is requesting an easement over the existing driveway to obtain access to a lift station located on the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1. The driveway easement was dedicated to the City in 1977 but was not recorded. The City has used it con- tinuously to provide access to the lift station. A sanitary sewer easement exists over the southerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1 and extends over Baldur Avenue. Typical easements have been II provided, 5 feet on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet on the front lot line. IICOMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT II Lot Lot Lot Front Side Rear Area Width Depth Setback Setback Setback , Ordinance 15,000 90 125 30 10 30 Lot 1 90,605 93 300+ 100 160/300 30 I- Lot 2 33,976 114 289 N/A N/A N/A :I VARIANCES REQUIRED None. 11 Sathre Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the 11 following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated November 6, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far easterly edge of Lot 2. Notice of the location shall be placed in the Chain-of-Title of the lot. 2. Easements required: I a. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue. b. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1. 3. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of , park land dedication. 4. A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance I of a building permit. The plan should illustrate how driveway and home placement and construction will minimize tree loss. The plan must be approved by staff. Preservation areas shall be adequately marked by snow fence prior to construction to avoid damage. Clear cutting of trees of 4" caliper or larger shall be prohibited. I 6. The final plat shall reflect the dedication of Baldur Avenue except for the southern 220 feet. The southern 220 feet shall be shown on the final plat as Outlot A. 1 7. The final plat shall show the width of Pleasant View Road from the center of the existing road to the Lot 1 and Lot 2 front property lines as 33 feet. 8. Any tree on Outlot A with a caliper of 4" or greater shall be preserved. A tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to any disturbance of the area along Baldur Avenue. A grading plan approved by the Planning Director is required." ATTACHMENTS 1. Easement descriptions. 2. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician. 3. Application. 4. Preliminary plat dated November 6, 1989. I I I . 7-40 1 ; L-,v,C, 1'N' ti() > ft.A L. kg.iiii: . ■0 • :::,....! ,t ‘iit NI:IINN, z.• ....I. Y /14; ..4 , . .• . . . ._.,..), 1 . .,,, A- fil . ° ',... . 4.$••;\ i ‘44 - NI 'qt/ ;? /: , 4, \ qt. *.. , sp , • , . , .‘ _ ‘ . ... r 4 fki .. ..„ , , ... / 1* A 2 \--4'-----/11 .). 4 1 \\\11:14- \Ilk - : A 1 r %...• g t / i , r '1 at s itt ill 4 41 I I I I I I I ill I I I I I I I I 1 I I I as 'I Pt.�" ic : 00.�i ■ 3701 Grum Av.; • t :. la• •• • • M , . • 1 • , t. •1 . .SEC. • d . f . + I sober *wee Wsft4mo n, !r11/fy � ::i • ±: ,aid Soo* ltu,„eva1 Ee $t pp, Pylsej Ltfsf;ko c , ( St If eg•)RMss 1 � •■, ` • , 4 �:A� �'i ;: Lrw?eV err sower 114 �,p �� lip ••.., Nsp!l�ir Ilk, •phi '� 44' �� / %.‘,. 3 1 f r• .• • w�.. .�. •rrt �nrir .c).%,\ �p I �HI I t� I� �.0 1 .� ...2 • '1604! : '04.1e/A".••• ,•\. • ,. 7 —._._ - at•:4 Qty # s 1 %r /1'-• r... . twft iLyr 0.00 „. . ,.• .L.-_,-.: 1 ...4 b.= \ it 411 ,., \\-P 0 1 •� w--.. .• _+f,pp J , ► , Near Nlayn f gin Prolog t. Sir Ins 11'40 1 • • ( 2844.T ��, 48 '�H.a. oFST�E �t*,'•V'�Y 'I St/s3. p l y8 � �� VI S3.111101 ti' - b. . ••. SJe'4fn”1N ' . / 49 47 • l.. (.✓ sin,Y , w, +4Ss;c�rl �;v etr••.a" '1...' 317 Snow 4 b•si Pt,`� `�'',' I/ „ . ., 2 •. 'ar... sewer tsm AU to . /4 tit I ' !w�'•.w .��'• � 4 r M i/ y 741 ry /' N ••4M • i 4 e• • . It kl-Til ....: itto, /..... ••4.J.,4.r.ow . ... `-+ %$Iyifory Sewer astAlMf• 1 iiie . .1 I, . . .' - i � Los - • . •P A A. � a 7 - I 4 4 isle. • VI' . I • • Pr..d .1-.. 6 f ; DEC-20-89 WED 15 : 47 Ha�-;�►�.h,m, ',n1 21 P . 0all ' ' • __ III ORDER NO 9058-C . 1 CARLIOI[MACRON WILLIAM O.SONDELL SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. II REOISTIRCC CIVIL INDIN[[R REOIST[R[O LAND SURVEYOR MIMN.NO.urn ENGINEERS 11 SURVEYORS MOM.NO.•1111 R.OAK.SSE SO NINTH AVENUE SOYTM SO.OAK.T31 wlp.N .$•u1,• MOOKINO.MINNESOTA$5$4! will.NO.S•,T- II taw.►PM.pTpa s ►.D IDa MO.AM 'NONE SSOrl001 NO.OAK.•77 N0.OAK.ttpp WONT.MO.taws MONT.NO.1941•/ ,OwA NO.MI DESCRIPTION 'MAO NO.Mi. II gent CITY OF CHANHASSEN { EAST LOTUS LAKE SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAINS II Revised 11.4-77 7ur purposes over#and acrossalheafoell�ringrdescribe sewer opertyft station access P P 11 S 1/2, Sec. 1 All that part of Government Lot 3 and 4, Section 1, Township 116, Abstract Range 23, described as follows, viz: Beginning at a point on the Book 89, North line of Government Lot 4, 1516.5 feet West of the Northeast Page 202 corner of Lot 3; thence South at right angles to the North line said Lot 4, 270 feet; thence South 883 23' East 416.7 feet; then of South 240.4 feet; thence South 540 19' West 653.6 feet to the North- ' easterly line of Pleasant View, Carver Co. , Minn. according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds for said Carver County; thence Southeast along said Northeasterly line to the Easterly line of Pleasant View; thence along the Easterly II line of Pleasant View to the shore of Long Lake; thence along the shore of said Long Lake easterly to a point on said lake shore where the same is intersected by a line 682 feet West of the East line of II said Government Lot 3; thence North parallel with said East line 1975 feet to a point 33 feet South of the North line of said Lot 3; • thence East parallel with said North line 190 feet more or less, to II the West line of a public road; thence Northeasterly along said Westerly line to the North line of said Lot 3; thence West to the point of beginning; excepting therefrom a tract of land deeded to H. A. Ofstie and Lena Ofstie by deed recorded in the office of '• one said Register of Deeds if Book d contractedeto be page old bylsaid excepting also a tract o dececent to one Clara Arnold by contract for deed recorded in the office of said Register of Deeds in Book "B" of Bonds for Deed at page 470. The center line of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of the above described property; thence on an assumed bearing of South 26 degrees 38 minutes 05 seconds West, along the northwesterly line of the above described property, a distance of 68.62 feet to the beginning of the center line to be described; thence South 78 degrees 43 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 177.60 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 76.95 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south- west having a radius of 114.12 feet and a central angle of 38 degrees 38 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 40 degrees 05 minutes 54 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 86.26 feet; thence south. easterly and southerly a distance of 192.81 feet along a tangential I curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.59 feet and a central angle of 37 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 4 roofs East tangent to t i last described _ . _, ____ curve, a distance � 3 OO eat an sal center_ ine eeer terminating.Pane - - • ORDtI NO_ 9058-C WILLIAM D.•ONDtLL SOHOELL & MADSON, INC. CARLISLE MASSON At3I$TEOLO CIVIL CNDINUEII REDISTERtD LAND SYRVsYOI I MIMM.NO.aa.. SNQINEERS & SURVEYORS moots.MO.ai'1• •0.WR.f $ SO NINTH AVCNUC SOUTH ••.N,E..Ii will.NO.E•a/7. Wla.N0•$..f4 MOSKINS.MINNCiOTA Sii4i FLORIDA ot0..a7. PWONS SSSPDi ,OwA NO.a701 I N•.•AR.ass N•.SAN.„i■ � MINT.NI.,.,... DESCRIPTION MONf.«•.,f4a•• IOWA NO.SOBS nsAa NO..lfa• : I/ Cpl CITY OF CHANHASSEN EAST LOTUS LAKE SANITARY SEWER AND MATERMAINS Revised 75) (Continued) 11-4-77 = Together with a 15.00 foot easement for sanitary sewer lift station S 1/2, Sec. 1 access purposes over and across the above described property. The center line of said easement is described as follows: 1 Abstract Book 89, Beginning at the terminus of the above described center line; • Page 202 thence South 21 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds East a distance II of 135.00 feet and said center line there terminating. 1 4 I/ I/ • I/ • I/ • 1 I I/ 1 • Page 75-B GEC-20-09 WED 15 149 p . 