4a/b David Igel Property/Plat
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
90 City c.nln Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhl1SSe.. MinntSota 55317
Phone 612,937.1900
GtnmJ! Fax 612.937.5739
Enginttring Fax 612.937.9152
'ublic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
~b www.ci.chanhasltn.mn.UI
'10.-. E,' b,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE:
November 8, 2000
SUBJ:
Lucas Igel Addition
As part of the City Council meeting for November 13, 2000, two preliminary
plats for the property are being presented. One plat requests a variance ITom the
lakeshore lot width requirement and proposes the creation of two lakeshore lots.
The other plat does not require any variances and proposes one lakeshore and one
non-lake shore lot. Böth plats will be presented to City Council for a final
detenninationan¡l decision. Upon approval of one of the plats, the applicant has
submitted a letter that they will withdraw the other plat proposal.
The one lake shore and one non-Iakeshore lot complies with all the requirements of
the subdivision and zoning ordinances subject to the recommended conditions of
approval. The request for a variance ITom the lakeshore lot width is reasonable,
given the benefits to the neighborhood of this alternative, However since it does
require a variance, the City Council may deny the request for that plat.
g:\plan\bg\development review\ige1 cover memo.doc
~e City of Chanhasstn. A ¡:rowinJ( community with ckan laktl, quaIÙy!Choo/¡, a charmin! downtown, thrivinr bUlintlltl. and hMu';',! "",.¡" A _" .1... ,_ 1:... ......L ... J ....
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 553 17
November 7, 2000
Scott Botcher, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel subdivision
Manager Botcher:
We thank the City Attomey, Roger Knutson, for taking time to answer questions (his letter dated
October 6) to our letter (dated September 17) regarding interpretation of city ordinance. We would
like Mr. Knutson to respond to the following related questions/comments.
Abutment of Lots.
His answer to question #1 (regarding Sec. 18..60) ignored the requirement for all lots to abut a street.
Chapter 18. Subdivisions.
Sec. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum ITontage on a publicly dedicated street as
required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of30
feet ofITontage.
The key word is abut, which is defined in the dictionary as "next to; touching along a border; or to
border on". Sec. 18-60 requires a lot to: 1) abut a public street, 2) abut a private street, or 3) be a flag
lot.
Question #1. If a private street provides the primary legal access to abutting property then must it
abut that property? Specifically, in the I lakeshore, I non-Iakeshore plan, must the lakeshore lot abut
a private street? .
Lot Access.
The key phrase in Sec. 20..615 is "accessed by". The dictionary definition for accessed is "to gain
admission to". The September 5 Staff Report (Summary of Request) for the Igel proposal states
"These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway". Staff is using an undefined term (shared
driveway). The Staff Report should use the term "private street".
Chapter 20. Zoning. Article XII. "RSF" Single-Family Residential District.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(3) The minimum lot depth is 125 feet. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private
driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line.
Question #2. According to Sec. 20-615, if two lots are accessed via the same private driveway, aren't
both lots required to meet the 100-ft lot width at the ITont building setback line?
Setbacks.
Chapter 20. Zoning. Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas.
(b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within
bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no
alternative exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse
impacts.
Chapter 20. Zoning. Article XII. "RSF" Single-Family Residential District.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, 30 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side yards, 10 feet.
Sec. 20-3. Interpretation.
(a) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are either more or less restrictive
than conditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which is most restrictive shall prevail.
When this chapter provides both general regulation as well as specific regulation of a subject, the
specific regulation shall apply.
Chapter 20. Zoning. Article VII. Shore land Management District.
Sec.20-477. General provisions
(b) CO,mpliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size,
type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste
treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shore land area; the cutting of shore land vegetation;
and the subdivision ofland shaH be in full compliance with the terms of this article and other
applicable regulations.
Question #3.
According to code (in shore land), must a private street right-of-way line be set back lOft from a side
property line to meet the required setback?
CordiaHy,
&;;;: ::..~
(952) 934..7032
Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Councilman
Linda Jansen, Councilwoman
Steve Labatt, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
~~~b.~~
Janet D. Paulsen
2
if 0-,--
PC DATE: 6/6/00
€iI2Q1OO
7/18/00
CC DATE: (j,Q(jfGO
912SÆO 11/13/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: (j/2M)O;
8.'I9ÆO Applicant has waived review deadline
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
-
z
'~
:..>
:J
1..
1-
~
~
-
~
:J
JJ
-
-
'J)
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: 00-2 SUB
By: RG, DH
PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary plat with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to
subdivide a I.I 1¡Cre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots, Lucas Igel Addition
LOCATION:
Lot I I, Block 1, Sunrise Hills I st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive
APPLICANT:
David and RachaeI Igel
6195 Strawberry Lane
Shorewood, MN 5533 I
(952) 920-8300
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre)
ACREAGE:
1.09 acres (47,501 sq. ft.)
DENSITY:
1.83 units per acre, gross and net
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval received on April 21, 2000, to create two
lakeshore lots with a variance to the lake shore width requirement. Lot areas are 27,159 square feet and
20,342 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing house on the sÌte
will be razed to accommodate the two new houses.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This Ìs a quasi-judicial decision.
~~'
,(-f°'/"
~ \-
r' ~ . \
~ '
, . ~
~':"'Y /'I \ \ \ \ '\
~ ~/ )
~-':ÎI I ~
i \--l-... --1 v
~~ ~~ "0
_ ~ e- >= ..L.I
~ ~1ì1 ID~V~ I j
~\ ~{t5 _ Y< Ci~ajrdnJ~
t~t=:,.u .V<---l r-</ 2
É~ h'Y)"I "
a Dr ï,(- 7~'i/iHfj. - ~""
~ Del ;. < ~ r cì) f.t- I I::
- ~ ~
"" n ~IA ¡rail r 'ë
. " , ¡lßjh 3im li-
M I w::l CD [I]
.
f1~ r~
(~./~~'
~'\' \
Z'--
~~
~1:
~.
(
Lotus Lake
\
r\
(
l(
, ~
\ / ( Ì'-[ì--..
y )-'\~
- -
-'- v:
\ \ tl -~¡ç
I ~~;,r-mQ
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 2
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
ITom established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSAL/S!lMMARy
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of a lot into two lots. The proposed lots meet the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, but not the requirement for lakeshore ITontage. The lots also
continue the pattem of lot and house placement along the street. The applicant is, therefore,
req-g. """"",, ftom ""]~ mdili req"""'", ::""":::::::':"" ':
~'::="::':':~~;,''::'=: ~'"'::':,::~ ~ ~
nelgflbaràøeà.
Staff has reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that 55 lots have lakeshore
widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore width of 4 7.27 feet as shown on
the plat. Interestingly, a lot in the Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a
lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with
less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the
shoreland management district regulations. Staff has also looked at the size of lots in the area to
determine ifIots are in fact larger in this neighborhood than elsewhere in the community. The lots
in the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition range in size ITom 13,846.38 to 47,127.09 square feet based on GIS
calculations. The average lot area in this development is 18,99-2.é5 19,154 square feet. The
proposed development has lot areas of27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot
area for RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet.
Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S _ RSF, single family homes,
W - RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property
and currently COnnected to the existing house. The site slopes fÌ'om west to east with a high point at
Laredo Drive of940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the
Lake). The site is accessible ITom Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans
propose using the existing blacktop driveway for common access and the driveways split
approximately 70 down the lot with a new driveway constructed for both lots. The site has
approximately 77 percent canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy Cover will be 69 percent. Code
requires a minimum canopy coverage of 55 percent.
The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of914.4. The proposed houses have lowest
floor elevations of913.5 and 911.0 on Lots I and 2, respectively. (Lot I is the proposed northerly
lot and Lot 2 is the proposed southerly lot.) The proposed lots are 27,159 and 20,342 square feet.
Minimum lot size for shoreland property is 20,000 square feet. The proposed lots meet all
requirements for subdivision except for the 90 feet of shoreland ITontage.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 3
Ë{~f€.æa£~t
~~:E§§:
The neighbors have provided the city with a copy of restrictive covenants for Sunrise Hills First
Addition. Item number 18 appears to prohibit the applicant ITom subdividing the parcel. However,
the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. Rather, it is our responsibility to review the
proposed development for compliance with City Ordinances. Additionally, the applicant stated that
the restrictive covenants expired in 1987 and that they are no longeI' applicable to this lot.
Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the benefits of approving a
variance exceed the potential negative impacts of the alternative plat, which complies with City
Ordinance, and is, therefore, recommending the subdivision and variance for approval.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 18-56 through 18-63, Subdivision Design Standards
Section 20-56 through 20-60, Variances
Sections 20-476 through 20-486 Shoreline Management District
Sections 20-611 through 20-616 RSF, Single Family Residential District
Section 20-905, Single Family Dwellings
Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION
Staff has reviewed the Ordinance Interpretations submitted at the June 6, 2000, planning
commission hearing regarding the Lucas Igel Addition. Following is the comment and staffs
response:
1. Lot width. Variance reauest is for 75 feet lakeshore Der lot. Code requires 90 feet.
Chapter 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District
(a) Lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes - Recreational Development:
Riparian Lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 90
Conclusion: Developer actually requires two variances, 15 ft. for each lot.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 4
Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting the 15 foot variance for each
lot.
I. The 90' lot width defined in item #1 must be met at both the OHW line and at the building
line.
Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitation
(4) Additional Special provisions. Only land above the ordinary high water level of
public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards and lot width standards shall be met at
both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions
Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback
beyond which a structure may not extend.
Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or
roadway easement line; and, within shore/and areas. Setback also means the minimum
horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark.
Conclusion: South lot (Lot 2) must be 90 ft. wide at the building line, i.e., at the line delineated
by the 75 foot setback ITom the OHW line. The width at the building line for the south lot is less
than 90 ft. and does not meet code.
Response: Staff concurs. Staff estimates that the width for Lot 2 at the building Hne is 86.5 feet.
The 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement ITom which the
applicant is requesting a variance (Section 20-480 (a) (4». Since the applicant is already
requesting a 15 foot variance, we included any deficiencies in width as part of this variance.
Staff was more concerned that the applicant meet the 90 foot lot width at the middle of the
building pad area to assure that adequate building area be available in the buildable area of the
lot. Lot width means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the
building line. For Lot 2, this distance is 90.5 feet.
2. A 60' x 60' buildable pad (window) is required on all RSF lots. The south lot fails this
n:quirement.
Chapter 18.· Subdivisions
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that
suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a sixty-foot by sixty-foot building pad
(which includes deck area) without intruding into required setbacks and easements.
Conclusion: The south lot does not accommodate a 60' x 60' building pad without intruding on
required setbacks. The pad does not fit within the building window. The lot does not meet code.
.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 5
Response: Staff interprets this ordinance to mean that subdivisions must be reviewed to
determine that a suitable building site exists on each lot. A 60 by 60 foot building pad represents
a 3,600 square foot area. The applicant has drawn a 3,770 square foot buildable area with
average width of 53.5 feet and average length of 70.5 feet. These dimensions could adequately
accommodate most houses and decks that are proposed in the City of Chanhassen. However, the
buildable area for Lot 2 begins at the point at which the lot, accessed via a private drive, achieves
the 100 foot lot width (Section 20-615 (3). This area is approximately 84 feet wide by 70.5 feet
in length which exceeds the 60 foot by 60 foot requirement.
3. The terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, private drive
and shared drive are used synonymously.
See. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street
as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or aflag lot which shall have a
minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
private street _ a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not
dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties.
Street means a public right-or-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to
the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public
access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial,
parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an
entity comply with the preceding requirements.
Conclusion: The south lot does not abut a public street. Therefore code requires that it must
abut a private street, and what the city refers to as a driveway through the north lot is, in fact, a
private street.
Response: Staff agrees that the driveway accessing Lot two is a private drive/street and that it
can be defined as a private street in the subdivision ordinance. However, only the common
portion of the driveway is defined as a private street. The balance of the access is a driveway.
The City of ChaÌù1assen distinguishes between public right-of-way and private property in
calculating lot area, net density, impervious surface, etc. This lot meets the criteria established
for permitting a private street in the subdivision ordinance.
4. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. The north lot is
accessed by a private driveway, and is shown on that plat as having a width of 90 ft. (not 100
ft.).
[ See. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 6
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 1 00 feet as
measured at the front building setback line.
Remarks: Compare the current Staff Report with the previous Staff report (March 15th).
The current staff report (p. 5, Compliance Table) refers to the south lot (Lot 2) as a "Lots
accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 ftoo."
Note that this private drive originates in the north lot (Lot I) and crosses into the south lot (Lot
2).
Now refer to the previous March I 5th Staff Report. The Compliance Table again refers to the
south Lot (Lot 2) as "Lots accessed via a private drive (which) must have a lot width of 100
f1..." However, note that this private drive, in contrast, originates in the south lot.
Conclusion: It doesn't make any difference whether the private drive originates in the north lot
or the south lot. In both cases the requirement is for a lot width of I 00 ft. These two examples
show that the city considers both the north and south lots to be accessed via a private drive.
In both cases, the city states I 00 ft. is required. Therefore, any lot accessed via a private drive
must have a width of I 00 ft. at the front building setback, i.e., on the current plat, both lots
require a 100 ft. lot width. The north lot shows a lot width of90 ft., not 100 ft.
Response: One lot has its entire frontage on a public street and technically could access via a
separate driveway at any point on the street frontage. The other property has no street ITontage
and must therefore access via a private driveway across the other property. It is only for the
convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees that the City of Chanhassen is requiring both
properties to access via the same curb cut. Since Lot I could access directly to the street, we do
not interpret that this lot must comply with the 100 foot lot width requirement. However, if you
look at the preliminary plat, the line drawn across Lot I at the front of the house is 106. I feet.
Were the City of Chanhassen to interpret the code as requiring that this width be met, Lot I
would already comply with that requirement.
5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25%
impervious surface requirements.
Sec.20-1. Definitions.
Lot area - the area of a horizontal plan bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not
including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way.
Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the
requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public
access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial,
Lucas Ige1 Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 7
parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an
entity comply with the preceding requirements.
See. 20-485. Storm water management.
Impervious surface coverage of a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area,...
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of
storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to gravel driveways parking area, buildings
and structures.
Since portions of the lots are crossed by a private street, that portion must be excluded ITom the
lot area. The calculation for a maximum 25% impervious surface for both lots must be
recalculated.
Response: The City of Chanhassen only excludes public right-of-way ITom lot area calculations.
As stated previously, we distinguish between public right-of-way and private property. Both lots
meet the impervious surface requirement as defined in the City of Chanhassen Code.
6. The entrance street requires a 10' setback from the north property line, but has only 8' (both
plats).
Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways. . .
(b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed
within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives
exist. If no alternative exists, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to
minimize adverse impacts.
The common 20 ft. wide private street does not have a lOft. setback from the north property line.
Response: While it could be argued that this ordinance applies to the lake setback requirement,
staff can concede the issue. This problem can be easily rectified by adding a condition of the
preliminary plat approval that the driveway alignment meet structure setback requirements. The
applicant shall realign the driveway to meet the 10 foot side yard setback. A very minor portion
of the entrance to the street is only eight feet ITomthe north property line. This flaw is not fatal
in regards to the approval of the subdivision.
7. The definition for a lot states it is an area ofland undivided by any public street or approved
private road.
Sec. 20- I. Definitions.
Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved
private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise
permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 8
principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal
use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are designed and
arranged or required by this chapter for such building, use or development.
The private road on these plats does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the
examples we have seen in the city. It crosses through the middle of the lots which code says
cannot be done.
Response: Staffhas historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not
divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the
property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one
or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a
drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be
creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case.
The private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection. We could have the
applicant run the private driveway along the property line to access Lot 2 and have a separate
access for Lot I. However, we would lose all tree preservation that we hope to achieve through
the current design.
Staff Conclusion: Staff stands by the comments of the staff report for the June 6, 2000,
Planning Commission meeting with the addition of the condition that the driveway maintain the
10 foot side yard setback. While it may not be 100 percent clear that there are two variances
involved, one for each lot, the staff report clearly intends to address a 15 foot lakeshore width
variance request for each lot. Included in this request would be a variance ITom the 90 foot width
at the building line, since this requirement is in Section 20-480 (a) (4), lakeshore width
requirements.
