Loading...
3 Subdivision 6665 Horseshoe CrCITY OF PC DATE: 11/17/99 CC DATE: 12/13/99 CASE #: 99-11 SUB By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Subdivision approval to create two lots on a lakeshore parcel, Sandy Point LOCATION: 6665 Horseshoe Curve Lot 32 and the north half of Lot 33, Pleasant View' APPLICANT: John and Sandra Cumfingham 6665 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 1.47 acre DENSITY: 1.36 units per acre (gross and net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, single family home S - RSF, single family home E - RSF, single family home W - Lotus Lake WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site slopes gradually to the west from a high poin. t of 920 feet to the 910 elevation, approximately 70 feet from the lake, then the slope increases to a low point of 896 feet at the lake. There is an existing home on the central portion of the site. A new home site is proposed on the southwestern portion of the site. The site is vegetated with grasses and trees located throughout the property with concentrations along the south property line and near the lake. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units per acre) 0 Lotus Lake L_ Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary and final subdivision approval to create two lots on a 1.47 acre lakeshore parcel. The two lots would be 42,320 and 21,850 square feet, 0.97 and 0.5 acres respectively, in lot area. Lakeshore property must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet (0.46 acres). Both homes will be accessed via a private drive with one connection point to Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1 will have a thirty foot wide access easement across Lot 2. The site is located within the shoreland overlay district. Due to the location of existing structures on either side of the proposed new lot, the shoreland setback is established as the average of the adjacent home setbacks. Based on the review of the surveys of these structures, the lake setback for Lot l must be 76 feet rather than the standard 75 foot setback. The subdivision request was submitted on October 18, 1999. The sixty day review period will end on December 17, 1999. BACKGROUND In March 1910, the Pleasant View subdivision was approved. At some point since then, the north half of Lot 33 was added to this parcel. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Cunningharn subdivision development are as follows: Total upland area Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 64,170 SF or 1.4 ac. 23,820 sq. ft. 37% 30% or 19,251 SF 33% The applicant does meet the minimum canopy coverage allowed. However, the applicant did not supply the city with tree preservation and removal calculations, so it is somewhat unclear as to whether trees will be removed or not. In particular, there are a handful of large oaks near the driveway and proposed home that do not appear to be scheduled for removal, but are so close to the proposed construction that their survival is highly questionable. Staff recommends that the applicant supply this information on tree removals and preservation to the city prior to City Council approval of the final plat. Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 3 Based on a site visit, no additional vegetation is allowed to be cleared to provide the proposed home with access and a view to Lotus Lake. The shoreline ordinance states that 30% of the width of the lot or 30 feet can be cleared to allow access and/or a view which ever is lesser. This amount of space has already been cleared as part of the existing landscape. GRADING The lot is fairly flat in grade with the exception of the westerly 75 feet. Within this area is a steep slope down to the shoreline. No grading is anticipated to occur within the 75-foot setback with the exception of a small area of grading in the southwest corner of the house. In this area, staff is questioning why any of the grading needs to be performed given the existing grades and the proposed house elevation. Staff recommends no grading outside of the buildable area as shown on the grading plan. The first floor elevation is proposed at 919 and the existing grade is 916. Therefore, approximately three feet of fill will be needed around the three sides of the 'home. The home is proposed to be a walk-out type dwelling with a lowest floor elevation of 910. The existing grade at the walkout is approximately 910 elevation currently. Staff recommends the lowest floor elevation be raised to 910.5 to promote positive drainage away from the walkout level. This will result in increasing the first floor elevation as well by a half a foot. Given the existing vegetation along the southeasterly property line, staff recommends that the home be shifted northerly to avoid impact to the existing vegetation along the property line. The vegetation includes significant maple trees. Some minor grading is anticipated to construct the driveway from Horseshoe Curve. The existing garage is proposed to be razed. DRAINAGE The site sheet drains to the west towards Lotus Lake. Drainage swales are proposed along both sides of the house to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Grading for these swales may impact the root zone on the existing trees along the property line. Again, it is recommended the house be shifted northerly to avoid impact to the existing vegetation along the property line. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control fencing will need to be installed around the downstream side of the grading limits. These types of erosion control requirements are typically applied to the building permit by staff. A rock construction entrance may also be required during construction of the home to minimize tracking of materials onto Horseshoe Curve. UTILITIES Municipal water service is available to Lot 1 from Horseshoe Curve. The existing home on Lot 2 is connected to municipal sewer and water. The plans propose connecting Lot 1 to the sewer line Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 4 located along the shoreline of Lotus Lake. The sewer line in Horseshoe Curve is too shallow to serve the lot via gravity. In order to extend the water service, however, the street will need to be cut open and the water service extended to the property line. The City typically extends the water service to the property line to ensure proper connection and street restoration. The cost of this work will be the developer's responsibility. A security escrow in the amount of $2,500 should be required to guarantee payment of the water service extension. The City needs to be contacted 30 days in advance to request having the water service extended to the property line. Given the short window of construction season remaining and to avoid additional cost due to frost, staff recommends the applicant, upon final plat approval, notify the City immediately to request the installation of the water extension. A sanitary sewer line runs parallel to the west lot line adjacent to Lotus Lake. Due to significant vegetation along the lake, staff recommends the applicant work with City staff in determining a path for the sewer service which would disrupt the least amount of vegetation. The property has been previously assessed for one sewer and water connection and hookup charge. According to City Ordinance, properties not previously assessed for sewer and water shall pay a connection and hookup charge at time of building permit issuance. Since the existing lot was previously charged one unit, Lot 1 will be responsible for one additional sewer and water connection and hookup charge at the time of building permit issuance. The sanitary sewer and water connection charges can be specially assessed against the parcel. The 1999 sewer connection charge rate is $3,926 and watermain connection charge is $3,926. The trunk sanitary sewer hookup charge is $1,252 and the trunk watermain hookup charge is $1,632. The cost for extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve will be deducted from the developer's watermain connection charge. STREETS The parcel currently accesses Horseshoe Curve which is an older substandard city street in comparison to today's city urban street standards. The street right-of-way width for Horseshoe Curve is 30 feet wide which is significantly deficient compared to today's 60-foot wide street right-of-way requirement. However, staff believes given the characteristics of the neighborhood and the possible street widening in the future, that only an additional 10 feet of right-of-way and the standard 1 O-foot wide front yard and drainage and utility easement shall be required with the final plat. In the future, when streets are upgraded and additional right-of-way or easements are needed they could be acquired by the City and included in the project costs which would be specially assessed against benefiting properties. The additional drainage and utility easements and right-of-way dedication will not impair or prohibit building on the lot. (It should be noted, with two previous subdivision proposals in the neighborhood, staff also recommended additional right-of-way dedication, but the City Council deleted that condition from the final plat conditions of approval.) Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 5 The existing driveway is a gravel surface. The plans propose on extending a new 12-foot wide gravel driveway off the existing driveway. According to City Code, driveways within the urban service area shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Upon review of the neighboring driveways, it appears most of the driveways in the neighborhood are paved. Although this may slightly increase the impervious runoff, staff does feel, from an erosion standpoint, that the driveways on both lots should be paved with either bituminous or concrete. MISCELLANEOUS Since this is a relatively straight forward lot subdivision, a development contract is not recommended. SHORELAND ORDINANCES The proposed single family home will be required to be set back 76 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW) in accordance to the City's shoreline ordinances. Any grading associated with construction of this home will be required to stay out of the shoreland impacts zone or 36 feet from the OHW. WETLAND There are no wetlands on this site. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for residential developments is $800/acre. The water quality fee for the proposed 0.5 acre lot will be $400.00. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. Therefore, the water quantity fee for this proposed 0.5 acre development will be $990.00. Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 6 PARKS & RECREATION In lieu of park land dedication, the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1, to the city pursuant to city ordinance. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (square feet) Code 20,000 Lotl 21,850 Lot2 42,320 64,170 Frontage (~et) Depth (~et) Lakeshore Frontage (feet) 90~ 125 75 90.52 # 220 158 120 312 135 293 ~ Minimum Lot Width for lots accessed via private drives is 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. # Lot width is 101 feet at the front building setback line. Setbacks: Front - 30 feet, side - 10 feet, lakeshore - 76 feet PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street due to adjacent development. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Due to the Sandy Point Addition November l 7, 1999 Page 7 constraints imposed to preserve the trees along the south property line, a public street is impractical. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; o ° o o Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 8 Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 17, 1999, to review the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission voted six for and none against a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Sandy Point subject to the conditions of the staff report with modifications to condition 9 deleting the first sentence: w[,~ a .... 1 ..... 1.^,,la .... ;A~. ,d~;O-;.,~ ~:~*: ....... *~':~ ~ ....... ~ ....... ~'~ ~;'~ In addition, the walkout elevation of the dwd]ing should b~ raised a minimum of 0.5 fe~t to provid~ positive drainag~ away from the home (modification of condition 16). The applicant shall submit tree preservation and removal plans and Landscaping plans to the city prior to City Council approval of the final plat; ~d modification to condition 17 as follows: 17. Shoreline vegetation removal shall comply with the requirements of the shorelin~ ordinance. It should be noted that the applicant has revised the grading plan to incorporate the requirement of condition number 9 raising the dwelling 0.5 feet. In addition, the applicant has provided the tree preservation and landscaping plan for city review, eliminating condition 16. Total fees due the city prior to the recording of the final plat are $2,378.33 plus a water service extension escrow of $2,500.00. While not a formal part of the recommendation, the Planning Commission did question the need for using either concrete or asphalt on the driveway as,required by condition 15. They felt that gravel driveways where more in character of the area and that erosion was not an issue. They requested that staff revisit this issue prior to City Council. Staff has reviewed this issue and feels that given the limited drainage in the area that if the city council wishes to deviate from the hard surface requirement, it would not be detrimental to the drainage area. However, we recommend that at a minimum, the common portion of the driveway be bituminous or concrete. Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for subdivision #99-11 creating two lots for Sandy Point Addition as shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated October 15, 1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. The principal structure on Lot 1, Block 1, must maintain a 76 foot setback from the normal water elevation (896.3). In lieu of park land dedication, the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1, to the city pursuant to city ordinance (park fees of $1,200.00 total with 1/3rd or $400.00 due at time of plat recording and trail fees of $400.00 with 1/3rd or $133.33 due at the time of plat recording). 3. The access easement width must be 30 feet. A driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat. Because of the distance and the setbacks for the proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed.) Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. 5. A demolition permit must be obtained to demolish the existing detached garage and gazebo. Both of these structures must be removed. 6. The water service serving the new home on Lot 1 cannot pass through the garage. 7. The water service line must be sized based on the available water pressure and the amount of plumbing fixtures in the building. The address for the existing home on Lot 2 will have to be changed to 6669 Horseshoe Curve and the new home on Lot 1 will be addressed 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant must contact the appropriate agencies to coordinate this change. 9.. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. 10. Drainage swales must be installed and maintained along both sides of any house proposed on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard and maintain the neighborhood Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 10 drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit certificate of survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance shall also be required at Horseshoe Curve. 