03 i • . •ROCK NO 25111■ I WILLIAM O.tOMOILL SCHOELL & MAOBON, INC. t:ARLISLL MAOISM RIOISTLRIC CiViL INSINLLR SESISTIRLD LAND SURVIVOR a►NN.ND.ssss INOtNEER$ & SURVEYORS NINN.NO.•s+4 SO.OAK.TOO 40 NINTH AVZNUC SOUTH SO.OAK.Ot)t w10.NO.11.11+0• MO•KINS.MiNNISOTA 45341 ' w10.NO.11-1104 ■trDR10A NO.•,7t !MONO sDw*NO•070• NO. DAL•20 NO.DAR.ff00 MONT.NO.111, .c WONT.NO i9414 IOWA NO.BM DESCRIPTION 'MAI NO.SWIM Mk CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 II EAST LOTUS LAKE SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAINS 8-12-76 37) A 30.00 foot temporary construction easement and a 15.00 foot perpetual easement for sanitary sewer purposes over, under and across the following II S 1/2, Sec. 1 described property: Abstract All that part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 1, Township 116, Bk. 89 Range 23, described as follows, viz: Beginning at a point on the P. 202 North line of Government Lot 4, 1516.5 feet West of the Northeast corner of Lot 3; thence South at right angles to the North line of II said Lot 4, 270 feet; thence South 830 23' East 416.7 feet; thence South 240.4 feet; thence South 540 19' West 653.6 feet to the North- easterly line of Pleasant View, Carver Co., Minn. according to the plat II thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds for said Carver County; thence Southeast along said Northeasterly line to the Easterly line of Pleasant View; thence along the Easterly line of Pleasant View to the shore of Long Lake; thence along the shore of II said Long Lake easterly to a point on said lake shore where the same . is intersected by a line 682 feet West of the East line of said Government Lot 3; thence North parallel with said East line 1975 feet IF to a point 33 feet South of the North line of said Lot 3; thence East parallel with said North line 190 feet more or less, to the West line of a public road; thence Northeasterly along said Westerly line to the North line of said Lot 3; thence West to the point of beginning; excepting therefrom a tract of land deeded to one H. A. Ofstie and Lena Ofstie by deed recorded in the office of said Register of Deeds in Book "33" of Deeds at page 101 and excepting also a tract of land contracted to be sold by said decedent to one Clara Arnold by contract for deed recorded in the office of said Register of Deeds in Book "8" of Bonds for Deed at page 470. The center line of both easements is described as follows: *Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds West, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 799.35 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 166.53 feet; thence North 74 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 186.45 feet; thence South 87 degrees 23 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 165.40 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 258.84 feet; thence North 10 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 335.68 feet; thence South 74 degrees 15 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 230.89 feet; thence North 40 degrees 52 minutes 27 seconds West a distance of 271.84 feet; thence North 39 degrees 46 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 324.67 feet; thence South 82 degrees 28 minutes 03 -. .,- ...a.:..--..—.. .ter.. ......,.... (Continued) p ...,,..,�.r�..�..� :,�...,.._z,. age,37..,:,.,,.,�A... e - — - P . 06 • OROtR NO "C WILLIAM a.IL CNCII SDHOELL & MADSON, INC. IIt01/T[RC CIVIL tNO1NLLR tiARLI/Lt*AMNION MINN.NO.ifii �NOIN�EIq$ Qi •LJgvsv a R[OtIT[Rt0 LANG tyltVtYp RD.DAR.MI $0 MINTM AVCNYC SCUM MANN.NO.•SI wit.NO.1.11176 /O.DAR.Tin MOPKINI.MINNI IOTA$1043 WIO.ND.O.M IbORIOA NO.i=TI NO.OAK.•ifs/113O•711101 IOWA MO.1TOi .NONT.MO./wl,•t • M/.OAK.II$ O Iowa NO. SW DESCRIPTION NOWT.NO 1741•11 t&*A$MO.awe row, CITY OF CHANHASSEN EAST LOTUS LAKE SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAINS 8-12-76 37) (Continued) • S 1/2, Sec. 1 seconds West a distance of 243,49 feet; thence North 69 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 339.58 feet; thence South 70 Abstract degrees 06 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 344.52 feet to the Bk. 89 beginning of the center line to be described; thence South 20 degrees P. 202 26 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 396.35 feet; thence South 10 degrees 45 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 144.91 feet; thence South 78 degrees 07 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 20.00 feet and said center line there terminating. Together with a 40.00 foot perpetual easement for sanitary sewer and sanitary sewer lift station purposes over, under and across the above described property. The center line of said easement is described as follows: Beginning at the terminus of the above described center ling; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet and said center line there terminating. Also together with a 10.00 foot temporary construction easement for unite sewer and sanitary sewer lift station purposes over, under and across the above described property. Said 10.00 foot temporary construction easement adjoins the northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly lines of the above described perpetual sanitary sewer and sanitary sewer lift station easement. Also together with a 40.00 foot temporary construction easement and a 15.00 foot perpetual easement for sanitary sewer purposes over, under and across the above described property. The center line of both easements is described as follows: •Beginning at the terminus of the last described center line; thence South 78 degrees 07 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 210.53 feet; thence South 69 degrees 06 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 111.69 feet; thence South 57 degrees 10 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 140.57 feet and said center line there terminating. Also together with a perpetual easement for public right-of-tray, street and utility purposes over, under and across that part of the above described property which lies westerly of a line 20.00 feet easterly of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with the most westerly line of the above described property and tying northerly of a line 80.00 feet northerly of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with the northerly line of Lot 46, PLEASANT VIEW, according to the, recorded plat thereof. Said temporary easementsto expire December 31, 1977. Page 37-a 4 CITYOF I 4 ) :., =!,: , CHANHASSEN . . . il 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739 IIMEMORANDUM IITO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician f I l.i/' \I. 1 DATE: November 21, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Sathre Addition IIFile No. 89-19 Land Use Review I Upon review of the preliminary plat of Sathre Addition dated November 6, 1989, submitted by Schoell & Madson, Inc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations: 4., I .- The site is located south of Pleasant View Road and east of Horseshoe Lane. This plat proposes subdividing one lot into two. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain- II Sanitary sewer and water service is available to Lot 2 from Pleasant View Road. On Lot 1 where their is an existing house water service is provided. from Pleasant View Road and sanitary sewer service from the,line immediately south of the house adja- 1 cent to Lotus Lake. S.F V IIStreets This plat will Ut'ili'ze xi"stirig Pleasana;, ,#y Roed;�for:•_access. I It is recommended that the proposed driveway for Lot 4 be located to the extreme 'easterly edge of the lot to provide;-adequate site distance from the corner,zof;.Pleasant View-Road..and Horseshoe Lane. : ... : Grading and Drainage ±` IINo grading plan was received with the preliminary plat; there- fore, it appears that no grading will occur over this site. 11 II - . .F -^49+^'M=.A.b4F..ciXa<^ La4'.'.A'.^RX'^".S"•:'_'�S:'ini Y:t.-iNR. •:RU:V.0 -•C: Sharmin Al-Jaff November 21, 1989 Page 2 Miscellaneous I The standard utility and drainage easements are being provided along the lot lines of this plat. However, the plat does not I show an existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 lying between Lotus Lake and the existing house. This easement should be shown on the final plat (see attached) . Recommendations 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far easterly edge of Lot 2. 