BACKGROUND
In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1st Addition. On
December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board
of Carver County.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2000, to review the proposed
subdivision. The Planning Commission voted four for and none against a motion recommending
approval of the subdivision based on staff's interpretation that 75 feet of shoreland was required.
Upon discovery of this error, staff notified the applicant that we could not support the subdivision
because it did not meet code and no variance was requested as part of the public hearing process.
The application was withdrawn to pursue a subdivision with the appropriate variance request.
LANDSCAPINGffREE PRESERVATION
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 9
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the 1ge1 Addition development are as
follows:
Total upland area
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
PF8pøsed tree pFeseFVaH8B
47,501 SF or 1.091 ac.
77% or 36,576 SF
55% or 26,126 SF
69% or 32,776 SF
SS'v. or 26,126 SF
(with variance)
( ftkerBfttF:e)
The developer meets minimum canopy coverage, therefore, no replacement plantings are
required.
Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development.
There had been some question regarding trees that were shown on the plans as dead or diseased.
The City Forester inspected the site on May 22nd. The oaks identified as diseased have dead
wood in their canopies, but they are not diseased and do not merit removal since they are healthy.
The dead ash is indeed dead. Staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly
north of the proposed home on Lot 1. This area is currently paved driveway and will become
yard for the proposed home. Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include
one overstory tree, 2 understory trees and three shrubs.
GRADINGIDRAlNAGE
There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed for redevelopment. Grading plans
propose fairly minor grading to develop two new house pads. Both lots are proposed to be two-
story rambler, walkout-type dwellings. Grading around the dwelling will encroach upon the 75-
foot setback ITom the lake, however; only minimal tree loss is anticipated with this grading
activity. This grading activity is necessary to maintain positive drainage away ITom the proposed
dwelling. At time of building permit application, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control
and tree removal plan will be required with each lot. At that time, staff will address erosion
control measures necessary with individual permits.
The site contains an existing blacktop driveway that currently serves the existing residence. The
plans propose on constructing a new driveway through Lot 2 to service both of the new parcels.
Upon review of the driveway layout, staff recommends that due to the steep driveway grades, Lot
1 should utilize the existing blacktop driveway and Lot 2 should have a new driveway as shown.
This will reduce the common portion of the driveway which needs to be built 20 feet wide, 7-ton
per axle design through the common portion. A cross-access easement for both lots will need to
be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 2.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is connected to
city sewer and water. In conjunction with razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 10
demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and
water unit, therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible at time of building permit issuance
for one sewer and water hookup and connection charge. The 2000 sanitary sewer and water
connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain hookup charges
are $1,300 and $ I ,694, respectively. These fees may be specially assessed against the property at
time of building permit issuance. Extension of sanitary sewer service to Lot 2 will involve
encroaching upon Lot I. The applicant will need to prepare private cross-access easements for
extension of the sewer and water lines through Lot 2 to be recorded against both parcels.
Currently, one water service exists for the existing building. A new water service will need to
come ITom Laredo Lane to the property line to service Lot 2. This will involve open cutting of
Laredo Lane to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a
water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot I. The applicant and staff
shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates
the least disruption to existing vegetation. Staff recommends the applicant escrow with the City
$2,000 to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service ITom Lot I to Lot 2.
STREETS
The site is accessible ITom Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose
using the driveway to service both lots.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will
be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the
first building permit for a home in this development.
Code Requirements
Lot I
Lot 2
Total
l\ltemate Let I
l\ltemate Let 2
COMPLIANCE TABLE
AREA (sq. ft.)
20,000
27,159
20,342
47,501
21,752
25,749
FRONTAGE (ft.)
90
90
100 *
DEPTH
125
278
397
Lake Frontage (ft.)
90
75 #
75 #
9Q
199.21
-lM
-8+.&
Not apJ!lieaèle
H()
*
Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the ITont
building setback.
Al5 foot lake ITont variance is being requested. Minimum state shoreland standards are 75
feet.
#
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 11
I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District subject to approval of the shoreland width variance. The alteæate
plat ee1Bflies ·.?.itk all eeàe Fee¡tlÍI8Bleats.
2. 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 all applicable plans.
3. 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.
4. 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 inITastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
the conditions of approval.
6. 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.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban in&astructure.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 12
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
(I) 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. The proposed private street serving the development is not
necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the
western portion of Lots ] and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot I, in its present
configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical.
SUBDIVSION VARIANCE FINDINGS
Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations
contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that
all of the following conditions exist:
(I) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
(2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape topographical conditions
of the land;
(3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property; and
(4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in
accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive
plan.
Findin2. The proposed variance to the shoreland width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a
mechanism to reduce the potential impacts of the addition of the new lot to the neighbòrhood by
preserving the trees along the western property line, maintaining the character of the area by
pushing the houses away ITom the right-of-way, and maintaining off site views of the lake. The
proposed variance is generally in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 13
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward ITom them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. The topography
of the site, the desire to preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to
preserve the character of the area make the granting of the variance more desirable than
requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Approving the
variance will not depart downward ITom pre-existing standards since the lot size is
consistent with other lots in the area and another lot within the Sunrise Hills 151 Addition
has lakeshore ITontage that is even less than that proposed in this subdivision.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all
properties in the shore land management district. The desire to preserve natural amenities
on the site, the enhancement oflake views, the desire to maintain the lot patterning of the
neighborhood are unique to this development proposal.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel ofland.
Finding: While the creation oflakeshore lots will increase the value of the property, staff
does not believe that is the sole reason for the request.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which
meets ordinance requirements in area, depth, ITontage, "lot width," but not lakeshore width.
e. The granting ofthe variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 14
Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Requiring the
applicant to meet all requirements of the ordinance would be more detrimental to the
neighborhood.
£ The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fIre or endanger the public safety or substantially dirninish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Requiring
the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the
crowding of houses near the cul-de-sac.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6, 2000, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and tabled the item to permit
staff to respond to questions regarding the ordinance interpretation (see above response to
ordinance interpretation).
The Planning Commission held a hearing on July 18, 2000, to review the request for preliminary
plat approval with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore
parcel into 2 single family lots. While not a public hearing, the commission permitted interested
parties to comment on the proposed plat. The Planning Commission voted five for, none against,
and one abstention, to recommend denial of the preliminary plat with the variance.
The denial of the plat due to the need for the variance is a legitimate exercise of the Planning
Commission's function. However, staff continues to believe that the plat with the variance will
have a lesser impact on the neighborhood than the alternate plat that complies with city ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width
requirement, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson &
Carlson, Inc., dated February I I, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, and revised
April 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
I. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The
existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18,2000
Page 15
2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate
department or agency.
3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will
be issued.
4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State
Plumbing Code.
5. 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. Tree protection
fencing must be installed prior to site grading.
6. All lots shall 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 may
also be required at Laredo Lane.
7. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer
and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the
applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the
property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and
sanitary sewer services through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The applicant shalIescrow with the City
$3,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extension across Lot 1 to serve
Lot 2. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at
time of building permit issuance on Lot 2. The cost of extending the water service to Lot
2 ITom Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 2.
The applicant shall prepare and record a cross-access easement agreement for the water
and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots.
8. The typical5-foot and 10-feet wide side, ITont and rear yard drainage and utility
easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20- foot wide utility and
drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs
through Lot 1.
9. The developer shall be responsible for all city attomey fees associated with the review
and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water
Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of
final plat recording.
10. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete.
Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location
of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 16
The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle
weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by
the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30
feet wide.
1 I. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements
including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard
pIantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot I.
12. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the
fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be
payable with the first building permit for a home in this development.
13. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over the
property westerly of the access easement alignment.
14. The driveway shall maintain the 10 foot side yard setback.
15. As part of any building permit submittal, impervious surface calculations shall be
prepared and included on the certificate of survey."
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Letter ITom Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen Dated March 3, 2000
4. Letter ITom Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated March 28, 2000
5. Letter ITom Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 3, 2000
6. Letter ITom Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 6, 2000
7. Letter ITom Adolfo R. Zambrano dated April 17, 2000
8. Letter ITom David Igel dated April 21, 2000
9. Letter ITom Norbert Kerber dated 5/01/2000
10. Letter ITom Chris Baird dated May 7, 2000
I I. Letter ITom Gerald W. Paulsen dated May 8, 2000
12. Letter ITom Debbie Lloyd dated May 9, 2000
13. Letter ITom Bruce D. Malkerson dated May 9,2000
14. Map of Lake shore Lots Less Than 90 Feet in Width at Lake
15. Sunrise Hills 1st Addition Lot Areas
16. Memo From Jill Sinclair to Kate Aanenson dated 5/25/00
17. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
18. Letter ITom Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 15,2000
19. Letter ITom.Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 16,2000
20. Letter to Residents from Robert Generous dated June 15, 2000 and Mailing List
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 17
21. Letter ITom JoAnne Lipe to Kathryn Aanenson dated 6/26/00
22. Letter to Jerry & Jan Paulsen form JoAnne Lipe dated 6/26/00
23. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/6/00
24. Letter ITom Gerald W. Paulsen and Janet D. Paulsen to Craig Peterson dated 7/8/00
25. Planning Commission Minutes of7/18/00
26. Sunrise Hills Lot Area Calculation by Debbie Lloyd
27. Memo ITom Jerry/Jan Paulsen to Chanhassen City Council dated 9/19/00
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July IS, 2000
Page 18
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Lucas Igel Addition
Subdivision
On June 6, 2000 and July IS, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
schedule meeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval and lake
shore width variance of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony ITom all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the fol1owing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single Family Residential.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible
adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding
them are:
a. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance;
b. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
c. 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;
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 19
d. The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter due to its limited size;
e. The proposed subdivision will potentially cause environmental damage;
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
I) Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
2) Lack of adequate roads.
3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
I. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
1. The planning report #00-2 dated June 6, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated
herein.
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. The proposed private street serving the development is not
necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the
western portion of Lots I and 2, the use ofthe existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present
configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July 18, 2000
Page 20
Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance ITom the regulations
contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding
that all of the following conditions exist:
(I) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
(2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape topographical
conditions of the land;
(3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property; and
(4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare
and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Findine:: The proposed variance to the shore land width is a mere inconvenience. The
proposed variance is not in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan.
Section 20-58, General Conditions For Granting, states: A variance may be granted by the board
of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met:
I. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue
hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is
not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing
standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria.
Findine:: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship. The owners
have a reasonable use of the property with one single family home.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
3. Findinl!:. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable
to other property within the same zoning classification.
4. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel ofland.
Findinl!:. The creation of two lakeITont lots is more valuable than one lakeshore lot.
Lucas Igel Addition
June 6, 2000
Revised July IS, 2000
Page 21
5. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Findinl!. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship since the applicant
has a reasonable use of the property with one single family home.
6. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Findinl!. The variance will be perceived as detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property-
values within the neighborhood.
Findinl!.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The
surrounding infrastructure will be adequate for the proposed lot development. The
proposed lots will not adversely affect property evaluations in the neighborhood because
the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring homes.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the
Preliminary Plat with the shoreland width variance.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this I Sth day of July, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
ATTEST:
Its Chairman
Secretary
g:\p1an\bg\lucas ¡gel addition revised.doc Jueas Igel Addition revised
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPUCANT: i~),~ \I ~ rl T ß.# I
ADDRESS: ,¡ c¡ 5 S+'("t.\.Lù h u,.. y L...,
$hÞV"-cw<.>øcR ñlrJ ~~L
TELEPHONE (Day time) (017 - q 2 0 - 8 3 ()O
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
saW\-€
TELEPHONE:
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
_ Condäional US,e Permä _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permä _ Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit ,
_ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permäs
_ Sign Plan Review L Notification Sign
- Site Plan Review" L Escrow for Fiiing Fees/Attorney Cost""
($50 CUP/SPR/V ACN ARfN AP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) "
.:L. Subdivision' TOTALFEE$ $5 () 7W ;-y¡,. l/
-7
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 8V." X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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.
~
PROJECT NAME LeA C CI.. '" .:r <=¿f \ A J etA, á"".
LOCATION 1-~ 01 L" ~ k t) r.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ( ð+ 1\ 'is I oC k Su... ':.~~ \-\;11 s ¡ø- Ad).
TOTALACREAGE~
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING J u. D 'R
YES
't\ NO
REQUESTED ZONING
,so. VIA-e.
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Low tx",,,;+.; ecs'.J.",~.a \
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION '5'1iM..(
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
Lof sri: +
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 Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completenèss of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Trtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
~1
1..-[[ - 00
Date
'2. - It - 00
Date
Appfication Received on 12/ ¡ I ! IYD Fee Paid 17 CO ,c:!?- Receipt No.
.\
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
March 3, 2000
~~~~~'.f~~,
¡.~:,i\ 0 3 2000
Clí J vr~ v"- J""\i ·~nh(¡;jEi·~
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Replat of property at 7303 Laredo Drive
We live adjacent to the subject property that was recently purchased.
We have been told that your meeting on March 15th has an agenda item
to permit subdividing the single lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (previously
owned by the Bairds) into two lots.
We wish to express our concern and objection to this change, and call
your attention to the following factors.
Our subdivision, Sunrise Hills, has Restriction Covenants filed with
Carver County. One of these items prohibits reducing the size of any
building site from the established size. A copy of the Restrictive
Covenants is attached.
It seems strange that the purchaser of the Baird property claims not
to be aware of the Restrictive Covenants. It is normally revealed by
a title search. Our Mortgage Deed explicitly states our property is
"Subject to Restrictive Covenants of record dated June 21, 1957, filed
July 15, 1957 under document No. 6183".
These Restrictive Covenants, which apply to 60 Sunrise Hills
residences, have already been upheld in a legal ruling in the 1980's.
Your rejection of this application will avoid protracted legal action
to reconfirm the validity of the Restrictive Covenants.
Adding another residence would adversely affect our property and that
of ten or more adjacent properties because of visual impact resulting
from two houses in the place of one, and because of the loss of mature
trees.
Adding another lake shore residence will further overload the capacity
of Lotus Lake and contribute to it's environmental and visual
degradation.
Cordially,
~~kPaJ~
~erald W. Paulsen
\ r
U01\Å.,L JJC"L ~~....'\....
Janet Dee Paulsen
Attachment: Restrictive Covenants (3 pages)
r:::;...,
_n /
.';'":.."
...._.......-0
....
;.. : ,.'.
-
... .
.' --
-- .--.---.....--.-.--- ._.'-....
-----.--&_- .
RESTIUCTIVII COVEN¡\~rrS
TO THE PUBLIC.
WHEREAS, ¡!obort A. Soholer and Celine R. Scholer, husband and w1to, are
owners of tho property dul)' platted as ·Sunrise Hills o'ir~t Add1.tion", Carver
County, Minnosota, according to tho p1At thereof on fUe an:! of record 1.n the
ocnoo of tho ßeg1.strar or :{Ules oC sa1.d Carver Count,y; and
\-IIIEREAS, 1.t 1.s the intention ani des1.re of said owners to ..sure the
pel'lllOllency of said Adell.t1.on and the stab1.l1ty oC the property values therein; and
UHEREAS. 1.t is the further desire or sa1d oVlers to establish restr1.ct1.ons
for the ...tual bonef1t of ¡resent. and future owners or propert.y includsd in sa1d
Sunr1.so Hills First. Adell.t1.on,
NCM THEREFORE, in order to ectectuat.e t.he foregoing, JIobert A. Scholer am
Coline ,R. Scholor do hersby pro.w.gat.e and adopt. tho following prov1.s1.ons,
covenant, and restrictions and ao hereby make said cQvenants and restrictions
a pa.rt and condition ot each and every aalo, transfer, conveyance or mortgage
of said Adell. t1.on or any part or lot. t.hereln. an:! said covenants an:! restrict.ions
,
shaU run w1.th the land and shall be binding on all part.1.es œroto and on all
persons cla1m:l.ng under t.hem until JuJ,y 1, 1987, at. wb1.ch t.1Jae theso covo~ants
shall be automat1.call)' oxtonded tor suocesdve por1.ods of ten )'ears, unless by
a vote of a "",jor!. ty oJ: the then owners or the lots in said Sunrise HUls· First.