11. The developer and staff shall work together in determining a path for the sanitary sewer service which creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The water service shall be extended by the City at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the easterly property line of Lot 2. The developer will be responsible for extending the water service through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The developer shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee the cost of water service extension across Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charges at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge. 12. The final plat shall dedicate an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve along with the standard 1 O-foot front and year and 5-foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the westerly portion of Lots 1 and 2. 13. The developer shall be responsible for all City Attorney fees ($350.00) associated with the review and recording ($60.00) of the final plat documents, Surface Water Management Fees ($1,390.00), and GIS fees ($45.00) pursuant to City Ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 14. According to City Code, driveways within the urban service area shall be surfaced with an all-weather material such as asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city. At a minimum, the common portion of the driveways for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be paved with either bituminous or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be twenty feet wide pavement width with a seven ton design. 15. Shoreline vegetation removal shall comply with the requirements of the shoreland management district regulations. 16. Tree preservation fence will be required to be installed at the edge of proposed grading limits." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 3. Reduced Copy of Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Sandy Point Addition November 17, 1999 Page 11 4. Aerial Topographic Photograph 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 10/20/99 6. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 7. Sandy Point Administrative Fee Breakdown 8. Landscape Plan - Sandy Point 9. Resolution Approving Final Plat 10. Planning Commission Minutes of November 17, 1999 g:\plan\bg\sandy point prelim, plat.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'PLICANT': JO/--IAJ, ~/~fUD, fcA- ~..Ul'dl'dlAJC~k'r~FV~ OWNER: )DRESS: ~,~G~' iL-l©y~.%e. ,%H.o~.¢ ¢_~V ADDRESS: =LEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* __ Rezoning Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Temporary Sales Permit __ Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit __ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment ,"( Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISP..RtVAQIVARANAPIMetes and Bound:~, $400 h,'linor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ "~'(;C'~ C~'~ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of lransparency for each plan sheet. ' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ,~OTE- When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ' NOTE - When multiple appl_icatio~s..ar_e- p_~ro~....essed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. /'~//,.,--/- LOCATION (.z?'¢//~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING ~ ~ REQUESTED ZONING ~ ~--'--, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~f&Of'ES~T1¢ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and rrxJst be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible roi' complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. ! will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of matedal and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate pdor to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records. ~;}nature o Applica~(' I Date S~nature of Fee Owner } Date ,,.,, Apl~lication Received on "~ Fee Paid //)d'), ~'"' Receipt No. · The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be svallable on Friday prior to the meeting, if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address, CITYOF Cemcr Dr/re. PO i~ox 1:/7 d12, 93,E 1900 12v 612. ~3 E ~739 Fax 612. 93E 9l ~2 5,~J/?/2r 6 I2, ~3.~. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: October 20, 1999 SUBJECT: Request for subdivision approval to create two lots on a 1.47 acre lakeshore parcel zoned RSF, located at 6665 ltorseshoe Curve, John and Sandra Cunningham, Sandy Point. Planning Case: 99- I 1 SUB. I have reviewed tile proposed subdivision for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have tile following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. Because of the distance and the setbacks for tile proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed.) Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. ML/be g:\safety\ml\plrev99- I 1 CITYOF HANHASSEN ~y Center Drive, PO Box 147 zhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612, 937.1900 zeral Fax 612,937.5739 zeering Fax' 612.937.9152 ~ SafeO, ]:ax 612.934.2524 www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us CHANF_ASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1. 2. 3. for new construction and existing buildings 5. Administrative authority may require necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dwellinq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Requirements Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. Numbers shall not be in script. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met. additional numbers if deemed Minimum height shall be 12". Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address nun%hers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department /. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 · Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 0O, of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, qualiO, schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautifulparks. A great pIace to live, work, andplay. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 1.47 Acre Parcel APPLICANT: LOCATION: John and Sandra Cunningham 6665 Horseshoe Curve NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, John and Sandra Cunningham, request for subdivision approval to create two lots on a 1.47 acre lakeshore parcel zoned RSF, and located at 6665 Horseshoe Curve, Sandy Point. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been ~ublished in the Chanhassen Villager on November 4, 1999. R MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC =LEASANT VIEW RD NHASSEN, MN 55317 LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 105 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL 490 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 N T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS PLEASANT VIEW RD ,NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES E & DIANE BOHLIG 5200 RIDGE RD EDINA, MN 55436 LEONARD P & NANCY M KISKIS 491 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EPH J SMITH WILSON ST W , MN 55368 SUNRISE HILLS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 510 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _'G H & BARBARA L HEDLUND LAKE PT ,NHASSEN, MN 55317 KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER ASSN 7240 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GUY L SWANSON 610 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~VER BEACH PROPERTIES 2ND ST ;ELSIOR, MN 55331 GERALD R & JANICE M STRAND 18909 KINGSWOOD TER HOPKINS, MN 55345 PAUL J & KARl J ROMPORTL & 10132 IVYWOOD CT EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 'N C GRENIER LOTUS TRL &NHASSEN, MN 55317 FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C & JOYCE M HAGEDORN 630 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RVER BEACH PROPERTIES 2ND ST :ELSIOR, MN 55331 KENNETH R & DEBORAH ELLSWORTH RR 8 BOX 8166 HAYWARD, WI 54843 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 4TON D KELLY 9 GRAY FOX CRV ~NHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY A & JULIE M KOCH 471 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA 650 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -IN