2. The final plat shall reflect the existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1. c: Gary Warren, City Engineer i I I I 1 11 I I , -- \K3e--7--40 - 405 T•7--. • ' .. --m—qs - , i . ' 1000" / 4 ...II E- 1 I \\4./..‘ .IASI copos ( \ OW eli 1 .. c 00,. atA / / 1 ..1Z‘ \ INS 1 ° .. . ' -,3 A i\ \ A `• \\ I - \\ 1 1 :, 0. ....iirga-.. . 1 , .--- \''-'s -- 0 ,,___7.. ---/..... 1 Q , 1 kii„ No i\---- __./, ; 1 i IoM (p N S I 1 • I .1 - --- . I I t I i S \1...;)4.. -IL biz-•.. I 'dNUWi73ed ,, ab • ■ I \ fir ✓Q ✓v .i/vi - thifrgli 1j37- LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION -_ • CITY OP CHANHASSEN II 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 . (612) 937-1900 t. _ ..r APPLICANT: _n O 13e rLsS a OWNER: o - I -ADDRESS cr e, i'?, i Rs ADDRESS 4 ' .. �� • - ' Zip Code 9,, ., 53/ TELEPHONE (Daytime) 73?•/0 d i TELEPHONE . - - r Zip - REQUEST: Zoning District Change Plann r .- IF ed e •Unit Development • Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance - Preliminary Plan II Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision L I and Use Plan Amendment _ Platting Conditional Use Permit _ Metes and Bounds Site Plan Review Street/Easemgnt Vacation Wetlands Permit II PROJECT NAME - PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION A REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION - • PRESENT ZONING S REQUESTED ZONING • USES PROPOSED gET. SIZE OF PROPERTY 3. 5 ac, t' LOCATION Jt /,rj- ,►� 1/quv S.. . . REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST C -Pk/G - 'MG. a �i� ce /1710 d J Servi`ces were />7 J plc d a„d .fsserr-ed 4 CA n d LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) eG a/ . 7"w //,6 ' A' 3 '' 3 , 3'/ Ac. . i., Z.at 14. " ill CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1/` JANUARY 3, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens 11 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern 11 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.2 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 2. 08 AND .79 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED BETWEEN PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND LOTUS LAKE, 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, ROBERT SATHRE. Public Present: Name Address 1 Alan & Carol Lenhart 6575 Pleasant View Way Stuart Hoarn 6745 Amherst Robert Sathre 365 Pleasant View John Danielson 6607 Horseshoe Curve Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve IISharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Conrad: You didn't go through the recommendation. Basically staff has a II recommendation of 8 points here. Maybe we' ll cover those later. Quick question before we open it up for comments. The outlet that's recommended, and I'm asking this because I think we're all going to have the same II comments on that. What rights does that outlot have Paul? As a 15 foot wide, 200 foot strip, what rights does that give somebody? Krauss: Virtually none. It's not large enough to be a recreational I beachlot so there's no dockage priviledges that are attached to it. It's really an anomaly that the lot we're working with tonight had a very strange configuration which is essentially a tail of right-of-way that was draped onto it. It really had no purpose. When we looked at the plat, we tried to determine whether or not we should accept dedication of all of it and then vacate it again because we had no need for that outlot area. That I tail of right-of-way up to that outlot serves a purpose. It's either right-of-way that would be attached to Pleasant View Road and used for that or attached to Horseshoe Curve but that area that's outlined in red has no public purpose at all and it would be severed from the main parcel by this II action. By our taking the right-of-way that we do need. In talking to the property owner, they wish to maintain ownership of it simply because it gives them, they would be the buyer of Lot 2. It gives them the right to I walk down to the lake on their property. They may want to launch a canoe from there. Really nothing else and nothing else could be done. In order to insure that it's not significantly disturbed as a condition of approval _J V Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 2 r that limit tree cutting on the outlot and would require grading permit approval. So really the fundamental uses of it are very minimal. , Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments. Bob, would you like to have the floor and talk about, this or would you like to react to the staff report in any way? Bob Sathre: I guess it is what it is at this point. Conrad: Have you read the staff report and you're comfortable with what 11 they said? Bob Sathre: Yes I have. I Conrad: Comfortable? Bob Sathre: Yes. Conrad: Other comments. a Ron Harvieux: My name is Ron Harvieux. I live at 6605 Horseshoe Curve which is the, I think it's called the exception lot there. It's the lot directly to the east, northeast of that red outlot. Yep, that's it. Thank you. I guess my comments have to do primarily with it. The rest of Lot 2, up on Horseshoe Curve is not at issue with me and quite frankly I'm not sure what issue I have with the area outlined in red. I feel problemed because only today did I find out about the fact that part of this subdivision included that red line. I may be mistaken but the notification we received for the December 6th Planning Commission which was, I guess II this issue was not discussed then, but I believe the notification that I received only outlined the area at the top. That is Lot 2 and there was no outlot mentioned or if there was, I must admit I misread or misconstrued. In fact it wasn't until today that my wife up at City Hall got a packet of paper that outlined the fact that outlot red is going to be involved.- I have some concerns because I believe the passageway, the access to outlot red, I'm not a lawyer but I'd sure like to talk to one because I 'm concerned about some issues here. I believe the passageway to that outlot II red goes over what I think is my driveway. Not my driveway. A driveway that I use to get to my home. I'm not sure what the legal issues are and what happens if someone trapsing down to Outlot red, I mean I just don't know. I don't know what's there. Right about in there is part I think of the driveway that services and then from there, does that touch Horseshoe Curve right there? I Krauss: Yes it does. Well actually right now it goes-over this lot. I'm not sure how your driveway exists right now. I Ron Harvieux: I'm very unsure how it exists on that map. That's one of my issues. Krauss: Right now your driveway crosses a tail of this property to g et to the public right-of- ►ay. What we're doing by this action is we're going of take title to this whole section of public right-of-way. Call it Horseshoe l I I planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 3 Curve then v C ve so the you will have direct frontage on a public street which you don't appear to have at this time. Ron Harvienx: I guess that appears to be the case. One of my, and again I don't know if this is exactly the forum to get an answer or not but I'll ask the question. One of the issues is that what is the legal status then of the driveway that currently I and my neighbor share as of this proposal? What is it? Krauss: You would have a driveway located in public right-of-way which is permissible. Ron Harvieux: And who'd responsible for any upkeep or any kind of. . . Krauss: You are. Ron Harvieux: So I am responsible for someone from Lot 2 going to the public lake access and red outlot over that driveway? Krauss: Your driveway, which is now constructed over private property, would become located in public right-of-way. Anybody in the public has the right to use that right-of-way for access. Presumeably if they wanted to take a canoe down to the lake, they would come down the public section of Horseshoe Curve and then make a trail or something down through the woods to get down to the lake. Ron Harvieux: I understand what you're saying. I guess I still would surely like to have someone clarify it for me. I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying. I'd just like to have clarification as to what that means to me legally. If I'm responsible for shoveling that driveway off. I mean I just don' t know. I don't know what's going to happen on that piece. This is kind of a new deal for me today so I guess what I'm