Add1.t1.on. it. 1.0 agreed to change sa1.d oovenants and restr1.ct1.ons in full or in
part. Invalidat,1.on oJ: an)' of these oovenants ond restrict1.ons here1.naCter set.
forth by jud&1ll"nt. or court. order shall in no way affect a"3' oJ: the other
covenant.s. rostr1.ot.1.ons or prov1.sions wh1.ch shall remain In full Corco and offsot.
1. All lots shnU be Imown, usod and describod as res1.dant1al lota. I/o
structure shall bo erect.ed, altered. p1Acod or porm1.tted t.o rema1.n on an7 lot
in said p1At other than one dotachod singlo-famUy dwoUing not. to exceod two
,tories 1.n heighth w1.th attachod p'·1.vato garago. excopt as hereaftor provided.
2. All ¡arages must be w1.th:l.n t.ho dwolling or attached to the dwelling
oither diroctl)' or by broozow~ or other part. oJ: dwolling.
wh1.ch
,. No shod, shops or out. bu1.ldlngs oJ: any klnd/m:J:/ bo con,idorod un,i~htl)'
or objcctlonöi.ble to othor rð.:Jiùonts oE oa.ld Addition, nuy be oroctod at lU1J" t1Jna.
~hl:i rt:::Jtrlction, ho"ovor, ohaU not proclude tho coo:atruct1on of s1chtly or
llttl·act1vo :Jt.ructuro::r Eor tho comfort or t1nJo,ylncnt of ownorø or tho dwoll1nc and
,
,
1 _
'.
'.
.J.
¡,
'.
".
"
l
.'
..;. .
"
·r·l.
. I
----... - ...-
hi3 fami¡Y. 1ncludinC Duch structuro, 40 non-commorclal t~ croanhoua08.
playhou303 and chlldron's plaT Ðqul¡mont.
4. No structure· or a temporAry' charactor shaU bo used as a r031donae
,
at any t1mo.
5. All buildings hereatter proposed for sa.1d Sunrise 11111. i'1rst Addition.
must bo erectod by Hobert A. Scholer or his assigns.
6. ~o building shall be loca.ted nearer t.ban fort.r teet trom the tront. lot
line.
7. No buildlng shall be oloser to side 101; lines than twelve teet.
8. 'l'he m1n:lr.mm square toot area, exclusive at garage and bree.GW'Q', or
porch.s, of any one-story dwelling shall be 1,000 square teet. and of any one
and one-haJ.t' and two story dwolling shall be 1.200 square tee1;, and in case at
the latter. both noors must be !1nishecl. The m1n1nzul1l sqlL'lre too1; area, exclu.ive
of garage and bree.eway, or porches, at any clwelling located on a lot with lake_
shore trontege shall be 1,200 square .teet.
9. lhe exteriår of any dwelling placed on any lot in sald Add1t.1on shall
be covered with stone, wood. brick or .stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be
palnted, varnished or stained. The exterior of al\7 dwelling mus1; be finished
immedlately and must not be allowed to """"in unfinished In al\7 part for more
than sjx months from the date of the beginning at said oonstruct.1on.
10. No build1ng shall be constructed at concrete blocks or of oincler
block construction.
11. ßo second hand "",terlals may be usecl for aDJ' construction.
12. 110 building mar be moved onto any lot.
1;. "0 clogs shall be kept In sa.1d Addit.1on except those confined strictJ,y
to the owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all
times. Jogs whlch are habitually nOlsy shall be deemod a nuisance and ""'y be
eliminatod trom tho area.
14. No COW3. goats, or any dOll1estic or other animal. poultry' or foul of
an7 I:lnd .hall bo kopt In .aid Addltlon oxcopt dog. ar~ cat.. and tho keeplng
of dogs shall be subject to ro~latlon set forth in tho precoeding par.grap~.
],S. No eOlUlnOrclal act.1vity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried
_ 2 _
~ .
.-. '--.~
,
O,,'~~-IJO~~ any lot ~-'Ø3-~:Ad~tlon, but thlc rO:JtrlcUon D~~: no\, .. _. _'~~.;"~~. I
þr.ol..",,, u... . \.
pur.u1~ of hobbios which are wholly confined withiri the dwel\lo¡ _ "hlob '" ''':
offon3ivÐ or of'Q kind which in aqy W4Y bocanos an annoyance or nu1sance to
the neighborhood.
16. J<ach owner ol any lot shall have the right to use the playground ar..,
provided by the abovs named IIobert A. Scholer and Celine K. Scholer Ior the
benor.1t. o£ purchasers ot J.ob in said Addition, tor access to and trom Lotus Lake
b;y root. Use of boat s.Up. and channel shall be subject to nondnal charge Ior
in.tol14t1on. minhnance and upkeop tlnreoI. No private docks shall be erected
on or Irom the area playground and beach. No build1ngs shall be erected on the
area playground and beach without the permission or Ifobert A. Scholer. Any and
all malotenanoe and improvement of and on said arsa playground and beach ~haU
be m:>.de at the expense oI the owners oI tbe lots 10 said Sunrise HiUs Firat
Adå1tJ.on.
17. . Landscaping oI any lot on which a dwelling has bean constructed shall
be completed lorthw1 th upon completion or dwelllog construction.
16. Robert A. Scholar reserves the right and privilege to regrade al\T of
said lots owned by him elrl improve the s_s by enlarglog said lots b;y
consol1datlog two or more lots or any part or an,y lots. but in no ....ent to
reduce tho sizs or llnal building site. Irom the shes or lots now es tebUshed.
:m TESTooN! WHEREOF. Itobsrt A. Scholer alrl Cellne R. Scholer beve set
their hands this _ day or Juns, 1957.
In Presence atl .
j~,,~\.'è, 0,.""\ì\'~\-
',/ \1 ~~
I h ~~ ~'''''''''~'P.".....
C;2
~- ¿;.,/ t?Q/¿;/
e" I,:.. t1? -À. I, I
STATE OF tIDINESOTA)
) SS
COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN )
On this ,2/,':/'-day or Juns, 1957. belors me a ßo~y Publ1c within and
tor said County person;llly a ppearod Uobert A. Scholer and Celina R. Scholer,
hU$b.1nd .1nd wife, to 11\0 knOWn to be tJ:o ¡::orsons doscribed in, and who executed
tha"roroßoing instrument and acknowlodgad that thoT exec~tad the same a. their
Irao act and deod tor the purpose. and objectlv.s therein set rorth.
....'.. ;···r:···
./ .~./.:
. .... ".
,'.
'y¡ } ~
V .......<:..., .,:"'".. ,/.~_( r.>___
~otary Public
V'
....... .'
. '/
-'
...:,.
.::.
'.
". '. \>.....
. ...'-f....
"'1;1"·'
-3-
...---
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
March 28, 2000
..,-,
:L;:.,~
. 2JOO
Craig Peterson
Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission
1340 Oakside Circle
Chanhassen MN 55317
\.-u,- -
". "-"-¡/\j111tiSSEN
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB
The Planning Commission had a public hearing on March 15th to discuss splitting this
lot on Lotus Lake into two lots. The City Staff Report said the proposed development
complied with City Ordinances and recommended approval. The four Planning
Commission members present voted to recommend approval to the City Council. We
have been told this item will be on the April 24th City Council agenda.
We have searched City Code for lake shore requirements, and found what appears
to be a significant oversight by City Staff. We believe the code states that the
minimum lake shore lot width is 90 feet, measured at the Ordinary High Water
(OHW) level; not 75 feet, measured at the survey line as stated in the Staff
Report.
The Code we are citing is Chapter 20 (Zoning), Article VII (Shoreline Management
District):
Sec. 20-479 (Shoreline classification system and land use districts) classifies Lotus
as a Recreational Development Lake.
Sec. 20-480 defines lot area and lot width standards. For a Sewered lake-
Recreational development, Riparian Lots, Single residential lot, the requirements are:
Area 20,000 W, Width 90 ft. Subsection (4) further states:
"Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet
lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary
high water level and at the building line....
The Staff Report (p. 4) states that code requires a minimum of 75 feet Lot Frontage,
measured at the survey line. The report states the survey line measurement for the
lot is 152.97 feet, and therefore adequate for two lots.
On Friday, March 17th, we asked Kathryn Aanenson, whether the lot width should be
measured at the OHW level instead of the survey line, and she agreed it should be.
She said the developer, David Igel, would be notified, and told to contact his surveyor
to determine the lot width at the OHW level.
(if)
As of today the surveyor has not formally re~lied to the City about the lot width. Bob
Generous, assured me on Friday, March 24 h that the surveyor had verbally said the
lot width was adequate.
We are not even convinced that the lot is 150 feet wide at the OHW level because
the property lines converge toward the lake. We measured the lot width at the OHW
level to be several feet less than the width at the survey line.
We believe that the lot width requirement has to be resolved before the Planning
Commission recommends action to the City.
A primary reason for us and 40 other homes in Sunrise Hills opposing the splitting of
the lot is because adding another lake shore home on Lotus Lake will be detrimental
to the quality of the lake. Lotus is a small, shallow, fragile lake which is already
overtaxed with traffic. It is an important asset of the community that should be
protected.
Cordially,
~¡;.Li fÆ,' ß<f~ --::-~"Y\LLD '~JL,,-
Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen
(952) 934-7032
e-mail paulseng@juno.com
Copy: Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
Craig Peterson, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Council Member
Mark Senn, Council Member
Steve Labatt, Council Member
Linda Jansen, Council Member
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
2
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
April 3, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
6620 Galpin Blvd
Excelsior MN 55331
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB
The letter, dated March 30, from Bob Generous, Senior Planner, to David Igel regarding a change in
interpretation of City Ordinance raises more questions,
Issue # 1, lot width as related to zoning: Bob's interpretation of Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland
Management, Additional special provisions) is predicated on his interpretation that all three sentences
pertain to PUDR zoning, because sentence #1 references PUDR. We believe the intent of this code is that
these three sentences are separate provisions, and sentences #2 and #3 are independent of PUDR.
Sentence #2 states "Only land above the ordinary high water (OHW) level of public waters shall be used
to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and
at the building line.", If sentence #2 applies only to PUDR, where in city code is there a definition for
detennining lakeshore lot area for non POOR zoning? This contradicts the intent of POOR to have less
stringent requirements than SFR. Sec, 20-50 I (Intent) states "Planned unit developments offer enhanced
nexibility...through the relaxation of most normal district standards.".
Sentence #3 of20-480, states "The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (I), (2) and (3) can only be
used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property.". Can this be interpreted to be
applicable only to PUDR, and not specifically to all shore land? Any reference to OHW level is logically
related to Shoreline Management regardless of zoning.
If the city believes 20-480, subsection (4) relates solely to POOR, then both lots require 90 feet at the
OHW level. The preliminary plat states zoning is PUDR (as does the developer's application),
Conclusion: the preliminary plat was erroneously approved,
Issue #2, building height: Sec. 20-48 I (Placement, design, and height of structures), subsection (f)
(Height of structures) defines maximum home height as 35 feet, TIle MN DNR publication "A Guide for
Buying and Managing Shoreland" in the section titled "Shoreland Management Program", states that
building height is limited to 25 feet in city residential districts, The preliminary plat defines both houses
as two-story. Conclusion: if a two-story house exceeds 25 feet in height, the preliminary plat was
erroneously approved. City code exceeds the state's 25 foot mininum,
Issue #3, lot area as related to impervious surface: Sec. 20-485 (Stonn water management) states
impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. Lot area (defined in
Sec, 20-1) excludes area occupied by street rights-of-way. A private street (defined in Sec. 18-1) is a
street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land... owned by one or more private parties.
Since both lots are accessed by a private street, the area occupied by the right-of-way must be excluded
from the total lot area for the purpose of determining whether the impervious surface requirement is met.
The corresponding adjusted lot area data should be included on the preliminary plat.
.~.~:-:.~:~:'~.T")
'.: t I:'~~ ~~"~~~~'~~dß)
Other inconsistencies lead us question the integrity of the Staff Report:
TIle preliminary plat omits required data as defined in Sec. 18-40 (Preliminary plat-Data required):
. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision are not provided (per
subsection (2) (b».
.. Lot dimensions exclude lot width at the OHW line (per subsection (2) (c). The plat defmes square
footage as total area above the OHW elevation. Therefore the surveyor knows the lot width at the
OHW line. The city requested the lot width at the OHW line on March 17, but we were told by Bob
that the developer has not fonnally responded.
. Adjoining platted or subdivided land is not identified by name and ownership (per subsection (2) (e».
In summary, Sec. 20-4. (Compliance) states" ...no building permit shall be granted and no plat approved
that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter.". The city admits to "misinterpreting" city
code. Local code must adhere to state minimum shoreland requirements, but can define stricter
requirements.
What criteria are used to decide when a revised preliminary plat must go back through the Planning
Commission for public hearing and approval?
We wish to see an interpretation of these issues ITom the city attorney. If these issues cannot be resolved
in a timely manner for our review prior to the scheduled City COWlcil meeting on April 24 (or Planning
Commission meeting if appropriate), then the issue should be moved to a subsequent meeting.
~:~ ~/k.- ~~h?~
Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen
(952) 934-7032 (home)
(651) 456-7784 (office)
e-mail paulseng@jwlo.com
Copy: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Scott Botcher, City Manager
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, COWlcil Member
Mark Senn, Council Member
Steve Labatt, COWlcil Member
Linda Jansen, Council Member
Roger Knutson, City Attomey
Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission
Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
Craig Peterson, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
TIlerese Berquist, President, SWlrise Hills Civic Association·
,
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
April 6, 2000
1'·~r·~-'"
e~' "',.,' I,t'~
, v,;.v~" .,ji£iiJ
/F::P " " ~,"OO
"II " _ J {,....I
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
C/ïY uF Chi";Nn""'''' .
.......I:J)/
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB
In our letter of April 3rd to you we questioned the city's interpretation of the requirement for
lake shore lot width as stated in city ordinance, Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland
Management):
"Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those
In the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed' and approved as
residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public
waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the
ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1),
(2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property."
Attached is a reply ITom the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stating that the cited
, code must be interpreted as three stand alone sentences. This means 90 feet measured at the
OHW line is required for lake shore property, not 75 feet as stated by city staff.
We are awaiting a reply from the city on why city code permits a SFR maximum height of35
feet while the DNR Shore land standards dictate a height of 25 feet.
Cordially,
é~ Ll-l' tt/ 8~
Gerald W, Paulsen
(952) 934-7032 (home)
~(I.;(\'l.\"" \). Yß.ÀL~'I\.
Janet D, Paulsen
(651) 456-7784 (office)
Copy: Scott Botcher, City Manager
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Council Member
Mark Senn, Council Member
Steve Labatt, Council Member
Linda Jansen, Council Member
Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission
Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Keven Joyce, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
Craig Peterson, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association
rw
Juno e-maß printed Wed, 5 Apr 200012:39:03 , page 1
From: "Russ Schultz" <russ.schultz@dnr.state.mn.us>
To: <paulseng@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11 :34:32 -0500
Subject: Re: sample shoreline management ordinance
Mr. Paulsen, your e-maß was transferred to me for response.
Answer to first question: The sentences in Section 5.14 A. are stand
alone sentences. They apply to all types of residential development.
Whether single, duplex, triplex, quad or planned unit development, the
appropriate lot size and suitability requirements apply.
Second question: For the purposes of the Shoreland Management
regulations, only land above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) can be
used to meet minimum lot area requirements. Yes -In determining lot
area the OHW can be used as one of the lines. However formal platts and
surveyed subãlVisions may show different lot lines, because of different
laws and procedures, but the minimum lot size is still based on land
above the Ordinary High Water level.
I hope this comes close to answering your questions.
Sincerely,
>>> Gerld W Paulsen <paulseng@juno.com> 5:49:36 PM 412100 >>>
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
April 2, 2000
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul MN
Subject: Sample Shoreland Management Ordinance, June 1999
You sent me a copy of this document (subtitled "DNR Waters: Shoreland
Management Program").