P & JANE THIELEN , PLEASANT VIEW RD ANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANNE F JONES 480 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HENRY & G SOSIN 7400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~TE OF MINNESOTA-DNR ], LAFAYETTE RD PAUL, MN 55155 MARTIN IMMERMAN & 481 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL 7410 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLIN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROLYN BLOOMBERG 7008 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID B SANFORD & 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IRVING RAYMOND 7440 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HENRY & SANDRA NEILS 7012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 6460 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY P MON & PO BOX 39553 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARVEY L JR & CAROL PARKER 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EVAN M NIEFELD 7016 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY DEAN CRAY 200 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHAD ALAN KOEHLER 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & 7018 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOUIS S TESLER 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CATHERINE S HISCOX 7500 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY J LINDSLEY & 7510 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KELLY E & MELISSA A LYNK #19-2 SERI DUTA II #11 JALAN TAMAN DUTA 50480 KUALA LUMPUT, JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL J & JACQUELINE HAMMETT 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROLF G ENGSTROM & 7201 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS J & TONIE FLAHERTY 7004 DAKOTA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT lAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEY ANN NAVRATIL , FRONTIER TRL 4HASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J GILLESPIE & 7415 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES E & ELEANOR KEIPER 6615 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 S A BOVY FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & KRISTI J SESTAK 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK 6690 HORSESHOE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERT H GREELEY FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY A & LIZA A HILDEN 20 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & ELVA HANSEN 6620 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN , FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN F & DONNELLA R SEGNER 3O HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD 6625 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 )RGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN & CAROL ANN MELBY 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL E & GLORIA LYNCH 6630 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NAG TARNOWSKI FRONTIER TRL ,NHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IR PETER ENTENMANN & 7 FRONTIER TRL ,NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILIP O & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BERT M & LILLIAN H SOMERS ~) FRONTIER TRL ,,.NHASSEN, MN 55317 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT A GAMBLE 6640 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ')MAS W HAROLD I FRONTIER TRL SW -~NHASSEN, MN 55317 CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 6645 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3ER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 3 FRONTIER TRL ~,NHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID W SANTANA & 6614 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK A & DONNA M KUZMA 6651 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EVELYN ALBINSON 6655 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SANDRA LEE OLSON 6691 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & SHERRY WEIS 6660 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SEYMOUR S RESNIK 7370 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD W & KATHLEEN A DENMAN 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT 6697 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 YORIKO M PRICE 6663 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK 6690 HORSESHOE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS ZHU & 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6665 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 724 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID & BEVERLY KOPISCHKE 6675 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MELVIN & JACQUELINE D KURVERS 7240 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DORIS A ROCKWELL 6677 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY & MITZI VANTHOURNOUT 7320 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD D ELFTMANN & 74O LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFORIE A KVILHAUG & 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSON 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREG H & BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES 7340 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HELEN R HARTMANN 6687 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ¢ M BAIRD LEXINGTON CT SKA, MN 55318 JANICE L ANDRUS 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -IAEL C & MARIE SCHROEDER LOTUS TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 TODD M ADAMS 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~1 L WRIGHT THOMAS AVE S 4FIELD, MN 55423 ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN C ARMITAGE & 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~THA NYGREN LOTUS TRL NHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN W & CAROL LENHART 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317' ilS J & CYNTHIA K ANDERSON ) LOTUS TRL ,NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & KATHLEEN A VONWALTER 510 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN H & JEANNE M BATZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 rH J & PATRICIA F GUNDERSON i MOHAWK DR .NHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER A MOSCATELLI 102 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ;MINE R LUSTIG MOHAWK DR ~,NHASSEN, MN 55317 HARVEY W & KAREN E ROBIDEAU 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT D NELSON & 106 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 3ERT & LINDA SATHRE PLEASANT VIEW RD ~NHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 · & MRS. D. J. MILLER PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ~,NHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN & JANIS R NICOLAY 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN S & MARIE F KERN 109 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH ; PLEASANT VIEW RD ANHASSEN, MN 55317 GARY J SCHNEIDER & 640 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLIETHOFF 113 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER 80 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREG S & LINDA WILKES 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE POBOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY C MAURICE & 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN T MESTITZ & 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SANDY POINT PROJECT NO. 99-32 BREAKDOWN OF ADMINISTRATION FEES - 12/6/99 Estimated Total Cost of Public Improvements $ - 3% of Public Improvement Costs (up to $500,000) $ - Street Lighting Charge (for electricity) Light(s) @ $300.00 $ Final Plat Process (Attorney Fee for Review and Recording of $ 350.00 Plat) Recording Fees a. Plat Filing $ 30.00 b. Driveway Easement $ 30.00 One-Third Trail Fees 1 Lots x $400/3 $ 133.33 One-Third Park Fee 1 Lots x $1,200/3 $ 400.00 Surface Water Management $1,390 GIS Fee ($25/plat and $10/parcel) $ 45.00 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FEES $ 2,378.33 Sandy Pt Fee CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT CREATING SANDY POINT ADDITION, JOHN AND SANDRA CUNNINGHAM WHEREAS, John and Sandra Cunningham have requested a subdivision of their property into two single family lots of 42,320 square feet and 21,850 square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed, subdivision complies with all requirements of the Chanhassen City Code; and WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 11, 1999, and found the plan consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ordinance and recommended approval of the subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves the final plat for Sandy Point (Subdivision #99-11) for the Cunningham property legally described as Lot 32 and the north half of Lot 33, Pleasant View, creating Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Sandy Point Addition as shown on the plans prepared Schoell and Madsen, Inc., signed November 16, 1999, and as amended by the City, subject to the following conditions: 1. The principal structure on Lot 1, Block 1, must maintain a 76 foot setback from the normal water elevation (896.3). In lieu of park land dedication, the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1, to the city pursuant to city ordinance (park fees of $1,200.00 total with 1/3rd or $400.00 due at time of plat recording and trail fees of $400.00 with 1/3rd or $133.33 due at the time of plat recording). 3. Access easement width must be 30 feet. A driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat. Because of the distance and the setbacks for the proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed.) Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. 5. A demolition permit must be obtained to demolish the existing detached garage and gazebo. Both of these structures must be removed. 6. The water service serving the new home on Lot 1 cannot pass through the garage. 7. The water service line must be sized based on the available water pressure and the amount of plumbing fixtures in the building. The address for the existing home on Lot 2 will have to be changed to 6669 Horseshoe Curve and the new home on Lot 1 will be addressed 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant must contact the appropriate agencies to coordinate this change. 9. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. 10. Drainage swales must be installed and maintained along both sides of any house proposed on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard and maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit certificate of survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance shall also be required at Horseshoe Curve. 11. The developer and staff shall work together in determining a path for the sanitary sewer service which creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The water service shall be extended by the City at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the easterly property line of Lot 2. The developer will be responsible for extending the water service through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The developer shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee the cost of water service extension across Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charges at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge. 12. The final plat shall dedicate an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve along with the standard 10-foot front and year and 5-foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the westerly portion of Lots 1 and 2. 13. The developer shall be responsible for all City Attorney fees ($350.00) associated with the review and recording ($60.00) of the final plat documents, Surface Water Management Fees ($1,390.00), and GIS fees ($45.00) pursuant to City Ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 14. According to City Code, driveways within the urban service area shall be surfaced with an all-weather material such as asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city. At a minimum, the common portion of the driveways for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be paved with either bituminous or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be twenty feet wide pavement width with a seven ton design. 15. Shoreline vegetation removal shall comply with the requirements of the shoreland management district regulations. 16. Tree preservation fence will be required to be installed at the edge of proposed grading limits. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day December of 1999. ATTEST: Scott A Botcher, City Clerk/Manager YES NO Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor ABSENT g:\plan\bg\Resolution Sandy Point Add CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1999 Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Kevin Joyce, Ladd Conrad, Deb Kind and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO LOTS ON A 1.47 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL ZONED RSF~ AND LOCATED AT 6665 ItORSESHOE CURVE~ SANDY POINT~ JOHN AND SANDRA CUNNINGHAM. Public Present: Name Address Christa & Nicholas Vassallo Sandra & John Cunningham Ray Brozovich 7018 Cheyenne Trail 6665 Horseshoe Curve 6609 Horseshoe Curve Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions for Bob at this time? Conrad: Chairman, just one. The recommendation tbr the asphalt drive. Is that a function of the subdivision ordinance Bob? What's our standard fbi' this type ofdevelopmelat and this type of neighborhood? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. Any new urban development within the urban service area we require a hard surface driveway to access the residence. In this neighborhood there is a mixture of gravel driveways and paved driveways, We felt that it should be brought up to current ordinance standards with paved driveways. Conrad: Let me take on, there's one tree that goes over. It's a very big tree so the question in my mind is, and I know the Forester's been there. What's more positive for the survival of that tree? As I looked at it, I'm not sure runoffis an issne there but I think survival of the tree is, is one surface, The question is. is one surface a gravel versus asphalt better for that tree? Are we hurting it by putting asphalt over it because it is a huge, huge tree. What's our best guess on something like that? Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Hempel: I'd have to defer that to the forester to answer but I would think construction traffic alone building a new home in there would be the most detrimental to the tree. Long term versus asphalt versus gravel. Generous: Mr. Chairman, I did discuss this with Jill as part of our review and she said that she didn't anticipate that the installation of the driveway would kill the tree. We think that it's, as long, provided we can get the tree protection fencing up and keep the construction activity off the critical root zone, a majority of that should survive. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, just one more on this one. So what did they do during construction that keeps that tree alive? Keep it otfthe root system? Keep heavy stuff. Hempel: Exactly. We require the tree protection fencing around it so that's what. Conrad: Okay. .lovce: Any other questions tbr staff? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, oil condition 17 you talk about no shoreline vegetation removal will be alloxved tbr access or a view to Lotus Lake. But our shoreland ordinance, management ordinance does allow tbr removal of some vegetation to create a view and also for access like stairs or lifts, that sort of thing. Could you speak to that a little bit? Generous: That specific language would preclude any of that. Kind: And the reasons are? Generous: Well they felt again tile Forester reviexved this. She believed that they had sufficient ability to access the lake without taking that out and views are not an issue. They have views to either side. Kind: I guess my question would be getting down, like if they had a boat down at the lake. How do they get down there without having stairs? You need to clear some vegetation to get stairs or a path or something like that. Would this preclude that? Generous: Preclude putting in tile stairway, 5'es. If any vegetation had to be cleared. Kind: And vegetation includes scrub brushy? Generous: Any vegetation. Kind: Vegetation is vegetation. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Generous: Understory and trees. I think the primary concern is for the overstory trees but the way it's currently written it would include the understory stuff. The brush. Kind: It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get access to the shore. I'll wait to hear fi'om the applicant on that. That's all for now. Joyce: Any other questions at this time for staff?. I just have one Bob. Recommendation number 9, or condition number 9. Is a recommendation obviously. How strongly are we, the City looking at that? I just think that they have a pad there that they're just trying to lower a house and even jockeying it 5 feet here or there, you know it's, you don't have that much room. Generous: Well there is a little bit of ability to shift it towards the northeast. We're not sure how much additional preservation. Our main concern was tlne tree preservation along the property line. And looking at this I'm not sure we're going to get a lot of it. The applicant has discussed this with me and his intention is to revegetate tlnat area. Joyce: So maybe xve should wait for that. I just thought I'd bring that up. But so we're saying that tile driveway is part of the City Code Dave. but tine condition 9 is kind ofjusl best of all world type of situation. Generous: Make sure they look at it. There's no real teeth in tine way it's written. Joycc: Okay. Then at this time if the applicant would like to address tile Planning Commission at this time. please step forward and state your name and address. John Cunningham: My name is Jolm Cunningham. I live at 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The other applicant is nay wife Sandra. We have lived, we bought this lot in 1968 so we've lived there quite a xvlnile. We're very happy living there. At a certain point we decided tlnat maybe we needed a different house for our present needs and our first idea was if it would be possible to split the lot we could satist3, both situations. Found tine old plot that the prior owner had left us and we went into City Hall and we first met wittn Cindy and she was extremely helpful and she's the one that showed us how to use the cross access and the easement to get to the back part of the lot because the lot, as you can see, it's a triangular slnaped lot. It doesn't break itself into two... It's much easier to do it on the way it shows on there. And about this same time our daughter decided perhaps she would buy our house so the whole thing began to fall together for us. We hired Scholl and Madsen to do a survey and at this point they made a mistaken and they thought it would be a simple metes and bounds situation which of course didn't prove to be tine situation. We also began to have meetings with Bob Generous and he was most helpful in showing us how the property lines could change angles so that the houses would have their own, totally their own view. Turning like this... And that also was very positive for us that we could do that because we really do not want to impact the lot any more than we absolutely had to. And obviously putting a house there is going to change things but we wanted to keep that to a very minimum. We talked to him about the various setbacks that are required and we've satisfied all those. About this time the survey had a meeting with the City Hall and suddenly the survey cost tripled and Sanra and I became developers, which was okay. We met again with Bob to check about the Plmming Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 positions and the setbacks and everything looked okay so we went ahead with the complex survey and we turned our materials in by the deadline and got the staff report last Friday. Generally things looked fine to us. They asked us to raise the house a half foot which we already did. We called the Schoell and Madsen and told them to put that into position. The request to consider moving the house 10 feet north is a little more of a problem to us. We had considered it over the last 6 months we've probably considered every possible angle and position in that triangle because it is rather limiting and we really feel that clearly this to be the best position for the house for several reasons. It keeps the house most completely out of the sight lines of the existing house. Pulls it back as far as it can go and we think the best situation for the two houses existing on the same, in the same area. In terms of moving the house 10 feet north, the second reason why we think it's a bad idea is if you take 10 feet away from that triangle, that building triangle, you really cut down the amount of space in the house. The amount of potential space in the house. The shape that you see up there is a 1,600 to 1,700 square loot house with a two car garage. There's not room tbr a three car garage and a screened porch. Our intent is to create a walkout basement for future bedroom space lbr families that would come along after us. This is not a big house and the reduction of 10 feet times the building triangle creates a much more difficult building pad. The building pad does come to a point and when you take that 10 feet away it really COlnes to a point very short, in a very short period of distance. The idea of...from the east creates a new set of angles. It doesn't really pick up much and an odd shape like that is difficult to dcsign around. And the other thing that happens when you move the plan to the north is it leaves room on the east end almost only for a garage. There's not, we have it the way the plan is set up now, and I can show that to you in a minute. We have a garage and a fi'ont entry on that side so when you drive in fi'om the road you come up to the garage and then there's a nice fi'ont entry and we think it's really very nicely designed. When you start moving it you run out of space to put that fi'ont entry on the same end as the garage. Now reacting to the reason of moving to minimize impacts to existing vegetation. There are txvo trees which I'll mention in a moment. Thc only other existing vegetation on our side is a hedge and that particular hedge was there xvhen we moved in. It's an important hedge to us and as I'm sure it's an important hedge to the neighbor and we certainly would plan to keep it. It provides cover in the summer and should it be damaged in construction I would certainly replace it. I don't see any problem with it's roots because I don't think it has that big ora root area. There were some significant maples mentioned in the report. I couldn't find those. Maybe something was mismarked or something but looking at the trees in the house area, starting at the east end. This tree right here, these are oaks and they're pretty good sized oaks. They're about 20 feet from the comer of the garage and this is a slab garage here. Across fi'om these. At any rate, there's 20 feet there and I'm hoping probably enough space. There is a dutch elm here. I don't kno~v how it survived the dutch elm disease but it did. It's growing underneath the canopy. There's a number of trees on the other side of the property line that really, that I propose to take that tree out which is about a 9 inch. Then if you move here there's a fir tree. It too has problems because it gets no light fi'om the south side so there's no branches whatsoever on the south side of it and I don't see much problem in taking it out. Other than that the surveyor...maple tree that's