really here to do is I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to allow me the opportunity to take the packet of information which now exists and seems pretty clear I guess but I just kind of tried to start consuming it. I don't know if I've done that very adequately right now as evidenced by this right here and I'd like to have the chance to look at it and share it with someone who can tell me where my rights are because I am concern about what happens to that driveway. This is kind of a different cut of cloth from what I thought was going to happen here. So those are my comments. • &Timings: Can I just ask a quick question? Talking about shoveling the driveway and maintenance and things, who's doing it now? Ron Harvieux: I or the fella sitting here. 11 Emmings: So if you continue to do it, nothing would change it sounds like. Ron Harvieux: The only thing that would change would be who's passing over it and what my legal, yeah. That's right. I wouldn't do anything differently I don't think. I'd just like to know what's involved for me. I also just really wduld like to have, just kind of in general, time to 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting I January 3, 1990 - Page 4 I react to what I've seen here because it certainly does impact a part of the ambience if you will of. . . I Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? John Danielson: My name is John Danielson. I live at 6607 Horseshoe I Curve. I'm on the other side of the parcel that we're talking about and like Ron Harvieux, I didn't know until 6:00 tonight that this meeting was even going to happen. I haven't had time to review anything. I don't ever have a copy of it yet. I was loaned a copy at 6:00 and one of the ■ questions that I did have as I read that was that the property appears to be able to be further subdivided. Now what kind of useage would that place on that strip, the access strip to the lake, how many parcels could the land be subdivided? Is it more than 1 or 2? Krauss: Well let's take it one at a time. Both of the lots are theoretically large enough to be subdivided. The City requires 15,000 square foot lots. Lot 2, which is the smaller one, is 33,000 square feet. Depending upon where they put the home, if they put a home as illustrated II right smack in the middle of a lot, it would not be possible to subdivide II it. Lot 1 is quite a bit larger with 90,000 square feet and is theoretically also further subdivisible. However, a lot of the square footage is in that arm that extends out to the street and is occupied by the driveway. We think they can get some additional lots out of there but they're not proposing it at this time. Also, those lots would take variances under current statutes because they probably would not have frontage on a public right-of-way and it would be up to the City Council to/ approve that to technically speaking, those lots are not going to be, probably are not going to be subdivisible without variances. I John Danielson: But it could be, it sounds like.. .up to 6 or so lots? I've known Bob as a neighbor for years and I certainly don't want to restrict. It's his property. He owns it. What I'm primarily concerned II about is how much activity there will be next to me. You indicated minimal useage with a canoe perhaps. One canoe, nobody can complain about one canoe or a sailboat moored out there. Six, you know that's a different story. How about swimming rafts? Floats? Things like that. We see the II lake and it's population density now. We see the number of boats that are on it already. I'm concerned about safety and I'm concerned about my own privacy. . We've had the luxury of having that strip for years separating our properties and in the summer you can't even see one another. It's beautiful. We'd like to keep it like that. I guess my message is that I also would like some time to think about this if it's possible. I don't II know. You know 6:00 until 7:00 or 7:15 wasn't adequate. . How was the meeting publicized? Krauss: There was a mailed notice that went out for the original meeting II and I believe we probably, Jo Ann, did we renotify for the delay? Did you get a mailed notice from us? It should be on the mailing list. John Danielson: Not this week. We got one back a month or so ago roughly and we were told that that meeting had been tabled or whatever and we haven't heard anything about it since then. I I Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 5 Olsen: We usually will send out another hearing. . . John Danielson: Did you get a notice Ron? Ron Harvieux: I don't think I did. . . Was the first meeting or the first 11 thought different from this one? Krauss: No. What was different though is, the meeting notice that was sent out was sent out based upon the County half section map. Plat maps that we use. The plat maps that we used, the half section maps don't show that finger of property. That finger of property showed up on the actual survey that was submitted to us. It was always part of the same lot. It' s all one tax parcel. It just didn't show up on our neap. Ron Harvienx: I guess for me, that's a dramatic difference. I have no problem at all with Lot 2. It's the red thing potentially could have an issue with. John Danielson: It's just that finger, yeah. I think it concerns us both. Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I think I'm starting to understand this. I probably got more out of the conversation than I did by trying to read the history. It's a tough one. Let me ask you this. On Pleasant View or next to the red, what's now termed the red outlot, where you have called Baldur Avenue. What is that today? Is that an easement? Krauss: Actually there's an existing platted right-of-way called Baldur Avenue that's 15 feet wide. What purpose it had and why it dead ended in the lake I couldn't tell you because we can' t figure it out. This tail of land from this tax parcel was evidentally intended to be dedicated for right-of-way down to the lake. We don't believe we need that right-of-way for any public purpose and therefore couldn't see the point in accepting dedication of it or requiririg dedication of it. In fact, the other 15 feet of Baldur Avenue could be vacated if we got a request from somebody to do so. Erhart: Well for the benefit of everybody. Okay. So we still have, that's a street easement or a right-of-way? Krauss: It's a right-of-way. Erhart: So by making Outlot A, we're only actually doing half of what you think, half of what we're attempting to do. 11 Krauss: We're not compounding the problem, right. As I say, we could vacate the blue side .of it as well if we received a request to do so. 1 1 • Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 6 Erhart: You cannot think of anv ossible reason why we'd why d want to have a 30 foot right-of-way right down to the lake edge? Krauss: No. What we have along the lake here is we have a sanitary sewer I/ that Sharmin discussed which runs through here and we have a pump station that's someplace in that area. 1 Erhart: So part of the conditions is that they provide an easement over Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue? Krauss: Right. Erhart: Can you show that one on the map Paul? I John Danielson: What you're looking at there is a ravine, kind of a swale. It's on a fairly steep hillside and it's a natural place where the water typically runs off down to the lake. 11 Krauss: The sanitary sewer that was installed runs along the lakeshore through here so while we're willing to accept the outlot status on Outlot II A, we want to take an easement over something like that to protect our rights to have that sanitary sewer in there. The other easement we're talking about is some time ago when this lift station was installed, this easement that was drawn up over the driveway that exists on the property toll allow our maintenance crews to get down there and that is in fact how they've been serving this property since it was first put in. We know the easement was drafted. We're not sure that the easement was ever filed and what we're trying to do tonight is just basically rectify that error in the past and put it in concrete. Erhart: Alright. So there's no reason to get access through Baldur Avenue, or Outlot A to the. .. Krauss: No. In fact it's heavily treed and it would be pretty disruptive r for us to go down that way. - Batzli: Paul, doesn't the report say that the