Sec. 5.14 (Adãrtional Special Provisions) states:
A. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding
those in the tables in sections 5.12 and 5.13 can only be allowed if
designed and approved as residential planned unit developments under
Section 8.0 of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water
level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot
width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at
the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in Section 5.12 can only
be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the
property.
Are these three sentences standalone items, or is either the 2nd or 3rd
sentence tied to the first sentence? I.e., are the 2nd and 3rd sentences
applicable only to a residential planned unit development? It seems
logical that these three sentences are standalone items.
We were unable to find a definition of lot area for a lake shore
property. Is the ordinary high water line used to define one of the
boundaries when determining lot area?
Thanks,
Gerald W. Paulsen
(9~) ! ;¡4-7032 (home)
April 17, 2000
RECEIVED
APR 1, 2000
CITY OF CIiANHASS£N
Ms. Kathryn Aenenson
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ref: Splitting Lotus Lake Properties
Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredso Drive
Dear Ms. Aenenson
As a member of the Sunrise Hill Association I would like to state
my position against the splitting of lots which are part of an
already developed area.
I am for development, but against crowding. I am certainly
against derating environmental standards to allow incremental
proliferation of pollution.
If the City Code requires a minimum of 90 feet at the OHW line
for lake properties, relaxing this standard is a step backward
which opens the door for the progressive environmental
deterioration of Lotus Lake.
7301 Frontier Trail
m
April 21, 2000
David Igel
6195 Strawberry Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Mr. Bob Generous
City ofChanhassen
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mr. Generous,
I am withdrawing my request to go in ITont of the City Counsel this Monday, April 24
regarding the proposed Lucas Igel Addition and I am instead requesting to be put on the
agenda for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 17, 2000.
As you know, I began this subdivision process in September of 1999. I have met and
spoken with members of the planning department numerous times and recently, was
given staff recommendation to approve, as well as unanimous approval by the Planning
Commission for this proposed plat. However, this week I was informed that the City had
changed its stance on the minimum lot width requirement ITom 75 feet to 90 feet and that
I would need to ,start the process over and request a variance.
As we have discussed, I have made every decision on this property based on the 75-foot
width requirement including the decision to purchase the lot. Consequently, I would not
have spent this money or invested in surveyors, attorneys and others if the original width
requirement had been more than 75 feet.
It is very important to us that ftom here forward, this proceeds properly and with no
further changes by the City. Please keep me appraised of the status of this file and if
there is any further information I can provide to you on this issue.
®
5-01-2000
Norbert Kerber
7216 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen MN
934-1391
939-1378 w
Kathryn Aanenson: Community Development Dir.
Chanhassen Planning Commission.
Chanhassen City Council.
Dear Sir or Madam.
I am writing this letter in reference to the proposed "Lucas Igel Addition" that is
on your May 1 ih Planning commission Agenda.
As a resident of the Sunrise Hills and a resident ofChanhassen for 40 years I have
a concern when someone wants to come into a neighborhood and change the very
reason people built and bought homes in the Sunrise Hills area ofChanhassen. The
Sunrise Hills area was an attraction to my father when he built a home there in1968
he liked the modest homes on large lots that gave him a bit of the farm with the
city life. It is also important to me, as I purchased rny father's home became two
years ago for the same reason. .
Now we have before us a proposal to take one of these large lots and subdivide it
into two parcels. The first attempt by the new owner to subdivide was sent back to
the Planning Commission when it was discovered that he needed 90 feet of
lakeshore instead of 75 feet that was believed to be the minimum required. (Kind
of like a bad stock tip).
While I was not in favor of the first proposal I felt that the Proposal would be
passed as we had no legal grounds to stop it except a set of Covenants that restricts
any subdivision. Although it holds no legal merit it does convev the wishes of the
people that bought into the neighborhood.
However now the new owners of the property are applying for a "Shoreline
Variance" now this issue takes on a new prospective. A variance is a request to
change an existing regulation because of a hardship, well I see no hardship here.
They have an existing house on an existing lot that fits in well with the surrounding
neighborhood. The only hardship here is financial hardship. And as for the
alternate plan to chop down a bunch of trees to shoehorn in a second house makes
less sense than the first and looks like a arm twisting maneuver.
(CiJ
In conclusion I am not in favor of the subdivision. When we start to tear down a
modest sized home on a large lot and replace them with two large homes on a small
lot it starts to completely change the character of the neighborhood. Please do not
allow this variance to pass it does not meet the criteria of a variance, there is no
hardship and if the owner feels that he is losing this battle, he is not, and he stills has
a beautiful single family lake shore lot in a nice neighborhood.
Thank you for your time to review my concern .
483 Mission Hills Way E.
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
May 7, 2000
AECÐVED
MAY 1 0 2000
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Dir.
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Igel Lotus Lake subdivision (formerly Baird property)
Please include the following in the report for the Planning
Commission:
My brother, sister and I were raised in the home at 7303 Laredo
Drive. After my father died, I lived with my mother in the home
until I got married last year. After my mother died last summer
wê had to settle our mother's estate.
We contacted the city through our realtor Noel Wellman (Burnet,
844-6000). She asked a man in the planning department if it
were possible to divide the lot. If we had been able to sell
half the property, I might have been able to keep the home for
my own family.
The answer from the city was no, the lot could not be divided.
Now we hear that Mr. Igel, is asking the city to permit him to
divide it into two lots. Since we were told the lot could not
be divided, Mr. Igel should not be permitted to divide the lot.
Sincerely,
\\~~\!lJ
"-
Chris Baird
949-6121
(Îr)\
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 553 17
May 8, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen MN 553 17
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition; Planning Commission meeting May 17, 2000
(Please attach this to the Staff Report).
Since 1994 the city has required a minimum width of 75 feet for residential lake shore.
Code was recently interpreted to require 90 feet.
Attached are parts of two preliminary plats submitted by the developer. The left side
(Plat # I) is dated March 10, 2000 (March 15th Planning Commission meeting). The right
side (Plat #2) is dated April 20 (May 17th Planning Commission meeting).
Please direct your attention to the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line, a contour line at an
elevation of 896.3 feet, just left ofthe Lotus Lake shore line. Note the difference in the
OHW line on each of the two plats. . At points A and B the OHW line on the recent Plat
#2 is lengthened by pronounced bulges toward the lake. Point B on Plat #2 is shifted
toward the lake by two feet.
The net result is an increase in the length of the OHW line. The length of the OHW is
critical because it is the lot width for meeting the code requirement for lake shore, and for
calculating total lot area.
The length ofthe OHW line was not specified on Plat #1 as required by code. The
Staff Report for the March 15th Planning Commission hearing stated that the required
shore line length was met at the survey line (to the left of the OHW line some 16+ feet).
Kathryn Aanenson requested the length of the OHW line ITom Mr. Igel on March 17.
This request was ignored for five weeks.
The length of the survey line is 152.97 ft. Plat #2 now defines the OHW line as being
exactly 75.00 feet for each ofthe two proposed lots. This saves the developer ITom
having to admit to not having a full 75 feet on Plat # I which would have required a
variance. Bob Generous stated that after reviewing both plats, he sees no change in the
OHW line.
() ~
'J'
¡,i1.d Iv t:iMf~
.-
Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032
Attachment: Preliminary Plats
p.1
®
., -¡;"'
"
".
Survey for:
DAVID 'GEL'
\
A
/' ,
/' \
rf "\ \
'\ \. \ \
\ " \ \
\ ~o. í~
'<" , / roll
.-.51"/_ __.....
PcE
Survey for: DAVID IGEL
PLAI il:l.
LJ.J2o ¡ZOOt)
" \\
\.
Q,H.W. Elev.- 896,3
J
,
'.
<
o
,,>.
c:..
Û'
,.,. ON<
.,..QAI(
;..
~
"
"
"
\ /
\~",,)
i '<" /
ì I ~
,
I 0 I
f I
I I
I I I
I
GE.RAI.O W, PAuI.%N
7305 lJI-kCo DR.
LuCAS IGE.~ ACOITloN
5VJ'lR.¡SE: 4.+1 LLS
p. '2..
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
May 9, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, Attachment for Staff Report
Please include the following in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission
meeting 17 May 2000,
Attached is a copy of a petition circulated in Sunrise Hills. It is signed by 86
individuals representing 53 residences in our subdivision expressing opposition
to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive.
Cordially,
~~
Debbie Lloyd (952) 934-5696
Attachment: 5 page petition
(;î
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME
/~) 'Y~i
Æ.. '. A
-d:¿J~q~,~v· _'5i-
73d.c¡ rROYl71U( ìRL
7 J 1'(' LCFt/1,-'/r"f,.'
.
I.-/()/ H,J/,/a.,J Dr
17-02- k'OL---''''-C,---
,,)., ;/ .
)G( L-.ct-ljV,::¿cu Urk
1::] tJ'Ç f¡z.ð;/ì'I/!'fi,7i
7ZDZ- 1<'0.01 ér
ì J ] J f;-äJ/e,.. ¡;"y
1353 hfmtÙ_R.. ÍrJ
í63Š-1~--J/I,;,f
I'J 33ð' 1- AnUut .1.MZ7
7.33.2 /'~..... ;t;;u¡y
730d.~ A.
730.1 ¿¡(rt1.td.-ìcÛz .
133.8 ç/7)""+'cVÎ~
,
'7/,T'(:/4~~)/ o/'?'/7¿?P
Z3¡¿¿~/u7.Ã u-, ;h. 93<1'3337
7 :Jð-r ~77tne..'--ne/17'- C)&G-t9fe.Jep
ADDRESS
7 )..C'\C Ïh'.'ì.Ìl<2" Ìì\
PHONE
Q7-s-- (¡; (zJc
qD,;" OCd ~
f.3Ç· - {' ~c' <.
'n"¡-nr..¡''t
,
90&' 00-7;:'
9;;7 - :iC+ (
'1 J tj -6(1.¿
}¿)Ó .-(\ ð 7?
9J'I- '(tY)
C¡3L(-'t~~ 7
C¡3~~ DSS-I:.
.
93'f-,f>17~
9"'y'1 ¿¡ foz
Q3Q-s696
r¡ 3'J-sþ Cj tø
q3 ~I- J79õ<
I
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
'it D Æ-t
'-IIÒ /-l ~lJfJ.;7c/ i2
75 '1/ pv;-zir'eA, rz
7Yf ( ~li7ythi/lgjJ
?~3Ç~~db.f).
,
7337 ~~
7l}t) ¡;1hi~~
7..2c'lo ~.,J.trie,e / «.ø... L.
"hI~ 7 ,?¿?,o t0ð7lI.-l.u 7Ã'.
4aib/íiI?J 130/ FiIoflh'r -¡;,.
~ lØ/ ðædév--z:id
t:lA.
7¡j1'6 h,4,/,'-e/ /;"','(
?~ ) p, '=1-t~.u4 ~I
,
72-afo ~,""'-I~
7J..09 .p~íÞ
7'?7/ j~·D.JfJJJ1.
7305 ~ Or
l3DS ¿f0-~f) Dr
¡leD KlcwC',- eìl'tt
PHONE
93;./-'l3DI
Qtf0· ~/9~
937- 7& 7'¡
937- 967 Y
rv9-;)f(11
c¡ <.ICf -;)<f( 1
'9.3'-?'~ð'~9¿
9'.5 ;> S?:Jý .J
'ìð (, -/-" /:2.
,:;
Ntt.. ~(p '3~
9~9 - ?031o
C¡';'f -(¡7R:J"
r,jf~7~-
7.j'~'lro
9 J.y -'7/3>0
qïS - 603Ð
(/31-/- ýC/R
9.:3J/ - ¿ //';¿ ¿)
Q3L/-1031-
93~-706è
(('~~ - 41 t5
..,
:¡:.
------.- .---. .----.-----.-----
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
-.-..----.---.-. __no. ___._~.. _____.____._ - _______._______ - _____._
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11,·" Block 1, 1st .!\dci.i.tion) into two separate lots.
n__ _________
Restrictive Covenants exist,·· including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. . These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, â~të<L"JUrie 21, ·1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
"'- )
.t:L.--l-/
(\
-æ~ 1/~~
?;d~ ~~-~
, ~ -. " II Î?;I;;;:.
ADDRESS
lfC-o 1!I1ffi../.jI>'Þ ,7J.µ.,
f'n hjft4,r/ ~ '
¿~¡Lf f'¡-ðr{)l-e..:- 'T"r-
7z" .(.."" ;.-j"7 !:-/,"f'j¡iJ_.,- -(;:>
,.,/ , -- -, . 1"-
l-ZO~I()..¡;?t CttGk:..
ìz.;),-\
KLC_" C\r-"Lc
):J..r:;tI ¡::~ÆJTf¡:;fL TR/¡II
7;?ooF~(~/u ~
7/ 'l ç ~77E/Z 7/8ØtL
,
7211 hZ'clÙ'íÍ£ I2lrcAü_
7~1 ( FrI'irJ..¡'~r- ìf'a; (
,
7Vfo F..,v.,d,..: Tt-19</
7236 ¡':;oj'/T,,,,ç(;ê'.J. (
L if'
;:; 1kj;:,/'~~
733'1 r~1ì.ð.1:t,
7307 l.At1-aJr'-. ¡J/LII/;!
7"7v-<?J \,rM'~ PI'"
40/ fI{9'i;/(i.uf Drive
"
PHONE
1--? '1'- J IS" s
9,31'- 3/)3
<7:5'1.-16/;
'::¡3+·C:Z<,f>'-f.
,
9n-83ó~
~n-~?cy
91'1 - 7t"JC)
'13'/-72150
931./- .?-;173
9..'31/ -61c I (j
CJ3'1 - (,ir 1 K
"íJV-/.?V
c;
7c!L:" /312.
'l~,/.. 9.36/
c¡ :p(-['t FI
'1340's&' It/-
937-,)333
134--1D?'2-
f? "I... :; 7'-f 'ì
~
. PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME
5-~~
(} ., ~-n. C} -
~~ -<
~~JFA~
~.L~
Cl~ [~
¡'1 , v''Ì/1 / ,./
y /P ~.. i. .JØ/..(.¿., ,W.JL/
t; !', .
W~v1v¡J.tí~~r~
-i)~4~
.Ætd
7 ,1;).S> F~._1'4_ ì..... c¡ 3<¡- 7JJ. ç...
11'/ ~ I[
7 :h,I') fiz·v-J7v -;J CO 7 - .J>,;;.4t/
.
(---; J-/ti ~« t:: C)-31 -h-o(
7301/ø.R.cio-'ídr- 9f1-J~faJ
,
1...."í~-..J O1.\~,LC> .9:A - ]û~ "
. 1/ /'1
q;;¡;(¡;.z-Ù<z.r<.t'1 ¿/~'.
/"
rµ{ }/lcdtû-.J ~rJ
p
7 S ð:J 73....,J ~--;;;:..:(
7.33¿, r,&PT/ê.t!. 7£
ADDRESS
y~ I-\IGJttL-AtJD O~.
73 LC L-C::-zc;; v. c..:.¿/ c::.... trc~
:(
'7.}-]6 ¡:;'.:,,{¡er- Îf''''.¡'!
, i
7 ;;;"'ò 7 ~~<iA O¡--I\.
'l3c í L(~.-,,(\.c.'tX-
730/ ,v//,rcJ,'/)r
7"'5 ð I lõ/.eJ)o Or-
.