right in here. I can't, I disagree with it and my aim is to try to do the garage turn around to save that tree. If we can't we'll take it out. But other than that we don't intend to take out any other trees and don't think we have to. I share the same concern as others do about this place where the road goes between these trees. Obviously we're going to try to save that oak...whatever is required to protect it. I 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 would assume that...building phase that that driveway would be gravel. So like I say, we're just going to do the best we can to save that tree. Well then the existing vegetation that was there along here is pretty well scrub vegetation. It's stuffthat has come up by itself through the years. That end of our yard has never really been a place where we've tried to grow anything specific. We just let it be the way it was. We could get some hostas and some ferns to grow in there but that's about it because there's a lot of oak trees back in here that form, that shade that area so our intent is to, and we went over it with Halla Nursery. Once we picked out, once we get the construction part done here we propose to put in here a bunch of plantings that tolerate shade and we have a planting design that we thought. At any rate, we've done some planting to go along here. That includes the existing trees that.., believe will stay there. Obviously we would replace anything damaged or caused problem by the construction. There is that one maple that we certainly would lose in the driveway area that I'm going to try to save if we move the house. That would be a goner. There are 27 hardwoods on the lot. You don't see all of them on that plan because a lot of them didn't impact the canopy and they're offdown on the point. So we're only taking two possibly three trees out. I thought that was a pretty good placement of the house on the lot in terms of the trees. For these reasons I believe after doing and ask for consideration, the best situation because of the house position, superior design possibilities and improvement in vegetation, is to have tile house positioned which satisfies all city requirements as it was originally presented, I would echo the concern about the crushed rock driveway. I know I'm in a minority but I believe a crushed rock driveway that is kept up is a more natural looking surface than pavement or cement. I have on a number of occasions observed my driveway during storms. It soaks up most rain and then gull); washes, the drainage crosses at. the low point. This driveway has been through two 100 year rains, which I don't knoxv if you people were all here when we had those but we had two 100 year rains. I don't, this isn't a big deal to me and I'll pave the driveway. The new driveway will even have less slope than my present one. I suspect sometimes it has more to do with people neglecting the upkeep on crushed rock. It needs to be surfaced every once in a while with new rocks and weeds kept out of it. l'll just show you maybe quickly the exterior of the house. This would be the ft'ont that you would see fi'om the road as you're coming in. We tried very hard to make that side of the house attractive but also, this was what I ,,','as talking about. If you took 10 feet away fi'om here, that w.'ould... I thank you for your consideration and I can answer any questions that I'm capable of answering I guess. Joyce: Commission have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Cum~ingham, sorry. I do have a question for you. On condition number 17, you did not speak to that as far as access to the lake. Would you like to be able to get down there? John Cunningham: I think I understand what, I can, tile main thing I think with... Kind: That's what I heard Bob say. Generous: You mean clear vegetation. John Cunningham: No, I wouldn't intend to clear it. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Kind: Even scrub vegetation. John Cunningham: ...I just assume, as far as I was concerned, I never...but I just assumed that I would be able to access the lake. Kind: So you're okay with condition 17 the way it reads? Sandra Cunningham: If we're able to access the take. Jolm Cunningham: I mean you're not telling us we can't go down to the lake? Joyce: No. I don't think that's the letter of the law. No. John Cunningham: ... Kind: Thank you. Jovce: Okay, tiffs is open lbr a public hearing. Could I have a motion and a second to open it up? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public bearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item's open lbr public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this subject, please step lbrward and state your lmme and address. Seeing none. may I have a motion to close tine public hearing. Bt, rton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Anybodyjustjump right in. Commission, anyone like to tackle this and give us their insight on it? Deb. Kind: Sure Mr. Chairman. I went out and looked at the site today and I was very glad that I did because on paper it looks goofy but when you're there it looks like a very reasonable thing to do and it's a beautiful site and I think it's a nice project. It was fun to see the elevations. I think it's going to be really attractive. Condition number 9, talking about the 10 feet. Moving the property. Or moving the house 10 feet. I don't see that that's necessary. I like it where it is. I think it provides the best view for both homes and replacing that vegetation, if it's destroyed will be sufficient. Were there any other issues? And as long as they're okay with condition 17 on the shoreland access, I'm fine with the plan and agree with the staff report. Joyce: Thank you. Alison. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Blackowiak: Yeah, I pretty much agree with what Deb said. My only comments are going to be regarding condition 15. And this is the driveway. I don't know if I've been convinced that it needs to be an asphalt or concrete driveway. As is it looks nice. There are several other rock driveways in the neighborhood and I think it's consistent with the neighborhood as a rock driveway. I however don't feel the need to necessarily take this condition out but I would maybe say to council look carefully at that because I don't see that it absolutely has to be. I mean not from an engineering standpoint. Not from a public safety standpoint. So I'm not convinced that it needs to be paved. Then just one little comment about condition 15. It's worded the driveway on both lots. We just have to stick a number 1 in there. But that's it. Otherwise ! agree with what Deb has said and it's, I think it's nicely done. Joyce: Ladd any comments? Conrad: Nothing new. I think there should be better definition to condition 17. It looks like it's just sitting there and doesn't, I don't know xvhat it applies to. I'd be real uncomfortable if I were thc Cunninghams and 1 think, yeah you don't xvant to. It just, it's too vague and they do have access. They do have property. They have no intention of removing any of the vegetation down there but it.just is one of those real bad statements that I don't know how I would change it. You know we do want to say that the vegetation on the point shouldn't be taken down. I think that's what staff is saying and there's some clear, there are some significant trees down there but, and they happen to be on the shoreline but that's not their intent so I don't know. I guess I, without even making a motion on that one. I think staff just should be better, a little bit clearer on what their intent is. I'd leave it in but l'd certainly get some clarification on that. The other points I think? Deb's point I think on taking the first halt: I don't think the pad should be moved. It will hurt some other things and I would like to make their vegetation plan n part of the conditions. We do have a way of mitigating any minor changes they're making to their side yard setback so I think that should be a part of the conditions. Kind: Number 16 speaks to that, Is that adequate? Conrad: Well see that's a preservation and removal plan. Preservation Bob, is that the re, does that also mean the rcvegetation o1'? Generous: Could be. Conrad: Okay. Well if you interpret it that way I'm comfortable that we could stick a word in there that talks about. I think that's good. It's good for the neighbors to see that they're doing something. Making that side of the house attractive, which it is already. Joyce: Thank you. Sidney: It looks straight forward. I appreciate the thoroughness of the staff report. I think we do need to about that last condition maybe. That our verbiage, with the help of staff'. I do appreciate the applicant's thoroughness too in working with staff. That's great. It looks like a good plan. I am in favor ofmodi~,ing condition 9 to remove that shifting of the house 10 feet. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Burton: I agree with basically all the comments. I'd remove 9 and 17 doesn't particularly trouble me because of the way this property is set up but I was thinking that, I guess this is kind of a question for everybody here. Could we add something to the end of that to the effect that in the case of a hardship for a proposed reasonable use which is consistent with the neighborhood, the City could approve removal of vegetation or something like that so there's an opening if needed? ! don't 'know if we even need to do that. Just a thought but something along those lines. Joyce: Okay. I agree with everything that's been said. I don't think we need condition number 9. If condition 15, if that is part of the code that the driveway has to be paved, fine. I'd have to agree with everyone else. I think the driveway as it is is fine. Also I think that's what the neighborhood looks like and a lot crushed rock driveways there so I don't see why they have to put a paved driveway in there. Leave that up to City Council to decide on that one. I have to agree with condition 17. I think what we're talking about is significant foliage,' vegetation type of thing. Get down to the...not the letter of the law so if someone can brilliantly come up with some motion, condition there to get this through, that would be wonderful so with that said, can we get a motion here. Kind: I'll make a motion Mi'. Chair. I move the Planning Commission recommends apProval of the preliminary plat lbr subdivision #99-11 creating two lots for Sandy Point Addition as shown on plans prepared by, I don't know how you say that. Schoell & Madsen, Inc. dated October 15, 1999 subject to the t~ollowing conditions 1 through 18 with number 9 changed to read, the walkout elevation of the dwelling should be raised a minimum of V2 foot to provide positive drainage fi'om the home. Away from the home. Number 16. Change to read, the applicant shall submit tree preservation and landscape, let's see. Tree preservation, removal plans and landscaping plans to the City prior to City Council approval of the final plat. And number 17 change to read. shoreline vegetation removal must comply with shoreland management ordinances. Conrad: I'd second. Joyce: Any discussion? Conrad: The only thing I'd like to do as a footnote, and it doesn't need to be part of the staff report but I'd really like staff to revisit the asphalt driveway. And maybe I'd buy our ordinance. The direction it's going but in this case I'm not sure. It may be the common portion of these two lots that have asphalt and maybe the Cunningham's done want that, but consider that. Obviously we're leaving it in so that's what you're stuck with. Staff doesn't have to move one iota on that if we leave it in. But to have the common portion...that's going inland a little bit or into the property a little bit to have that rock. But that's just a footnote. That's not an addendum or that's not a change to condition 15. 15 is there and it's probably something that you should talk to City Council about. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #99-11 creating t3vo lots for Sandy Point Addition as Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated October 15, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The principal structure on Lot 1, Block 1 must maintain a 76 foot setback from the normal water elevation (896.3). In lieu of parkland dedication the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1 to the city pursuant to city ordinance. 3. Access easement width must be 30 feet. Because of the distance and the setbacks for the proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. A demolition permit must be obtained to demolish tile existing detached garage and gazebo. Both of these structures must be removed. 6. The water service serving the new home on [Jot I cannot pass through tile garage. The water service line must be sized based oil the available water pressure and the amount of plumbing fixtures in the building. The address for the existing home on Lot 2 will have to be changed to 6669 Horseshoe Curve and the new home oil Lot I will be addressed 6665 Itorseshoe Curve. The applicant must contact tile appropriate agencies to coordinate this change. Tile walkout elevation of the dwelling should be raised a nqinimum of 0.5 feet to provide positive drainage axvay fi'om the home. 10. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of buiding permit application for city staffto review and approve. 11. Drainage swales must be installed and maintained along both sides of any house proposed on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard and maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit certificate of survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance shall also be required at Horseshoe Curve. 12. The developer and staff shall work together in determining a path for the sanitary sewer service which creates tile least disruption to existing vegetation. The water service shall be cxtended by the City at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the easterly property line of Lot 2. The developer will be responsible for extending the water service through 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Lot 1 to Lot 2. The developer shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee the cost of water service extension across Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charges at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge. 13. The final plat shall dedicate an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve along with the standard 10 foot front and rear and 5 foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the westerly portion of Lots I and 2. 14. The developer shall be responsible for all City Attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Surface Water Management fees, and GIS fees pursuant to City Ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 15. According to City Code, drivexvays within the urban service area shall be paved xvith an all weather surface such as asphalt o1' concrete. The drivexvays on both Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be paved with either bituminous or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be lwenty feet wide pavement width with a seven ton design. 16. Thc applicant shall submit tree preservation and removal plans and landscape plans to the city prior to city Council approval of the final plat. 17. Shoreline vegetation removal must comply with shoreland management ordinances. 18. Tree preservation fence will be required to be installed at the edge of the proposed grading limits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 20d34 SQ. FT. AND 19~591 SQ. FT. LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HOLLY LANE~ ARROWHEAD ADDITION~ ARROWHEAD DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Michael Spiess Michael Abbott Robert M. Bowen 470 Flying Cloud Drive 1281 Medina Road, Long Lake 6275 Powers Blvd. 10