westerly half of Baldur I Avenue was already vacated? Just to clarify that. Krauss: It was? We did vacate that? . I John Danielson: I read that in the report. I question that also. I don't really know what that means. Emmings: Unless you've got it vacated, it must be yours now. John Danielson: 15 years ago I did apply with the City to have it vacated II and at the time they were unsure as to what their future plans were for it and they denied my request. Krauss: Sharmin said she found a document that was supportive of the vacation but it still shows up on the plat map so evidentally it wasn't filed. • 11 I Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 7 Ellson: It's like a housecleaning job here. 11 Batzli: Stuff not being filed. Emmings: If the west half wasn't vacated, how could anybody own the east half? That's what I don't understand. Things are getting kind of loose I here but I don't understand how someone could own the east half if the west half wasn't vacated. Krauss: The east half was always private property. It was never dedicated to the City. IIErhart: The east half was owned by this guy. Emmings: So the east half never was right-of-way? IIKrauss: No. Emmings: Only the west half? IKrauss: Right. They accepted the dedication of a half street. Yeah, very unusual. I 've never seen anything like it. IIErhart: I was beginning to feel self-conscience that I was the only guy having a hard time understanding this. Okay, I think I've got that now. 11 Emmings: But then it doesn' t make sense to talk about as the west half because it's just Baldur Avenue. II Erhart: Regarding directions, I have another problem on condition 1. It seems where we use the term easterly edge of Lot 2, what I think you mean there, isn't it better described as northerly edge? 11 Krauss: Northerly. Erhart: Well , or how about northeasterly corner or something? IIEmmings: It can't be east. IBatzli: It's north/northeasterly. Erhart: Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1, that's the one we thought we had but we're now going to try to catch it. It's over an IIexisting driveway. Is that clear? j Krauss: The surveyor, Attachment 1, the surveyor gave us a description of 11 where the existing easement was supposed to be. We don't have a transparency of it but if you look through your packet, you'll find that in there. IErhart: We're talking, in item 4, we're talking about a tree preservation plan. Go on to say that clearcutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger shall be prohibited. I guess my question is not referring to this 11 Planning Commission Meeting I January 3, 1990 - Page 8 particular subdivision but I P guess over the last couple of years we keep treading on trying to prohibit subdevelopers from clearcutting without trying to invade on people's rights to use their property and remove trees II if that's what they want to do. Now we have a situation where essentially we have one lot. We're not directing this at, are we directing this at a subdeveloper or are we directing it at the fellow who owns this lot? I Krauss: It's directed at whomever would build on it and own it, yes. We've had similar stipulations attached to individual lots and larger subdivisions. I think Trapper's Pass was one, just to the northeast of here has several of those lots. Olsen: The shoreland lots. , Krauss: That's true, it is a shoreland lot as well. Erhart: What, this one is? I Olsen: .. .under the Shoreland Ordinance prohibits clearcutting. . . Erhart: You're saying that there's a State law. Olsen: That clearcutting within the shoreland. . . I Erhart: How many feet is that? 1,000 feet. Okay. I guess I don't have a problem with it here. I think we keep adding things. Now we're adding to be marked by snowfence. I'm concerned on this whole tree, as much as I like trees as much as anybody. I'm concerned as a group we're treading ever so closely to telling somebody if they can plant or cut a tree on their property. Just as a thought. Again, we go down on 8. I guess I 'm II more comfortable with that one because that's right next to the lake. That's all the questions I had. Emmings: I've still got some confusions about this. I'd like to ask, at II the top of page 3 in the discussion in our packet it says that the applicant wishes to retain ownership to provide means of accessing the lakeshore and that's what they want the Outlot A for. So do I understand II that the owner of Lot 2 will own Outlot A? Krauss: Yes. I Emmings: Okay. Then it says the property using the driveway for access can be subdivided in the future. Now I think you're there talking about II this gentleman's property back here. The one that's right next to Outlot A, is that right? And it says in order to prevent these lots from being landlocked, how would that happen? I don't understand that. Krauss: Keep in mind that this very unusually configured lot actually comes down like this right now. As we read the survey, this parcel has no frontage on a public right-of-way. It's actually a landlocked parcel right " now. By our taking the dedication of this segment of street and adding it to Horseshoe Curve right-of-way. I I 1 " Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 9 Emmings: You've giving him frontage? 9 9 ge? Krauss: Right. Emmings: Okay. And the bottom of that same page, in your table there. Under lot depth there's just a misprint under Lot 2 is that right? Krauss: Yeah. Emmings: Is that supposed to be 289? Just so I'm reading it right. Is that what was intended there? We're talking about the depth of that Lot 2. Okay. And is the reason that under Lot 2 under the next three columns that it's not applicable is because there's been no plan for a house right now or what? Krauss: That's right. What's shown on there is schematic and the home could be anywhere. Emmings: On the recommendations it says the driveway access to Lot 2 would be located to the far easterly edge of Lot 2 and I thought that was what Tim was getting at. I don't understand that at all . Al-Jaff: The site is heavily wooded so you really don't get very well visibility and with the way the street curves, you don' t see any cars coming. If we shift the driveway further to the north, then it would allow better visibility. Emmings: It says to the east the way I read it. Erhart: We just changed it. Emmings: Oh, did you already change that? 11 Al-Jaff: Yes. Emmings: Oh fine. Alright. I missed that. Sorry everybody. Let's see, I easements required. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer and then (b) easement (b) there. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1. That's in favor of the City is that right? IIKrauss: Correct. Emmings: I think it should say that. Now I want to talk about Outlot A I and Baldur Avenue. Contrary to what's in the report where we have a Baldur Avenue with an east and west half, do I understand now that you're telling us that Baldur Avenue is only what we've been talking about as the west half? Krauss: Only the west half exists. IIEmmings: And how far does it go from the lake? Krauss: It goes up to Horseshoe Curve. I Planning Commission Meeting I January 3, 1990 - Page 10 Emmings: And ends? Okay. Then condition 6 doesn' t make sense. To me it says the final plat will reflect the dedication of Baldur Avenue and that's wrong. Am I right? Al-Jaff: Except for the 220. 1 Emmings: No, that 220 feet is not Baldur Avenue. Krauss: Steve, I think the confusion to some extent comes about from the II survey we received where the surveyor labeled the outlot Baldur Avenue assuming that we would accept it or take it as right-of-way and make the complete 30 foot right-of-way. You're right. You're correct. It is not Baldur Avenue that we're taking there. It's a portion of the site. Of Lotli 2. • Emmings: Well, it's not. I can't tell that from looking, at least I can't" tell that from looking at the plat because it would appear to me, it's being designated as an outlot which means it's not part of Lot 1 or part of" Lot 2. It's an outlot. Krauss: That would be the case in the future, right. If you would refer to flip back to Attachment A. I Erhart: I think the confusion here is the term Horseshoe Curve isn't it? Emmings: Well, that's also a confusion. That's a separate confusion. Now, wait a minute. Let's all get on the same page. Ellson: Attachment 1? 