Llo Z HI6,.{1 A-/L'P I'f'
PHONE
'j1/Ci.2,q3
<734- -CZ5"J.
if
°/26 3J~ ¿
If
137-&-'1/6
")'?fl- :). 3'3'~
9..c;í9~ ~y;
9W-.I7/J--
Î'1-(- 53<;/:]
¡)/'<.., ;{,A~'
,') 1'..( J
93'1- lj/Jtl
l'l] '-I-j .?Pi
,
''75--~'f
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hi11s, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the 10t at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, B10ck 1, 1st Addition) into two separate 1ots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, inc1uding one which states that the size
of an existing 10t cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, fi1ed Ju1y 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
ADDRESS
72./'2:..1l"""c:>...J'r'<5.t '/e,
C!!?~4- t:::I-J4-<;~<,.e... Ø(,}
7.,$,:/7 ,c~,..çd¿' ~'--
t.!,«¡J;1'. ·J-"'<.r....../
---
7' óJ08 17-o..'¡;;'r I Î,
71ft( .f{r-fw. -I ¡ad
13:L{ ~,...:..;)~
7.3.z~)f7P;,/.d-&M)
~...~." d~, -....íI;"
~f4~~
I
PHONE
'?/z- '7'54-.-.8&o¡s/
7~ 73¥. )/9 r
93~- 58bb
9Î)-Or¡tJ6
9.37-t9?
P.57-?9?,p
i)
MAL K E R SON G ILL I LAN D MAR TIN LLP
---.,
SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER
901 MARQUETTE AVENUE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205
TELEPHONE 612-344-1111
FACSIMILE 612-344-1414
RECEIVED
MAY 1 0 2000
CITY OF CHANHAss£N
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Direct Dial No. 612-344-1699
May 9, 2000
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
POBox 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Igel's Request For Variance At 7303 Laredo Drive
Dear Mr. Generous:
I represent David and Rachel Igel who own property at 7303 Laredo Drive in
Chanhassen ("the Property") as shown on Exhibit A. The Igels have applied to the City
of Chanhassen för a variance, if needed, related to the minimum lot width at the
lakeshore of the Property. Assuming a variance is needed, we believe that the City has
ample discretion to grant a variance for the proposed lot width at the shoreline. The City
should exercise its discretion to grant the variance for the reasons noted herein.
THE CITY HAS AMPLE DISCRETION TO GRANT A SHORELINE
WIDTH VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY.
As you know, a state statute gives citÎl,s authority to grant variances ITom zoning
requirements. Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that cities:
. . . may hear requests for variances ITom the literal provision of the
ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use
if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms ofthe ordinance. . .
38378,DOC
C\3)
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 2
The City's specific standard for a variance is similar to the state standard, but it
also provides additional guidance as follows:
Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting.
A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city
council only if all of the following criteria are met:
1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue
hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to
reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of
this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to
recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards
exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without
departing downward ITom them meet this criteria.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are
not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
5. That the granting ofthe variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel ofland is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight
and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the
public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
Minnesota cities have broad discretion to make zoning decisions, and, in
particular, to grant variances. Sagstetter v. City ofSt. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488,490 (Minn.
App. 1995) (a court ''will not invalidate a city's zoning variance decision ifthe city acted
in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded it by statutes and ordinances").
Minnesota courts rarely disturb the variance decisions of approval of city councils. In
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 3
fact, I am unable to find any appellate court decision in Minnesota reversing a city
council decision granting a variance.
The following analysis will consider the statutory language giving cities authority
to grant variances, which is similar to the City's ordinance, and the City's ordinance and
will show why the City should approve the variance.
I have been a City Attomey for various cities, townships and counties throughout
the State for 27 years. I have lectured extensively during my 27 years to state planning
groups, The League of Minnesota Cities meetings, county planning workshops, and to
municipal land use attomeys at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education seminars, etc. I
note this to you because based upon this experience I am generally familiar how
attorneys, planners, planning commissions and council members have viewed certain
principles ofland use law throughout the last 27 years. Until the Rowell case was
decided in 1989. most city attornevs. planners. planning commission members and
council members believed that it was Very difficult under the statute and. therefore. under
the ordinances adonted nursuant thereto to I!I1IIlt variances. exceot in the most extreme
cases. Such situations typically were, for example, when because ofthe ravine on a
preexisting lot, a house could not have been built unless a variance ITom a setback was
granted, etc. Also variances were granted, when, if a variance were not granted as to, for
example setback, numerous lovely old trees would have to be removed. However, many
of us had always understood that the strict application of phrases, such as "undue
hardship," "reasonable use," "circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner," etc. were not tests to be as strictly applied as was typically happening in the
municipalities throughout the State. In fact, many planners used to say that given how
they thought the tests in the statute should be so strictly construed, that if a city found that
it was granting variances, that the city should amend its ordinance so that variances were
not necessary in the future. That however is not required by State law and, in fact, as a
review of recent case decisions will show, the Courts have found that the Legislature
never intended to so restrict the flexibility of the cities.
I. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH
REQUIREMENT WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP UNDER
THE STATUTORY TESTS BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.
Variances are available where a zoning provision will cause undue hardship.
Three statutory factors are considered in evaluating whether there is undue hardship.
Each of those three factors applies in this case and each is considered below.
A. THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE PUT TO A REASONABLE
USE WITHOUT A WIDTH V ARlANCE AS TO THE
SHORELINE.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 4
A review of the case of Rowell v. City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.
App. 1989) shows that the Igels do not even need to show there is no other reasonable
use to meet the standards for a variance. The Court in Rowell approved a setback
variance for the expansion of a church. The Court noted that where there is no
reasonable use of property without a variance, the constitutional requirement prohibiting
takings of property without compensation requires the grant of the variance. Rowell, 446
N.W. 2d at 922. See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112S.Ct. 2886, 2895
(1992)(zoning requirement constitutes a taking ifit denies a landowner "all economically
viable or beneficial use of the property"); Wheeler v. City ofWavzata, 5 I1 N.W.2d 39,
4 I -42 (Minn. App. 1994). That is not the situation in Rowell or in this case. The Court
said in enacting the statute authorizing cities to lZfant variances that the Minnesota
Legislature intended to give cities Ip'eater discretion to lZfant variances than thev would
have in anv event under the nrovisions of the Constitution addressing takings. Rowell
446 N.W.2d at 922. Thus. the Rowell Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend
to authorize variances onlv when there was no reasonable use without a variance.
Instead. according to the Court. the statute authorizes variances whenever the nronertv
owner would like to use the Dronertv in a reasonable wav:
The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant
variances in cases where the Constitution does not compel it. Thus, we
read the first part of the definition of "undue hardship" as requiring a
showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a
reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. Rowell, 446 N.W.
2d at 922.
Thus, the question in addressing the first part of the definition of undue hardship
is a simple one: is the lot width proposal for the shoreline a reasonable one. The answer
to that question is "yes" because the property owners would like to modify the width in a
reasonable manner as discussed herein.
As stated in this letter, my clients would like to have a variance for the minimum
lot width at the lakeshore of the Property. The request is reasonable for many reasons,
including, but not limited to the following:
I. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which
is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want
to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and on the
Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs
perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have
a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State of Minnesota requirement for
shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 160 feet
and 260 feet ITom the street, which would make them barely visible ITom the surrounding
neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the overall
removal of trees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 5
the most dense and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy
coverage &om 77 percent to 69 percent of the total lot. Under this plat design, the
placement of the two homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate
southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the
middle of the Property by replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow
profile homes. See Exhibit B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the
flattest parts of the Property and require minimal grading with easy management of
drainage issues. Finally, the hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the
limitations of the Property in the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting
in more narrow home designs and better use of the current driveway location. It is not
unreasonable for the Property owners to want to use the Property in a way that least
impacts the surrounding neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most
advantage of the Property layout.
2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel
to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not
result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on
the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would
be ten feet ITom the West property line and forty-five feet ITom the cul-de-sac. See
Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible ITom the road and the rest ofthe
neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the
largest trees &om the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce
the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will
almost completely block the existing view of the lake ITom the house to the immediate
southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder
of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high
degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive
grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent
damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the
houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because
the width ofthe homes will not be limited by the width of the lots.
3. The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable
given the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths
at the shoreline for sometime under the apparent misinformed assumption that it followed
the State ofMirmesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because
sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight
decrease of fifteen feet will not be detectable ITom onlookers and will fit in with the
general landscape of the surrounding properties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this
property owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy-
five feet for lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue
applying the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application ofthe City's
code.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 6
B. THE V ARlANCE IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF
CURCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY,
WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER.
Some of the information that follows in this letter is repetitive. I repeat the
information under several different section headings so each section is a self contained
section without the need to cross reference to other sections.
Hardship in this case arises ITom a number of facts, which have been explained in
this letter. The property owners would like to have a variance for the lot width at the
lakeshore for the Property, and the proposed width is reasonable for many reasons
including but not limited to the following:
I. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which
is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want
to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the on
Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs
perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have
a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State of Minnesota requirement for
shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 145 feet
and 260 feet ITom the street, which would make them barely visible ITom the surrounding
neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the removal
oftrees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in the
densest and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage
to 77 percent of the current coverage. Under this plat design, the placement of the two
homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo
Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the middle of the Property by
replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow profile homes. See Exhibit
B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the flattest parts of the Property
and require minimal grading with easy management of drainage issues. Finally, the
hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the limitations of the Property in
the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting in more narrow home designs
and better use of the current driveway location. It is not unreasonable for the Property
owners to want to use the Property in a way that least impacts the surrounding
neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most advantage of the Property layout.
2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel
to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not
result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on
the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would
be ten feet ITom the West property line and thirty-five feet ITom the cul-de-sac. See
Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible ITom the road and the rest of the
neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the
largest trees ITom the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 7
the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will
almost completely block the existing view of the lake ITom the house to the immediate
southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder
of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high
degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive
grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent
damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the
houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because
the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots.
C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY.
The immediate locality of the Property is in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood. See
Exhibit A. The current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the
neighborhood. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually
larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County Yz Sectìon
Maps for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed
side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition,
in evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 ofthe lots
(43 percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside
homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet ITom the cul-de-sac, whereas
the proposed side-by-side lots' homes to be located on the Property are 160 feet and 270
feet ITom the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of
varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances &om the street. There is no way that the
addition of the side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider
lakeshore widths than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, alter
the essential character of the locality.
D. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH
THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS ON ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS.
Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that:
. .. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
ifreasonable use for the DroDertv exists under the terms ofthe ordinance.
(Emphasis added) . . .
The requested variance is fully consistent with this provision. First, the variance
request is not premised on economic considerations at all. As discussed herein, the
variance request is necessitated by a number of unique characteristics of the property
discussed above. Thus, non-economic factors support this variance request.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 8
E. ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT
WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREIN.
In order to determine the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance it is important
to look at the relevant sections of the zoning ordinance as a whole. On page 1158.8, in
Section 20.2, the purpose of the code is to carry out the following:
1. Protect residential, commercial industrial and institutional
areas ITom the intrusion of incompatible uses;
2. Prevent overcrowding of land;
3. Conserve and enhance the city's tax base;
4. Protect against fire, smoke, explosion, noxious fumes,
offensive noise, vibration, dust, odors, heat, glare, and other
hazards to people;
5. Preserve the natural beauty and amenities ofthe city and
achieve excellence and originality of design;
6. Facilitate the provision of public services;
7. Secure equity among individuals in the use oftheir property.
As noted, ifmy clients cannot subdivide with a lot split perpendicular to the lake,
my clients will subdivide with a lot split parallel to the lake, which will not prevent
overcrowding ofIand, nor conserve the natural beauty and amenities of the City and
achieve excellence and originality of design, nor secure equity among individuals in the
use of their property. A home on the proposed non-riparian lot, will not promote the
natural beauty ofthe City, achieve excellence and originality of design or secure equity
among my clients in the use of their property.
The Policy Section for the Shoreland Management District, Article VII, Section
20-476, Page 1191, states as follows:
The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public
health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of
public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in
the best interests ofthe public health, safety and welfare to provide for the
wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters.
The legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local
governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 9
of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the
quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural
enviromnental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters
and related land resources.
The granting of the variance will merely change the layout of the lots on the
Property, since under the City Code the owners will still have a right to split the Property
into two lots in any event. As a result, there will not be a net increase in potential
negative effects to public health, safety and general welfare. The concem over the
impairment of the local tax base also will not be realized because the splitting of the
Property will result in an increase to the tax base for the local area. It must also be noted
that the City has been approving lot splits with less than ninety feet of shoreline width for
sometime and has approved sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake under ninety
feet in width.
In addition, the current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the
Sunrise Hills neighborhood, which is one of many neighborhoods surrounding Lotus
Lake. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually larger
than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County \i2 Section Maps
for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed side-by-
side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition, in
evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 of the lots (43
percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside
homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet ITom the cul-de-sac, whereas
the proposed side-by-side lots located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet ITom the
cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes,
lakeshore widths and distances ITom the street. There is no way that the addition of the
side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider lakeshore widths
than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, negatively impact the
City's duty to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic
and natural enviromnental values ofshore lands, and provide for the wise use of waters
and related land resources.
My clients want to promote the aesthetics in the area by constructing two quality
homes that will enhance and blend nicely into the surrounding community. By utilizing
the Property in this way, the result will be aesthetically pleasing and the neighborhood
will not feel overcrowded as a result of the large lot sizes available on the Property and
the fact that the lots open up to over 100 feet where the homes will be built. Again, as
noted above also, the variance of 15 feet for each of the two lots will not stand out as
small or crowded lots on the lake. Therefore, we believe that the variance is fully
consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page IO
III. A SHORELINE WIDTH VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED BY THE
CITY IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET.
On page 1163, in Section 20-58, the Code states the general conditions for
granting a variance including the following:
(1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue
hardship. ''Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to
reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of
this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to
recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards
exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without
departing downward ITom them meet this criteria.
Response: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship and will
not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have
on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot
would be ten feet from the West property line and thirty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See
Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the
neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the
largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will
reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fzfty-five percent. This house
will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate
southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder
of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high
degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive
grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent
damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the
houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because
the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots.
In comparing the property within five hundred (500) feet of my client's property,
nineteen lots are less than 15,500 feet in size and the average size lot is 18,711 feet. See
Exhibit D. "The proposed side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and
27,159 feet. In addition, the proposed building pads for each lot would be located on an
area of the Property that is 100 feet wide. The houses to the left and right of the Property
also are 100 feet wide at the building pad. In evaluating the properties within five
hundred (500) feet of the Property, the lot immediately to the West and the Property are
the largest at the shoreline. In addition, when the shoreline lot and the internal lot on the
Property are combined, the Property is the largest by far within the surroundingfive
hundred (500) feet. When the Property is split into two lakeshore lots they are each
seventy-five feet in width at the lakeshore, whereas there is a lot within five hundred
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 11
(500) feet of the Property that is sixty feet in width at the lakeshore. Therefore, utilizing
the Property with the variance would blend with the surrounding neighborhood's pre-
existing standards and would not depart downward from them.
(2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are
not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
Response: In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique
because the existing housing pattern is set and the existing house on the Property blocks
the house to the southeast (7305 Laredo Drive) from a lake view. By placing two houses
on lots perpendicular to the lake, view areas would be created that would allow this rear
property to have a nice lake view. If the Property were split parallel to the lake, the
internal lot would have a dramatically negative impact on this rear lot (7305 Laredo
Drive). The conditions unique to the Property also include the fact that the comparable
property in the area benefited from the City's misapplication of a seventy-five foot
minimum shoreline lot width requirement. Whereas my clients are being required to
comply with a ninety"¡oot minimum shoreline lot width requirement because of the City's
realization of its earlier mistakes of allowing for fifteen feet less shoreline lot width
requirements.
(3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel ofland. .
ResDonse: The variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but instead is requested to utilize the Property in a
way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart
downward from them. The goal of my clients' is to create two lakeshore lots to allow
them the best use of the Property without impacting negatively on their neighbor's lots.
(4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
ResDonse: My clients have not created the hardship that would result from the literal
enforcement of the City Code. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split
that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such
a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative
impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the
non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and forty-five feet from the
cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of
the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the
largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will
reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house
will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate
southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 12
of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high
degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive
grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent
damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the
houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because
the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots.
The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable given
the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths at the
shoreline for sometime under the misinformed assumption that it followed the State of
Minnesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because sixty-three
other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight decrease of
fifteen feet will not be detectable from onlookers and will fit in with the general
landscape of the surrounding properties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this property
owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy-five feet for
lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue applying
the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application of the City's code.
(5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel ofland is located.
ResDonse: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lot
split will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area and the location of the
building pads will barely be visible from the street. In fact, the new lot to the east would
not be viewable from the street. Based on the proposed lot split of the Property, there
will be no detrimental effect to the public or be injurious to any surrounding land
improvements.
(6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight
and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increases the danger of fIre, or endanger the
public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
ResDonse:
The variance will not result in property use that will impair light and air supply to
the neighbors because the proposed lot layouts allow for ample space between the
proposed homes and the surrounding neighbors. In actuality, the variance will be an
improvement over the current layout of the Property because the neighbors will benefit
from better views of the lake, higher quality home designs and, at the same time, have no
effect on the current light and air quality available to the surrounding neighbors. There
will be no increase in congestion of the public streets because the streets were designed
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 13
for residential use and are, therefore, adequate. There will not be an increase in the
danger of fire or endangerment to public safety because my clients plan to improve the
quality of home currently on the Property by using the latest in building design and
improved building and home products. They also plan to clean up the Property to
eliminate dead and diseased trees and vegetation and remove garbage and other items
that have blown onto or been left on the Property.
If the proposed variation is not allowed, my clients will be utilizing the internal
lot on the Property, which will have a negative impact on the neighboring property
because of the proximity in which the new house will be to the neighbors to the southeast
(7305 Laredo Drive) and to the street. In addition, as described earlier, it will be
necessary to remove more trees, require heavy excavating of the lot and result in larger
building pads if the variance is not allowed.
As a showing of good faith, my clients are willing to ensure the protection
of trees on the Property by them or any jùture owner of the Property by creating a "tree
preservation easement" over the area along the southerly boundary to be given to the
neighbors at 7305 Laredo Drive. In addition, my clients are willing to plant additional
trees near the southeast border (or any other border connected to neighboring land) of
the Property to prevent any unwanted views of the Property (including varieties of pine
trees to eliminate views in the fall and winter seasons). However, the proposed variation
would result in views that are no worse than the current views of the Property.
It could be argued that a variance would be required under Chapter 18 of the City Code
entitled, "Subdivisions." According to Ch. 18, Sec. 18-38, a fmding must be made that
"The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance," which may mean
that my clients need to meet the requirements of the variance test set out in this Chapter.
However, these standards are even easier to satisfy than the standards set out above. For
example, Ch. 18, Sec. 18-21, states the following:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the land;
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique
and not generally applicable to other property;
4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the
public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter,
the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
As described in Section III of this letter, my clients easily meet each of these standards.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 14
IV. THE RECENT SAGS TETTER DECISION FULLY SUPPORTS THE
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE.
The Court's statements in Rowell were recently endorsed again and expanded
upon in the 1995 Sal¡:stetter decision. A thorough review of the case is very instructive
and supports the granting of the variance requested by the Igels:
I. The City owned a parcel of land with nine softballs fields, which certainly
was an existing reasonable use of the parcel (similarly Igels could subdivide a non-
riparian lot on the Property).
2. The City wanted, however, to build a dome over a softball field, which
would be 90 feet high at the peak. The ordinance allowed for only 30 feet without a
variance. The City also needed a 20-foot side yard setback variance.
3. The parcel was immediately surrounded by residential development. The
proposed dome was only 49 feet from the garages of an apartment building (Igel's plat
design is consistent with the lot designs ofthe surrounding neighborhood). The adjacent
property owners objected and introduced uncontroverted expert testimony that a 90-foot
high dome would adversely affect their property values. (In Igel's case, there is evidence
to suggest that the plat design will increase property values throughout the surrounding
neighborhoods, as well as increase the tax-base for the City).
4. The City said the design ofthe entire park resulted ITom the City's desire
to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities and public
restrooms. This could only be accomplished ITom the revenue ITom renting the dome.
(Igel's desires to minimize the destruction of trees (including large mature trees), prevent
the elimination of the back neighbor's view ofthe lake, minimize hardcover, minimize
impact to drainage areas, minimize views of the houses ITom the street, and promote
property values, preserve trees and the natural setting, preserve the character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and eliminate the need for massive regrading of the lots to
allow for proper building surface.)
5. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variances. The Council
denied the variances based on the testimony. The Council, at a later meeting, reversed
itself and approved the variances even though no additional testimony had been provided.
The District Court upheld the grant of the variances.
In affirminl! the lITant of the variances. the Minnesota Court of Appeals showed
al!ain that the variance tests should not be narrowlv applied to limit flexibility.
As to "Reasonable Use," the Court stated at 492:
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 15
Appellants construe the statute and ordinances sections, which state that
the property "cannot be put to a reasonable use" under the strict provisions
of the code, to mean that if the property can be put to any reasonable use,
then granting a variance is unreasonable. This Court has previously
construed this language to mean that the landowner would like to put the
land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited
under the strict provisions of the code.
Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable use: placing a dome
over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the entire park
results &om the city's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding
parking spaces, concession facilities, and public restrooms. These are
reasonable responses to valid concerns.
As to "Unique Circumstances," the Court stated at 492:
Evidence was presented that soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited
excavation that would allow the field to comply with the 30- foot height
limitation in the ordinance. The plan alleviated parking problems, and if a
different design were used, the plan would not provide as many parking
spaces. The evidence supports the city council's determination that
unique conditions justify a variance in this situation.
(There was no evidence that the dome could not have been erected over one of the other
fields.)
As to "Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Code," the Court stated at 492:
Appellants argue the neighborhood petitions show that the domed field is
not in keeping with the spirit of the code or consistent with health, safety,
comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paul. The
dome would allow local residents to take part in year-round activities such
as playing softball on lighted fields, and a golf driving range. These
factors show the city councils' determination was reasonable.
As to "Increase of Value or Income Potential," the Court stated at 493:
Although increased revenues likely played a role in the city council's
decision, it also considered other factors supporting the decisions. The
plan responds to several valid concerns. We conclude the city council's
decision was reasonable.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 16
As discussed in this letter, my clients' reasons for the requested variance in all
respects are far stronger than the reasons the Court approved in Saestetter.
It also is important to note that my clients have complied with every aspect ofthe
City's planning process including relying to their detriment on the City's understanding
of their Code and by making numerous alterations to their plats to accommodate the
requests of neighbors. The following is a factual history of the many steps my clients
have taken leading up to this letter:
· Early September 1999, Igels identified that 7303 Laredo is on the market, talked
to listing agent, Noel Wellman, who suggests lot is sub-dividable.
· Met with City Planner, Bob Generous, and received city subdivision code and
setback information. Mr. Generous identifies 75 feet as minimum lake ITontage
required per lot.
· Hired surveyors Carlson & Carlson to survey the lot before committing to
purchase property. Surveyors determine a split into two lake lots is possible
based on code and setback information given by City.
· Met with Bob Generous with site sketch. (Exhibit E). City staff agrees that
minimums are met, and reconfirms 75-foot minimum lake ITontage, but does not
support the lot lines needed to keep the existing house intact. Bob Generous
confirms the removal ofthe house would allow for two lake lots.
· January 1 1,2000, Igels close on the Property based on the City's confirmation
that after removing the existing house, the Property will allow for two lake lots.
· Working with the City, Carlson & Carlson prepares preliminary plat, tree survey,
grading plans, canopy coverage, average setbacks, hard cover calculations,
easements, access, zoning, Ordinary High Water mark and all other requirements.
· Submitted the Lucas Igel Subdivision proposal to the Planning Commission.
· Some attempt to block sub-division by reference to existing covenants. After
review, my clients find that the covenants of the neighborhood expired in 1987
and have not been renewed. Deed restrictions are invalid and are removed ITom
title of property. In any event, the City does not enforce private covenants.
· Meeting before the Planning Commission:
Numerous neighbors came to comment on subdivision proposaL
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 17
Igels offered their perspective on priority to protect the integrity of
the established neighborhood, keep as many healthy trees on the
property as possible, remove any underbrush or unhealthy trees
choking out the healthy tree growth, build two homes that would
complement the surrounding neighborhood, etc.
Planning commissioner requested a narrower driveway or different
driveway path to limit the number of trees that would be taken for
the driveway development. Igels were not interested in an
alternative driveway route, but acquiesced to the change to satisfÿ
the neighbors and commissioner's concem over tree destruction
and then, worked with Carlson and Carlson to redirect the
driveway.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Lucas Igel
Subdivision upon the driveway and other minor changes.
At this point, the City Planner indicated that all Igels have to do is
wait for Council approval because they had met all of the City
requirements to subdivide the property.
· Two weeks after the Planning Commission meeting, the City contacted Igels
regarding the "building line" and indicated that the City's support was withdrawn.
Igels made minor modifications to the plat to accommodate the City's new
position. Mr. Generous reviewed the change, agreed that the new plat conformed
to their new interpretation of the ordinance and again reconfirmed the City's
support.
· Within one week of the date the City Council was to vote on the subdivision, the
City Planner informed the Igels that the lot widths were too narrow because the
City Code required a ninety-foot shoreline width minimum. This position was
inconsistent with the City's original position that the minimum shoreline width
requirement was seventy-five feet because it followed the State of Minnesota
requirement.
· Again the Igels worked with Carlson and Carlson to redraft the survey another
time to meet the City's latest requirement. Only, this time, the Property was not
wide enough to accommodate the shoreline width minimums and now, the Igels
are unable to subdivide the Property into two lakeshore lots and therefore,
destroys their purpose for originally buying the Property.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 18
V. THE CITY SHOULD GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
As demonstrated above, the City has full authority to grant the requested
variances. The City should exercise its discretion to do so and should approve the
variances for the reasons discussed above.
VI. INTERPREATION OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH RESTRICTION.
Even if the City were to fmd a variance is needed, there is ample legal and factual
support for such a variance. See above discussion related to the shoreline width variance.
VII. PRECEDENT.
Sometimes I find cities believe the granting of a variance will set some sort of
adverse precedent, so the City must grant some future variance for some other party. I
have found that the Courts do not favor finding such a precedent to be controlling
because every variance application involves facts and circumstances and time periods
different ITom prior situations where variances may have been granted. See Stotts v.
Wright County. 478 N.W. 2d 802,806 (Minn. App 1991). Shoreline width variances
denied in the past in residential zones are irrelevant to this situation where the lot is in a
Shoreland Management District, far larger than many of the other shoreline lot widths in
the same district. There are numerous other unique factors related to this requested
variance as discussed above.
VIII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.
Finally it should be noted that the fact that the City's shoreline width
requirements in the zoning ordinance may have been known prior to acquisition is
irrelevant in determining if a variance should be granted. In MYron v. City ofPlvmouth,
562 NW2d 21, 23 (Minn. App. 1997), the Court stated:
One of those prerequisites is that the need for the variance not be "created
by the landowner." Ifthat includes mere purchase with knowledge, a
municipality would, in effect, be prohibited from granting a variance to
every subsequent owner who purchased with knowledge that a variance
would be required for development. This blanket bar to granting variances
is not in accordance with the legislature's general intent to give
municipalities broad discretion in the land development area.
Although such knowledge is irrelevant, my clients had no prior knowledge of the
minimum shoreline width requirements because the City specifically told them that the
minimum was seventy-five feet and my clients relied on this information before and after
the moment they acquired the Property.
Mr. Generous, Senior Planner
City ofChanhassen
May 9, 2000
Page 19
IX. CONCLUSION.
1. As to the shoreline width, we ask that the City approve a variance for
the width requested (15 feet). We think the variance should be granted
for the reasons noted above.
2. Ifthe City feels it is important to adopt some conditions relating
thereto, as part of such approval, then we ask that you state what those
conditions are as part of your approval so that we know whether or not
we can proceed with the variance subject to those conditions.
3. As to any ofthe above, we welcome the City's recommendation as to
how we might modifY our proposals so that the City, using whatever
procedural mechanism is appropriate, can approve my clients'
proceeding forward.
I apologize for the length ofthis letter, but because of the fact situation involved,
and the importance of the recent Court cases as to variances, I had no choice but to
provide such a lengthy analysis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
me at the above referenced telephone number.
Very truly yours,
~o<~
Bruce D. Malkerson
Enclosures
cc: Rachel Igel
David Igel
58' 57' sa.
~ N
"I 25 i 2.
,ll\ b'HSt RH)(!E
~ 3 ~ 1. Š 5 :;:
8
~ ~ ~
.. ~ ~
. ¡(! 7191 N 7103
7195 N
7196
JO
"
5 ~Q
0
6 ;:
0
ij
, ¡(!
?,
~
~
~
~~
l' ....,
..
.~, ;J7;;
\~ :;:
5 8
'.....:'N
N
7305 ~
25-8200170
17 ).0"'"
7307 '\
S!:jrlJH~Sf.
".~.
7230 t
21 -
,<;..0" ,3!
AUfA'
~ 6
L
~\?4JO
502
¡
8V-.J
õ
,
500
,
'::
25-æ20060
25-8820050
~ 5
25-6S20040
¡¡ .
....Hitl.$
~
Highland Drive
... N
5 ~ ,,505 t 503 ~ 501
'! 8 7 § 8
" 1_6_ -1 3_,_. ~~~.
r-
"
"
"
l, : _.~!-
.... 25-8820030
25-8810090
\
o
8
25vg30140
..
1\0
25-8270070
7
410dC
ClO
25-8210010
1 ,1. D
::",\.0
,
\~
26-8210020
. ~;o
2
r. I_V!)
~'J'lJ
I
'a sf'
~...t $ :., ':"_ ~:. rff,. . '. F~;; I
rI :'{,_.."';";
:;: .
5 § .. ,.. ,.".
,·Ü¿f~\
7335 ~ ~
Frontier
f>ft'.~
~ 0 ~
~
6 7 ~ 6
N ~
.. ..
7329 ~ 7331 ~ 7333 ~
N
7332 7334
~ :;: Ii! 7336 o 7331
7 ~ 8 § § ~
. §'O
\~",", \....v...~~ ~ ~,',' ~ ,,\¡::1
N N N"I ~,
N
....,....,1J~ . O\~-.<~ ,..\Ql:J
I !iI,,'" :;:\/1"
§ 5 N ~3
6 ~ . ä 2
~ N
410 ¡(! N 401 N 4.. :x ¡(!
N 404 402
Highland Driva
~ 411
~ 5
~ ,QiI
~\'5
:i4M~407
Ö __ Ö 3
; ~QOO ; f'¡'j"
:Q ¡(!
Iii 403
õ f
~ \-1'"
:;¡ 405
§ 2
~\,,~I~
N
Ii?
o
¡¡
t=xh'(b¡'¡' ®
I
I,>:r.,
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'''dC = 5ùC h,,t
bc,,,ó\dl\.f~
(lS ~d Celt '0 c:.h 1.~
Se,.2.C-Sí9 '
-
T~;'" L"f-
= ~e<""" GA
'130<; L<"'_adC1~Vv
(ïhe. Po-<;\ sorr, )
LOTUS
I
I
7-:>~
, ~
"~
~
~-~ ' +-
("oc .
~~1 )
,/'1'''- f~'"-
I
I
\~).Qo
¡¡ i ,-'
8 i 1
~ i 400
N,
.
I
. 401~
I '_\
~ <1,,'iO\ì
~
A
!¡
8
",.;>'
,
, ,
, ,
-\ ./
:""0%..-
>-
.~---\--
" ,
,
,
.- ~"
/ II ,~/' -f' ,"'; /'/ -";
.~' J~~ (~) /- ! ~c' / '\
." .. / r;~ / )/
-{ i ' /" I,~ /' "
, .?~/ ~-- /"./
/" £1"/' 'v /
/ \ " ; (".../(. F -~/
.~'f[ /~~// "'-?/
.:1 ":'-/ I ,,?
.- 0.:: Aç: ./ '" "/ 0
' 0'...- ./ "" .
. 7 .'_; ",,,/ ,..._~
,'....? //~..~..... -;:'/ ~
/ //.."'...g../ '/: \I
¿6"..-:....'tc. ':It<....<' ".
,/ 'f.''L"" '\ II!
./ b''/ 0 p
/' Ó ~ w
f ,,'y
rs
pi
If .-
..
n .