1 Krauss: Attachment 1. I'm sorry. On Attachment 1 you see the existing property and along Pleasant View, the property is platted out to the center " line of Pleasant View. You'll see, if you extend that on around, there' s a tail to that lot that goes all the way down to the lake, adjacent to Baldur Avenue, around that offsteep ladled property. By our taking the right-of- II way that we feel we need for Pleasant View and for Horseshoe, that will become a free standing parcel. It will no longer have any frontage or any connection to the balance of the site. Hence the outlot designation. Emmings: I don't have any problem with that and I'm not trying. to quibble with you. I want to make sure that if we're going to put some conditions on this thing, first of all I think the subdivision is fine. I've got no problem with that. I want to make sure that we're not creating any confusions by using language that seemed to be right given the information we were given in this report and it turns out to be all wrong. Let's go back to Outlot A. Krauss: Possibly it would be better if we measured it, instead of measuring it from the north, which is what's done here and it's confusing, 11 if we measured the outlot from the lakeshore going to the north. I I I'• Planning Commission Meeting II January 3, 1990 - Page 11 • Emmings: Why do you have to measure it at all? It' s on the plat as Outlot A. Why not just call it Outlot A? Why don't we just say, you've got to IItake out that first sentence in 6. Batzli: I'm sorry, why don't we just take out 6? IIEmmings: 6 has to be rewritten. Batzli: What does it have to be in there for? It's on the plat. IIKrauss: I could clarify, yeah. We got the survey that shows Outlot A last week after the staff report was written. That's why there's the confusion. IIEmmings: Okay. So 6 has to be striken. Alright. Krauss: And replaced with Outlot A. No, it doesn't have to be replaced. IIEmmings: I think that we should, I noticed I read our By-laws. I do this annually before this first meeting in the year. I didn't have a lot to do II today so I read the By-laws. It says we can leave the record open for written comments if we choose or I don' t know. I can' t remember if it's at your discretion or whatever but maybe that would fit the bill for these gentlemen who would live on either side of this Outlot A. If we could IIleave the record open for written comments. If they had a couple of weeks to get in their comments and then those could go with whatever we do with this to the City Council so at least you get a chance to speak their peace. IConrad: We've never done that. It's in the By-laws? II Emmings: Yes. The only other thought I had was that I just wonder if there should be some restrictions in this subdivision approval to make it perfectly clear to anybody who owns Outlot A that they don't have a launching pad for docks. Swimming docks. Don't have a place to put canoe II racks or anything else. I think it's clear that under our present ordinances none would ever be allowed but if it's right in there, I think it's a good idea to put there explicitedly. IBatzli: Why wouldn't it be allowed in our current ordinance if the homeowner of Lot 2 wanted to lauch his canoe from his outlot? i IEmmings: I'd have to go through this. I've looked at this in the past on other ones. I think you can't have an accessory use. You know all of those things are accessory uses. I think this is the way it goes and Paul probably can correct me if I'm wrong. You can have an accessory use on a parcel without there being a principle use so since you can never build a house on there, you could only have those things as accessory to the principle use of a residence. Since you can't have a residence, you can't have the accessory uses. I Wildermuth: Or it has to qualify as a beachlot. ilEmmings: Unless it can be a beachlot. a ,I II Planning Commission Meeting I January 3, 1990 - Page 12 11 Batzli: So you're saying that he can' t have a raft, well he might be able to have a raft depending on something else, but he can't have a dock and hell can't have, store his canoe there but he would be able to walk over the property and launch his canoe? ERmings: Yeah. I Conrad: Anything else Steve? E wings: No. 1 Conrad: Annette. , Ellson: I'll try to be brief after those two. Emmings: Well, pardon me. I Ellson: Just giving you a hard time. I shared John Danielson's concern about the subdividing the other lots. In the analysis you talked about Loll 1 could be split but the staff is in the process of developing ordinance revisions that's going to clarify the issue. Can you expound on that? Krauss: Sure. Since the fall we've had a number of situations where neck II lot situations have been approved. Variances have been given but there was no clear direction on how to handle these things. We've also had some situations, not so recently that I can recall, but where we've used private" driveways to access properties that might otherwise be unaccessible. Each time we said that what we'd like to do is come back to you with a set of policies and recommended ordinance changes that will provide some guidance I for dealing with these things. Probably what we will be suggesting are standards by which variances could be authorized for neck lot and no frontage situations. So as we pointed out, right now this requires a variance to be approved. In the future it either may not require a variance or it may have standards that if these lots meet, that a variance could be authorized. But at this point that would be a recommendation from us to you. It can always be denied. I Ellson: I guess I was just a little concerned because of so many are going through and I think our loopholes that it has to be a hardship, I'm concerned that it easily would be one and something like this where there's " only one major access and all of a sudden we're clustering in the way we want. Krauss: One of the points of confusion is the subdivision ordinance allows II up to 4 homes to be served off a private driveway. The RSF district doesn't allow any. I Bob Sathre: We would accept the condition where the lots would not be further subdivided. Ellson: I don't know if we can even do that legally. Can we? Not if we allow 15,000 square feet and stuff. It'd be nice to control but we're not allowed to do that I don't think. But okay, so that's part of what you're II I ` • Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 13 �• talking about. Just the ordinance. Overall ordinance revisions. More of a rule of thumb as to, it seems funny that you'd say okay now a variance is going to be allowed when the whole idea is not to allow them. That was one question. I already asked my other question. I never heard the phrase paper street and I was a little concerned that someday someone actually could put a street through that steep thing again for a boat launch or whatever but I seem to be consoled that that's not a problem. I agree with Steve that we should make it a point in the documents wherever possible that they're not going to be able to have a dock there and things like that. There's many a person who comes here and says when they bought this land they were allowed to do what have you and if we not only have it in our ordinances but also have it with that piece of property, there won't be any mistaking that. Nothing further. Batzli: Two questions. One is after I said let's delete number 6. The question I have, Steve you probably know the answer to this. Even though it's shown on the plat, do you normally say something in the conditions that right-of-way for instance for streets and such are going to be dedicated to the City or recorded or anything like that? 11 Ellson: In favor of the City? Emmings: We can't delete 6 and I realized that after but what we have to do is we have to have, it seems to me there has to be a thing in there that the plat will show, we still have to get this piece from this line down to here dedicated to the City and 6 has to say that. Batzli: So you're working on that? Emmings: Yeah. They've got to call for the legal description for that piece and get it in there under number 6. Batzli: The other question I had is just number 4. The tree preservation plan. I didn't hear if that was somehow changed by Tim but the question is, can you get a grading permit before you get a building permit? Krauss: Yes, if a condition exists that says that you can. Our grading, probably another, every time we scratch at this we get another issue but the grading ordinance is one