[
r{
Z
fT1
/1 /"
~--.. ~( /--
/ 1-'''''
J
~
~
,
;~
,
,
,
',,-,,:
r
...
/.Ý·
/
?
!
:........
. ,
.......~t.
iJ:~.......
.,
'!8/
(
.
f .'
--
Ii , z
.~<:- ¡; ~ ~
·...:,t~~· -; ~~
. ~N
, ,
,
'/
~
~I
I
·Iftl
/
WI ~l
¡¡~[ ¡\
~;g~_ Ii
., [ ,
~o I'
/0
'~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
....
L ~
/
/
-"-
------~~
~- -r~-
t.~" -~ œ
~ l-
r----
'\
'<\
').,-+
-.
!ill!
-~
~
.
\J
::u
o
\J
o
(J)
fT1
o
\11
><
:5'".
9", õ
<t"'c
@~
(J)
G')
fT1
õ
»
o
o
-i
o
Z
I'
i'
\
\
\
,
I
/
(J)
c
~
ër
~
¡
:}:~;~
-of·:'
[ [
: :
H
iì
n
3 !t~
~.~~
:~
=
~
~ !
,
..
,,~:;~
-" ".!\
~ ~.
--~- ,
;;....-'
"J}~:J
/
/
/
-----
..~.
-f~ð~ ,
....'11)(-
,.,
~;).
-~~.,;
-----1
--
...... ,,\.
/"'''''~~
~~~C!.
~.'i
~ø.~;;:\,
¡' ~ ..¡\ , ¿
. - ,
'\ '- ",,' <,,'.
'_'J!i!>'-~" !!ì\ --"~~"K~
:.-<';~~ ~ - ~~ - - "'¥\ .. .,
; j ~ i "'._ \ ::.
1-'- -1
.~
'-.J
o
\
"
/
/
"0
;;¡¡
o
"0
o
(J)
[T
o
r
\íì~
x [;;
5":
ð' G)
:;':'fr1
r
®è;
o
::¡
o
z
ç;:
Z
fT1
',-- .--
p.ç/
/
¡_:.~. 0' /
..: /
'(
)
["
r:¿
!i
5" t
~ :e.
1.'.
':f~
l
,
,
"
~
8
,
,
,-
\
\
I
,
\
'...
/
--
'"
c
<
~
õ'
"\ ~
0 f
(\~
S
"\ ~
CD
Õ
n
~
Õ
~.-
'i'
<'
m
~""1 ~
,,<:-.-
¡
IC,"" ì
¡J~.:
,z
~~
=0
'-'0;
~~
1.-:
"' ~
.
-11.6-
1.0-_
...... ~ ,
-_' I
o
"
, /
'/
c-
O
o
o
\ ~
, "
, ~
, ,.
'" 0
" ,
Sx"",bii ®
Size in feet Property within 500ft
1 43600
2 21000
3 21450
4 24200
5 23750
6 22200
7 16700
8 14000
9 13400
10 14750
11 13500
12 32000
13 22300
14 27900
15 12000
16 14000
17 14000
18 14000
19 14000
20 34300
21 18000
22 14550
23 4500
24 15400
25 15400
26 15400
27 14000
28 14125
29 14000
30 14000
31 14000
32 14000
33 14000
34 18200 19 Jots under 15,500
35 42245
35 654870
18711 Avg. sq. ft.
0.425 Acres/lot
1
¡
~
1
ì
~
;;.'
,
\.
:.
~
'"'
I
~
)
/
,,-:-/ ',a \
............' \... \
.......... " \
.......... I ',\ /
~ ì...... ,\ //
I ............~\ /
I "',,- I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
,
,
I ),
/ / ¡
I // /
/ /
I' // ¡
. ~" // ¡
-:>,7/ ¡
--__i!/ /
'I--. /
,,-./ /.>-.. ¡
///... ¡
//"" ¡
// (____-_-lH~:__
/ ~ ---
// /
/ . /
// /
~... / I
~"':i,,;;, // / I
....:-.......xr~~~ <;/ '/
_< /1
,t1-~'lJ:':'/ :J ¡
--:--", /
___ /1
~" /
\ r ¡
\ i¡ /.... I
\, I / ;
,,' t //
"'~, :II JI // ,.;1;.1
,'<$, / ...~P
"~' J/ ...~JY
,\ //1 ...::--....
, / ...::--'
, // /#1'
" )'(" /f?
/ ,_ z
// \. ~7
// ......:(ÞJIÞ)
,....../ ~ /$1""
~,.,.,.,." ...~
..........:::;t~7'
_.,~~
l¡'~
¡
z
I
!
I
,
I
i
!
¿>-
ç'
-~
~'i2:"
!
I
ìz
i~
If~
!
I
I
¡
--
~"'''''''
--
--
--
--
...":.":......
7QJ""
..--
~~ ....
--
--
--
~.::.-
:):-.
.,
TS'
ø
"'-"
e,o/! 2> Ii é:-
"":_---
-~-~,--
.~
<7 ~
ç
<;:
,
,
~,-
-- ~
~ Æ .- ~ I. Pi -- 'uì
J r'- Lf;:] k-~ ¿i1~~ ~/ .:~ ¡j >
e~ i Jj," ~= '
I .'- ~ ~ y, ~~~"W~ Iii: ,
, _ rJl ,'"""TJI:' :I:
ill ~ I W ,i." cfI H. b
i
;,W"~ ~~r ¡...: G m.... i!!i
I~ ~~. ,,\' /'~ Iii
~""~ ~~ !~ I~
jt, ->', ~ ¡:JIV" 0
Z:Ø)
,~ -¡uJTt+- ~ ~," E z
~JJlj ~ "\ (Ì)...}......." -
Jij ~l& /. ;V <I'~ C~~~ Tí\~ ij, ~
~ ,,... ~ rr ,c~ ,'c lWJ:.I ' If
:¡; ,~" ,,'Yf:i 1~" "" ,13
~\III~~ '~t,~ ' '1 m ...I
\W:I~"'f" ~(t~~"'~ ~ O~
\ '::J~ to:1,;';; ,- ;::tic M ,,1) ""'" """ \~~ -,
~ 7/ iIfEé ~ "" -
iJídÄ,,?-l/ a,-crr "I~~ i'iir .. I:I!
it1l~j: ~ I y 10
II7WJ>'À~ ;0 ~ K~~ íiä
E ~ ); ,-"l ~limf,~~ ' ~!:!
-d ' .. ~1Ø¡;Lï1[~l' "~ ,:3
:J Fì7 ~, " ,~~ ,.~, HIrf"
'~~ f-- ¡:IF Ir" ~ ¡:¡¡¡¡ '!"'/) Cd
!J '-.... ~11 ~ rr- :'II~/~ ç:y in,"";, ,
-~
"" ::;---¡--¡
fE
:21
~,¡¡:
SUNRISE HILLS FIRST ADDITION
g:\plan\bg\sunrise hills 1 st.xls
Lot. Block
1&2,1
3,1
4,1
5,1
6,1
7,1
8,1
9,1
10,1
11,1
12,1
13,1
14,1
15,1
16,1
17,1
1,2
2, 2
3, 2
4, 2
5, 2
6,2
7, 2
8, 2
9, 2
10,2
11,2
1,3
Total
Average
LOT AREA
5/11/2000
Area
17,057.59
19,359,00
40,233.24
14,037.54
13,950,44
13,995.73
14,118,66
17,562,06
32,331"92
47,127,09
24,402,89
36,370.45
13,846,38
15,399.34
15,893.97
15,363,72
16,658,00
14,000,00
14,000,00
14,000,00
14,000,00
15,400,00
15,400.00
15,400,00
15,400,00
13,665.00
15,750,70
17,070.48
531,794,20
18,992,65
@
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Cmter Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhl1SStn, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Pax 612,937.5139
Enginetring Pax 612.937.9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Wéb www.cÍ.chanha.ssen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist ~
FROM:
DATE:
25 May 2000
SUBJ:
Igel Addition
On Monday, May 22, I inspected the Igel property in order to verify the submitted
tree inventory. According to the inventory, there are two oaks identified as
diseased and a dead ash tree. The oaks both have dead wood in their canopies but
do not merit removal because of 'disease'. They are both healthy trees with full
canopies. The dead tree indicated on the survey is indeed dead.
CJ0
The Citv ofChflllhasse1l. A f/TOwin(T communitv with clean lakes. OUtllitv schools. a charmin(J downtown. thrivinf1 businesses. and beautiful MrkS. A (TTeat tJlace to live, work, and tJla·
** THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING**
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, .JUNE 6, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of
Lake Sho.. Lot
APPUCANT: David Igel
LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
of David Igel for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family
lots with a variance from the lake shore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on
Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas IgeI Addition.
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 wUl 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 Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, It Is helpful
to have one copy to the department In advence of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 25, 2000.
,
,1 J C;/" /~p"\
(
C
Lotu~
Smooth Feed Sheets™
ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN
7343 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUNRISE HILLS
7340 LONGVIEW CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H GREELEY
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H GREELEY
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ARLlS A BOVY
7339 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL
7337 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRED L CUNEO JR
7335 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS
7333 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUSAN L JOHNSON
7331 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN
7329 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
....,r,.
RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE
7307 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD & JANET 0 PAULSEN
7305 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID 0 & RACHEL IGEL
7303 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS
730 I LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALAN & ANNABEL FOX
7300 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD
7302 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS
7304 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FELIX & LOIS WHITE
PO BOX 96
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON
7307 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER
400 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160@
JOHN H HARMER &
402 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER
404 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSE
406 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT SAVITT &
408 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN
410 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH
7332 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES J & RITA M W ALETSKI
7334 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT L & GLORY 0 WILSON
7336 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES & LINDA MADY
7338 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI
7340 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Smooth Feed Sheets™
TRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO
t3 FRONTIER TRL
ANHASSEN MN 55317
SVEN & THERESE BERQUIST
17 FRONTIER TRL
ANHASSEN MN 55317
LEN BIELSKI
19 FRONTIER TRL
ANHASSEN MN 55317
LLlAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY
I FRONTIER TRL
AN HASSEN MN 55317
" H & JANET B HOLLER
'6 FRONTIER TRL
AN HASSEN MN 55317
BERT .1 THIELGES &
>8 FRONTIER TRL
AN HASSEN MN 55317
>EPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS
o FRONTIER TRL
[AN HASSEN MN55317
¡UL & ELLEN DlFFERDlNG
1:8 FRONTIER TRL
iANHASSEN MN 55317
iCHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY
1;0 FRONTIER TRL
iANHASSEN MN 55317
iVIES R & LINDA D KRAFT
13 FRONTIER TRL
i ANHASSEN MN 55317
'~
-- ~'--~-.-
Use template for 5160®
BRUCE K & SUSAN C SA VIK
7215 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO
7301 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID J WOLLAN &
7303 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS
7305 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
_ . . _ fM
Sunrise Hills Homeowner's Association
Pat Pavelko,
7203 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association
Mr. Eric Lavanger, President
6790 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Frontier Trail Homeowner's Association
Mrs. Peg Kirkvold
7409 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association
7241 Kurvers Pt. Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lotus Lake Bettennent Association at
Colonial Grove
Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President
7012 Cheyenne Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504
Colonial Point Homeowner's Association
Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President
20 I Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lotus Lake Estates
Mr. William Shimp
155 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
k
MAL K E R SON G ILL I LAN D MAR TIN LLP
---~-"'-,,,--.'_...,."._- ,-,
SUITE 1500 ATaT TOWER
901 MARQUETTE AVENUE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205
TELEPHONE 612~344-1111
FACSIMILE 612-344-1414
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699
June 15,2000
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Application by Rachel and David Igel
Our File No. 1392.001
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
As attorney for Rachel and David Igel, my clients waive their rights under the so called
"60 Day Rule" as set forth in Minnesota Statutes related to their proposed subdivision of their
property on Lotus Lake in the City of Chanhassen, and specifically request that the City take
such time as the City deems necessary to review and act upon their application.
Very truly yours,
~ ÎJ. 1Vl~
Bruce D. Ma1kerson
cc: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile)
39562
RECEi\!~f'I
Jut~ 16 2000
CITY Ur' Gn""¡·)¡;0Ji.:Í.'
CD
MAL K E R SON G ILL I LAN D MAR TIN LLP
SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER
901 MARQUETTE AVENUE
MINNEAPOL.IS, MINNESOTA 55402·3205
TELEPHONE 612-344-1111
FACSIMILE 612-344-1414
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Direct Dial No. 6U/344-1699
June 16,2000
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAlL
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Application by Rachel and David Igel
Our File No. 1392.001
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
---------
RECEIVED
JUN 1 9 2000
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
This will confirm that we have asked to be on the next available Planning Commission
meeting which we understand is July 18 because of the July 4 weekend. We have requested the
continuance ITom the June 20 meeting because that date did not provide enough time for my
clients to try and modifY their plat to address Mr. Paulsen's concerns he raised for the first time
at the June 6 meeting. My clients are trying to address his concems through minor changes to
the plat, even though those changes are not required by the City's ordinances.
Very truly yours,
2ý~ ·M4.I~Vl
Bruce D. Malkerson
cc: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile)
39562
(jj)
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
i
to City Center Drive, PO Box 147
,
r;hanhassen, Minnesota 55317
I Phone 612.937.1900
! General Fax 612.937.5739
rngineering Fax 612.937.9152
fnblic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
lWeI, www.ci.chanhasstn.mn.us
,
,
June 15, 2000
Dear Residents:
This letter is to notify you that the applicant for the Lucas Igel Addition has requested the
item be postponed until the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 at
7:00 p.m.
Should you have any questions, please feel ITee to contact me.
Sincerely,
12l," -I}1~f/fJ
~;ous, AICP
Senior Planner
, @
be City ofChanhl/lltn. A J(7owinr community with clean lakes, quality scbools. a chamlÍllf downtown, thrivÙ/f businesses, and beautiful barks. A (reat place to live, work. and Pla"
Smooth Feed Sheets™
PATRICKF& KATHRYN A PAVELKO
7203 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JON H & JANET B HOLLER
7206 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J THIELGES &
7208 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUNRISE HILLS
7340 LONGVIEW CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSEPH & KA THELEEN WITKEWICS
7210 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST
7207 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALAN & ANNABEL FOX
7300 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HELEN BIELSKI
7209 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY
7211 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS
7301 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
lIS ... .__~.."'"
.,. - . ,
RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD
7302 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT
7213 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID 0 & RACHEL IGEL
7303 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKA
7304 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE K & SUSAN C SA VIK
7215 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN
7305 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO
7301 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE
7307 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL
7337 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FELIX & LOIS WHITE
PO BOX 96
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160@
DAVID J WOLLAN &
7303 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS
7305 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ARLIS A BOVY
7339 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN
7329 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRED L CUNEO JR
7335 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUSAN L JOHNSON
7331 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS
7333 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSO
7307 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
ROBERT H GREELEY
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN
7343 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
_.. ......fi\
Smooth Feed Sheets™
')NALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH
m FRONTIER TRL
11ANHASSEN MN 55317
'"UL & ELLEN DlFFERDING
128 FRONTIER TRL
i1ANHASSEN MN 55317
i,MES J & RITA M W ALETSKI
134 FRONTIER TRL
HANHASSEN MN 55317
!.MES & LINDA MADY
(38 FRONTIER TRL
r~ANHASSEN MN 55317
dCHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY
130 FRONTIER TRL
HANHASSEN MN 55317
pBERT L & GLORY D WILSON
,36 FRONTIER TRL
i'¡ANHASSEN MN 55317
kOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI
140 FRONTIER TRL
HANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
,
,
bBERT H GREELEY
141 FRONTIER TRL
/-IANHASSEN MN 55317
I
I A YNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER
)0 HIGHLAND DR
HANHASSEN MN 553]7
:::OTT SAVITT &
)8 HIGHLAND DR
HANHASSEN MN 55317
va ^'tr=:nVM
^..t,.....,.,,..,.. 1........,..1,.