that the City Engineer is working with Planning to revise as well. We have put this kind of a condition on several recent approvals to require a grading permit. Batzli: That was my question was should it be a building and/or grading, whichever comes first kind of a deal. Krauss: That would be fine. That would be acceptable. iBatzli: Those were the only two questions I had. Wildermuth: The subdivision looks appropriate. I don't like, it just seems that Outlot A is unfinished business. It seems as though Outlot A should be taken by the City and then vacated in favor of the adjacent property owners. r I Planning Commission Meeting I January 3, 1990 - Page 14 Emmings: You've got to pay for it. Wildermuth: It just looks untidy. Conrad: The City would have to buy it. I Wildermuth: Right. Because they don't have a planned use for it. Conrad: Right. I Wildermuth: No intention to put a street in. Conrad: Anything else? 11 Wildermiuth: No. That's it. I Conrad: Joan, haven't really said anything to you tonight but welcome to the Planning Commission. Ahrens: Thank you. • Conrad: And I'll let you have a crack at this one. ' Ahrens: The questions I had concerned Baldur Avenue also and they have been raised already. I had problems with Baldur Avenue I guess in general. " Conrad: Okay. Structure wise, the only thing that bothers me in the whole thing is number 8 or the red outlot or however we term it. That just seems real unusual and not really a purpose for anything other than some, it's there and we have to deal with it. Could the owner of that put a deck or stairway in Paul? Isn't there a setback from lots for a stairway or deck? Wildermuth: They could put a path in. I Krauss: I'll defer that to the expert. Conrad: To the one in the stands. Okay, Jo Ann. Tell me what can happen on this parcel? I'm intrigued. Olsen: Decks and.. .or something like that, that would be an accessory structure. That wouldn't be permitted. A stairway. Conrad: No setbacks on stairways. It's pretty rough territory. It is a I drainage easement so to fill it, what would have to happen? Can they fill it? To fill it, grade it, do we have something in here saying that you can't really tamper with it unless, well tree removal plan. Grading approval plan. Planning Director. Because it's a drainageway, I suppose engineers can get it by anything can't they. So thereotically it could be cleared of everything other than 4 inch diameter trees. Could be leveled. II Water could be piped. Drainage could be piped down. Basically filled. Olsen: ...permit from the DNR to get a sandblanket. r I If" Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 15 Conrad: Some of that is okay. They could do that. ' Ellson: So do you like Jim's idea of the City buying it or you're just questioning it? Conrad: No. I'm not wild about that. I believe two things should happen. One, I think the neighbors, whether through their own fault or through ours or whatever, really should have an opportunity to get some advice on this one or to study it. For whatever reason being given, there was no signal or flags thrown up based on the data that they got and in terms of this one parcel that we're playing with and I think they should have an opportunity to look at it which means we have an opportunity to table the action for their further review or to just, as Steve mentioned, we could leave the record open and they could, it sure appears to me this is the only issue on this particular subdivision. They possibly could get that input in time for City Council review. My only comment I think is, if I were to word a motion on this one, it would really deal with number 8 and basically state that there would be no significant alteration to that outlot. Batzli: You mean that recording against the property, that they can't change the. . . Conrad: Basically. That would give the new owner, whoever, the right to use it but not the right to change the character. Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn and I am contemplating purchase of Lot 2 and the only reason for it would be to access or go down to I suppose the alternative is Robert could withdraw the application for the subdivision and fence the whole thing. That would create even bigger problems so I think there's a balance of interests of the various property owners that I think would. . . Conrad: Keep going. We create bad recommendations unless.. . Stuart Hoarn: We have no ideas about putting in a stairway, viaducts. 11 None of that. Conrad: And you're promising you're going to live there forever. Stuart Hoarn: No. I think it would be a good idea to put in there that if there are alterations there, if it's not legal for us to say that we don't want to subdivide either Lot 2 or Lot 1, I guess we can't do that but I think that's something, we would allow a deed restriction or something. Whatever was needed. There has to be someway that the .two lots could agree, two owners could agree that it would not be resubdivided. It's really an unpractical thing because of the terrain and to have a city easement running right through the middle or the edge of the house could. . . to resubdivide it further. It wasn't my intention. Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Ellson: Did you rewrite that one? • • I Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 3, 1990 - Page 16 11 Emmings: Which one? Batzli: Number 6. Emmings: Yeah. 1 Ellson: Just wondering if you needed more time. Batzli: Are you looking for a motion Ladd? I Conrad: Not yet. I'm thinking. This is think time Brian and wasting everybody elses time. Yeah, looking for a motion. Hopefully somebody can II deal with that parcel. Hopefully somebody can deal with providing the neighbors a chance to get some input in and some legal advice on this. I would hope we could incorporate that into a motion. I Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated November 6, 1989. Batzli: I think it's December 29th. Emmings: The plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1 would be altered so it says, easterly will be changed to northerly edge. 2(b) will be altered, simply add that the access is in the favor of the City of Chanhassen. Number 4 will be altered in the second line to say that the tree preservation plan must be submitted prior II to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. There is no number 5 so we've got to change the numbering so we don't have gaps. What was 6 will now be 5 and that will now say that the final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legally described as, and I'm going to leave that II blank. What I'm intending here is that the staff come up with a legal description of a parcel that's defined by the northeasterly extension of 11 the south line of Lot 2 across this way on the north and on the south it would be the north line of Outlot A. - Krauss: While we're talking about dedication of right-of-way, we also need i to ensure that we get the dedication of the Pleasant View Road right-of- way. Emmings: Isn't that already on here? That's the next one. Batzli: Shall show it but I think the applicant should also be required toil dedicate it. Emmings: Okay, so what was 7 here will now be number 6 and it will say that the final plat will show the width of Pleasant View Road and that shall be dedicated as right-of-way so that will be altered to show that that's also dedicated as right-of-way. Down at number 8 will now become number 7 and it will say the following. The owner of Outlot A will not be II permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in any way without permission of the City. The owner of Outlot A will not be allowed any dock, swimming raft, ''boat moorings or other accessory uses on Outlot A 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 17 other than using it as a means of access by foot to the lakeshore. I don't mean to exclude him carrying a boat down there. How can we say that? I don't like that. Let's go back. I'm going to start over with that. Let's just say, the first sentence is okay, that there's no grading or other alteration of the property with a permit from the City. tBatzli: Are you striking the part about the tree removal? ' Emmings: No, I'm going to put that on the end. I'm going to start out this way. And then let's put down that they're not permitted any docks, swimming raft or boat moorings and then go to the language that was under number 8. The part about the trees. Just leave it as is. Then finally, ' the record, how long will it take for this to get to City Council? January 22nd? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: That's almost 3 weeks so that the record will be kept open for written comments from property owners that might be affected by this and they should have their written comments into Planning Staff within 2 weeks so they have time to get it into the packet to the City Council. Batzli: I'll second it. Conrad: Discussion. ' Batzli : Steve, do you mean to have any of your language from new number 7 recorded against Outlot A since really what you're probably or people would be most concerned about is if a new owner purchases it and isn't aware of these conditions. Emmings: Yeah, I think it should be recorded against the property. I'd add that. Batzli: I would accept that. Conrad: Basically you have not taken away any rights that previously existed for this parcel. Was your intent just to clarify what their rights or lack of rights were but you have not further restricted in your motion. Emmings: It's as close as I can get without their having just a little time to kind of stating what the ordinances say anyway. ,I don't think 11 we're taking away anything. I don't like Outlot A. I don't think it ought to be there. I think it ought to be part of this gentleman's property over here but I'm not willing to go so far as to put that in aU a condition of allowing a plat. I think that's going too far. Conrad: In your motion for number 7 you basically, the wording that you used to me said that they can alter only after the City, the Planning Director has seen what they want to do so your motion, based on the words I heard you say, you said the outlot can be altered only after it is approved by the Planning Director. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 18 I Emmings: I don't know. I said unless he gets a permit from the City or permission from the City. I Conrad: Which is saying exactly what staff said to begin with. You haven't changed the use. You've clarified the use of that. You have basically gone along with city staff. Emmings: Yes. Conrad: Any other discussion? Wildermuth: I have one question for the adjacent property owners to Outlot , A. Is there any interest in pursuing some kind of legal way to obtain Outlot A? Ron Harvieux: I can't say never. I think 3 or 4 years ago we discussed a II trade off of land because this has always looked like a blight and I think we kind of got somewhere but I 'm not sure we stopped I believe because the City seemed to want us to plat the land which looked like it would be more expensive from what was going on at that time. At least that's what I took away than we wanted to occur so we dropped that. Since that time, I might be misstating it. I don't know if it's 3 or 4 years ago but it's some timell in the past. Since that time until now I didn't know that that was back on the issue and I would be very willing to reopen those kinds of discussions. We were talking equal land trade-off. At least that was the concept then. I'd be certainly willing to reopen that discussion. Just haven't had time to do it because frankly. . .didn't know that Outlot A was part of what was now going on tonight. John Danielson: From my point of view, I'd be more than happy to try and II have the remainder of the other half of Baldur Avenue. Conrad: John, you're so generous I can't believe it. 1 John Danielson: I tried 15 years ago without success and I just kind of gave up but it's a nice natural piece and I'd like to keep it that way and if it were available, I'd be more than willing to put that in writing that it will be left in it's natural state. Ron Harvieux: If I might just add if I could, this may or may not be the II place but I have no problem. . .the lake access issue is an important one I'm sure to him. I'm not sure that with a trade-off of land .from my easterly 1 boundary, I just don't know. We talked several years ago, maybe Bob could It see a way to allow access right down that driveway which already exists. A clear cut straight ahead driveway to the shore. If lake access�is really important, I'm not so sure it can't occur totally within Lot 1. I just don't know. I guess again, it certainly looks like...trying to run it over what we're talking about now. I'd sure like to discuss it. Conrad: Any other discussions? 11' • Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 19 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 ' and subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far northerly edge of Lot 2. . Notice of the location shall be placed in the Chain-of-Title of the lot. 2. Easements required: a. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue. b. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 in favor of the City of Chanhassen. 3. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of park land dedication. 1 4. A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. The plan should illustrate how the driveway and house placement and construction will minimize tree loss. The plan must be approved by staff. Preservation areas shall be adequately marked by snow fence prior to construction to avoid damage. Clear cutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger shall be prohibited. ' 5. The final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legally described as follows: I/ 6. The final plat shall show the width of Pleasant View Road from the center of the existing road to the Lot 1 and Lot 2 front property lines as 33 feet. 1. A stipulation shall be recorded against the property that the owner of Outlot A will not be permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in any way without permission from the City and will not be allowed any dock, swimming raft, or boat moorings on Outlot A. 8. Any tree on Outlot A with a caliper of inches 4 ches oz greater shall be preserved. A tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to any disturbance of the area along Baldur Avenue. A grading plan approved by the Planning Director is required. 9. The public record shall be kept open for 2 weeks to give the affected property owners time to submit written comments before going to the City Council . All voted in favor except Conrad and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. I '' Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 20 I Conrad: Jim, your reasons for your negative vote? Wilderm.1uth: I don't like the existence of Outlot A and I 'd like to give the adjacent property owners as well as the adjacent property owners to Outlot A as well as the applicant for the subdivision an opportunity to I either work out some kind of a land swap or some kind of an arrangement. Conrad: I basically agree with Jim's comments because I think it's a real strange parcel but I 'd also, even if it does exist in the end, I'd prefer to have the wording on it's use to be as restrictive as possible and I didn't notice that the motion for item 7 really provided that restriction and maintained the character of that particular outlot. This will go ahead ll though to City Council. Would be up there what? Did we say the 22nd of January? We left the record open for comments so the neighbors can make their comments and get them in for City Council review. I thank you all for coming in. Thanks very much. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 31, MURRAY HILL AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON MURRY HILL ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF MELODY HILL ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. 11 Public Present: Name Address Gilbert Kriedberg 6444 Murray Hill Road 11 Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. ' Gilbert Kreidberg: I am Block 1, Lot 1. I'm the one with a vested interest. In fact. . .that trail access to the tower. Part of that process is the acquisition of that portion of. . .and make sure that the activity is staying per agreement. . . I think it's probably pretty straight forward. . . so unless you have any questions. I guess the engineers don't come to these meetings. I Conrad: They do occasionally but not usually. Okay, any other •public comments? I Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Conrad: Joan at your end. Any comments? Ahrens: I have no comments about this. 1 Wildermuth: Where is the fence going to go? There's some elusion to a fence here with a gate.