Use template for 5160®
HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSE
406 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER
404 H]GHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN H HARMER &
402 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN
410 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
I...,.......
r....cn®
·
Sunrise Hills Homeowner's Association
Pat Pavelko,
7203 ·Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association
\1r. Eric Lavanger, President
5790 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
::'rontier Trail Homeowner's Association
\1rs, Peg Kirkvold
7409 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association
7241 Kurvers PI. Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317,'
Lotus Lake Bettennent Association at
Colonial Grove
Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President
7012 Cheyenne Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504
Colonial Point Homeowner's Association
Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President
20 I Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
, Lotus Lake Estates
Mr. William Shimp
155 Choctaw Circle
Chanhas~en, MN 55317
~
June 26, 2000
JoAnne & Leonard Lipe
1345 Lexington Court· Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone 952.448.5187 . Fax ~52.831.8946
Kathryn Aanenson
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen "
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
re: Igel Lotus Lake subdivision (formerly Baird Property)
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
RECE\VEO
JUtt 2 8 ZOO{}
elT't OF CH"NHASSEN
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I sent to Jerry and Jari Paulsen today. Based on the
contents of my letter, is it possible to retract or in some way remove the letter with Chris Baird's
signature from the Planning Commission report? Chris did not write the letter and was manipulat~d
into signing the letter by Mr. Paulsen. In fact, it is pretty likely that Chris didn't even sign the letter
sent to you datèd May 7, as he was at the hospital all day that day, with many frie~ds and family
members present, celebrating the birth of his daughter.
It is not the desire of the Baird family to block the Igels in their pursuit of subdivision of the lot in
question. '
Thank you for your attention to this matter., Please feel free to call me at 952.831.4207 if you have.
any questions. .
Sincerely, ,
<Jd\vì~~ "
JoAnne Lipe
(@
JoAnne & Leonard lipe
1345 Lexington Court· Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone 952.448.5187 . Fax 952.831.8946
RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 2000
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
June 26, 2000
Jerry & Jan Paulsen
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paulsen,
I am Chris Baird's sister, and my husband and I have been handling my mother's estate since her
death last July.
On June 22, Noel Wellman faxed me copies of a letter dated June 16 that you sent her, along with
the enclosures to that letter which included a letter signed by Chris addressed to Kathryn
Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen.
As you probably know, Chris has had a stroke. As a result of the stroke, Chris suffers from aphasia,
which means he has lost some ability for speech, and is also far more emotional than the average
adult. He is having a very difficult time coping with the death of both parents in a short period of
time and having to sell the family home. I believe he is suffering from depression, although to my
knowledge he has not sought professional help.
Because of Chris's disabilities, it is very difficult for him to find and hold employment. As such, his
income is very limited. Also, Chris was not the sole owner of the lot. Ownership of the lot was
divided equally among the three Baird siblings. In order for one sibling to remain in the house, the
other siblings' shares would have had to been purchased by the sibling retaining ownership in the
lot. Due to Chris's financial situation, there was never any possibility for Chris to continue living in
the house, even if the family had been able to subdivide the lot, and Chris knew that.
Also, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that
we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us if we wanted to put the time and effort into the
project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the City of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as
subdividable if and when we obtained City approval. The alternative was to put the house on the
market as is and hope for a quick sale. Since the house had a large mortgage and the brothers
weren't interested in contributing to monthly payments to keep the mortgage current, we put the
house on the market as is and sold the house a month before it went into foreclosure. Chris was
aware of this, also.
I spoke to Chris and his wife, Char, on June 22 regarding your letter to Ms. Wellman and the
enclosures, including the letter Chris signed. Chris informed me that you wrote the letter and he
signed it. Because of Chris's aphasia, which becomes more pronounced when he is under stress,
he was probably unable to tell you that the above-mentioned items in the letter that you wrote for
his signature were not true. He probably tried to, but it was difficult for him to get the words out.
When this happens, Chris has a tendency to agree to whatever is being said.
c;.z, ~
page 2
Back in March, after your conversation with Ms. Wellman regarding subdivision of the Igel property,
both Char and I told Chris he had to forget about the Igel property and move on with his life. He
agreed that he would. However, apparently you continued to call him on a regular basis, creating
further distress for Chris. Because he knew his family would be upset, Chris told no one that he
was still involved in your fight with the Igels.
The Baird family believes you have taken advantage of Chris and that you manipulated Chris into
signing the letter to Ms. Aanenson. The letter is very misleading and contains statements that
simply aren't true. The Baird family believes the proposed subdivision of the Igel property is none of
our business. It's your fight, not ours.
We would appreciate it if you did two things:
1. Stop calling Chris. This business is very distressing for him, and his life is already stressful
enough without you adding your problems.
2. Leave Ms. Wellman alone. She did nothing wrong. She gave us our options, and we made the
best choice for the entire Baird family, including Chris. Also, I don't think our arrangements with
Ms. Wellman, or anyone else, for that matter, are any of your business.
II you have any questions, please call me. My work number is 952.831.4207. Thank you.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Lipe
cc: Kathryn Aanenson, City 01 Chanhassen
Noel Wellman, Coldwell Banker Burnet
David and Rachel Igel
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 6,2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, and Vii Sacchet
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I;
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE
PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE
WIDTH REOUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11. BLOCK
1. SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION. 7303 LAREDO DRIVE. LUCAS IGEL ADDITION. DAVID
IGEL.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Joshua Paulsen
Emily Paulsen
Steven & Teresa Berquist
Eunice & Richard Peters
Ron & Ann Kleve
Debbie & Dick Lloyd
Joel S. Jenkins
Don Huseth
Helen Bielski
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Linda Landsman
Fred Cuned
David Wallin
Robert & Susie Eastman
Jim Waletski
Carl Alexander
Rachel & David Igel
Bruce Malkerson
Steven Chepokas
1500 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield
7305 Laredo Drive
7207 Frontier Trail
7301 Laredo Drive
7307 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Frontier Trail
7332 Frontier Trail
7209 Frontier Trail
7305 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Drive
7335 Frontier Trail
7303 Frontier Trail
26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive, Shorewood
7334 Frontier Trail
8447 Powers Place
6195 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood
901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis
7304 Laredo Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Bob from fellow commissioners?
Gi)
,
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Run through our options again. The proposal before us
is.
Generous: A subdivision with a variance for the lakeshore.
Blackowiak: Okay, so that is actually the only thing that we are to know? You're shaking your head.
Generous: To refresh, that's the one that the applicant has proposed. You can always recommend
something that's lesser than that. So in this instance you could recommend approval of the plat with the
variance. You could recommend denial of the plat with the variance. Or you could recommend that they
need to comply with the ordinance and ask them to prove the alternative plat.
Blackowiak: So are we, from what I understand you would be approving the alternative if we denied?
Generous: No.
Aanenson: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. That's what, Ijust wanted to clarify that. Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Mr. Chair? Bob, could you tell me how you measure building height when it's a walkout?
Generous: What we do is we take the average of the grade on the side of the house and so it'd probably
be like the mid-point of the side and then we measure to the mid-point of the roof on gabled roofs.
Kind: And oh, one question about on page 5 of the staff report. I'm guessing that, on the compliance
table there's two footnotes. The one that's with the pound sign. Should that line say, the second
sentence say, the minimum state shoreland standards are 90 feet?
Generous: No.
Aanenson: It's a minimum of75. DNR is 75.
Generous: State standards are 75. The City has higher standards.
Kind: Oh! Interesting. Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Anybody else?
Kind: That's it for now.
Peterson: Anything Matt?
Burton: No.
Peterson: Would the applicant or designee wish to address the commission? Ifso, please come forward
and state your name and address please.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Malkerson and I'm the attorney for David and
Rachellgel. My address is 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. We reviewed the staff
report. We think it's very thorough and I know this matter's been in &ont of you before so I think you
probably know all of the relevant facts so I'm not going to go through things that have already been set
forth by city staff and that you've seen before. We'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. We
would like an opportunity to respond to any comments from the public relating to the application, if there
are any. The only thing that I would like to stress to you is, as noted in my letter to you that's in the
packet. I've been practicing land use law for 28 years and I've appeared in ITont of a lot of planning
commissions and councils everywhere in the state, and I've represented a lot of planning commissions
and councils. And I've been out in this city probably over 28 years, 15-20 times through the years. And
I don't know how the Planning Commission has acted before on variances. What their understanding of
the law is on variances. You may know it very, very well, but I just want to, in case you're not familiar
with the Rowell Case and the Sagstetter Case which I cite in my memo to you. I just wanted to remind
you that the courts have made it very clear that some of the old historical ways of viewing variances and
undue hardship and that it was an impossibility to prove the need for a variance unless it would otherwise
be an unconstitutional taking of the property, that that is not the law. A lot of people thought that in the
60's and 70's and the courts have made it clear through the years that is not the case. And I am sure that
if your city attorney, Roger Knutson, who I am sure looked at a copy of my letter, believed that I was
misstating the law, that he would have so informed staff. I mean the bottom line is, if you believe that
the applicant has shown a sufficient basis for a variance, which the court has said is not that great. If it
makes sense to do what is being proposed, then you have all the latitude under the law to grant the
" variances requested tonight. And if you have any questions as to any of the basis that we have set forth
as to why we think that the variances should be granted, again we'd be glad to answer any questions that
you have but otherwise I don't intend to take up any more of your time: Thank you.
Peterson: Any questions?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I have a question. On the plans that I call the compliant plan. All that complies
that requires no variances. What is the reason that the building pads are so much different and bigger
than the one shown on the plans requesting the variance?
Bruce Malkerson: Well I think part, building pads can vary as we know no matter what as long as
they're within the side yard setbacks and the rear yard setbacks and everything else. I think to a certain
extent it is illustrative. If the Planning Commission feels it's important to limit the size ofthe building
pads under one approval or another, I mean we'd be glad to talk to you about it but for the most part they
were houses that we're trying to fit in to the site, and whether or not Rachel or David have, who worked
more closely with the architect than I have, perhaps they have some thoughts on that. Yes Dave.
David Igel: One of the things that we considered when we looked at building pad width or the actual
width of the home, initially was we were limited in width on the original plat. Where we had the ability
to go wider, we didn't have those restrictions and I think you can see the buildings pads are drawn in
here. We were able to go wider. What we would propose is probably more of a rambler, sprawling
rambler style house than a stacked 2 Y, story. That's just our preference because we can do the width on
the other, on the original plat. That's what we'd do.
Kind: That's what I was wondering. So the compliant pl.an is, it will have a lower profile. It will be
walkout ramblers rather than.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
David Igel: That's right. That's what we would anticipate right now.
Kind: And the variance plan, those footprints are for 2 stories plus a walkout, right?
David Igel: Correct.
Kind: So 3 stories on the lake side.
David Igel: Correct.
Kind: Okay, just a minute. See if! have another question for you. I think that's it. Thank you.
Bruce Malkerson: If I may, as to the plan that doesn't require a variance, of course if someone decided
they wanted to do 2 stories, they would be able to do so but at least this is what the thinking is of the
applicant but that doesn't mean that somebody who bought the lot to the rear wouldn't decide to put it,
the full 2 Yz story, whatever is allowed under the code, house at that location. Which of course as noted
in the materials, we think that whether it says the walkout there or the 2 story would block the view of the
neighbor to the rear to the lake. And probably, as you probably also noted that the elevations on the plan
that requires the variance are substantially below that that could be there otherwise and so I think that
even with the 2 Yz story, 2 story house, that somebody to the rear would have a view not only through the
view corridor but also over the house to a great extent. Thank you.
Burton: Mr. Chair, one more question for counsel. Do you think that when we evaluate the
reasonableness of the request that we should look at the restrictive covenants on the property?
Bruce Malkerson: Good question. I analyzed the restrictive covenants when I first heard of them and
Igel's did have an opinion of counsel which is a correct opinion, that after a certain time, which has now
since past, that those restrictions as a matter of law have become void. The State legislature decided, in
it's wisdom, right or wrong, to adopt a statute years ago that limited the length of the effectiveness of
such restrictive covenants so they are not in effect today.
Burton: So when it terminated in 1987. even though it says that it renews automatically for successive
periods of 10 years, your position is that the legislature.
Bruce Malkerson: My understanding is that it's void as of that date and that there's a legal opinion by an
attorney to that etTect, and I have no reason to doubt the validity of that and I haven't seen any legal
analysis to the contrary. And by the way, although it's relevant, as your statThas said, restrictive
covenants are something between private parties in any event and is not relevant for decisions on land
use, but putting that aside, my understanding is that it's void. If it weren't void, we wouldn't be taking
up your time.
Rachellgel: Just to also underscore that, just so you know, it has been removed from the title of the
property so there's no longer a restrictive covenant on the property.
Bruce Malkerson: And that's torrens property too. And with torrens property, as you may know, we
have two types of property. Abstract and torrens and the only restrictions of any sort, other than zoning,
that can ever be valid on torrens are those that are actually showing on the Certificate of Title. That's
why we have what's called the torrens system and so the courts in the torrens proceedings determined
that it was no longer valid and removed it. Any other questions?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Peterson: Thank you.
Bruce Malkerson: Thank you.
Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and
state your name and address please.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. We're one of the
many neighbors of the Igel's that live in Sunrise Hills. And it seems like only 3 months ago we were
here discussing this same thing and during that time interval the applicant has had a chance to go through
a series of preliminary plats. These are the fourth and fifth ones that you see before you, attempting to
find something that they think will fit into this lot to justify the splitting into two parts. We're here to say
that we think we have, we foresee problems with both plats and we'd like to raise those with you tonight.
Let me just say one thing that, less you think we're being unneighborly, that we do have a personal
involvement in this obviously because we're neighbors to the new property owners, but we do have, we
hope that the Planning Commission considers two points. One which is, either one of these will have an
impact on our property value and those of the surrounding neighbors I think. The one maybe a little more
so than the other. And secondly I would urge you to uphold city code because we're setting a precedent
here. This 90 foot thing hasn't been around for too long, that the city's aware of anyway. But it is a
serious variance. It's not like adding a deck onto a home or something like that. It's a little different
category I think. So let me call to your attention those of you, and maybe I did myself today. It's called
D-Day and you've heard of that no doubt. It's when the Americans invaded France during World War II
and one of the other events that comes to mind as a result of D-Day is something that came up later in
about December of '44 called the Battle of the Bulge. And you're probably familiar with that ¡fyou
study your history. And we have our çwn little Battle of the Bulge here tonight. If you refer to your
packet, which is a fairly thick packet obviously, but in chronological order there's a series of letters
attached there, one of which is dated May 8'·. So if you go down and look chronologically, you'll see
that there's a letter with an attachment to it and... These represent two different plats that the Igel's have
submitted. The one on the left kind of outlined in yellow is the one that you saw on March 15'· at your
meeting. The one on the right is the most recent one. There was considerable amount of interest in this
because originally they said they had easily 75 feet of lakeshore, which the city believed was necessary at
that point. Subsequent to that obviously the city recognized that 90 feet was necessary according to their
code, but the critical thing here is that they said they had 75 feet was at the survey point. And that's the
survey line and that's about 12 to 14 feet back from the shore. If you look at the property lines they
converged down towards the lake and we were very concerned about whether they really had 75 feet at
the lake because the ordinary high water mark is right next to the lake, as you can see. And the question
was whether they had 75 feet. So on the left one you can see that there's a dashed line. That's the
contour line representing the high water line and that's detennined by DNR because it's 2 feet above the
lakeshore. The nonnal height of the water. Anyway, the one on the right is the way that came up later.
As a matter of fact it was 5 weeks after the developer had been asked to submit the answer to what we
really had for a high water line length there and it took them 5 weeks and he came back with a plat which
is slightly different because as you can see it has a few bulges in it and the repercussion of that is a
lengthening of the line. The more curve there is in that line, the more length the developer has to work
with. Anyway, he came up with exactly 75 feet for each lot, which was very good from his standpoint, at
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
least he could say he had 75 feet that way. So enough of this reminiscing of the war. I'll save my other
war stories for the council meeting next time. But I'd like to go through with you a couple of series of
items that we think are problems with primarily the first plat, which is the two lakeshore plats. And I
think you have a copy, something that was just handed to you just to keep tabs on what's going on here.
There's a series of items here I'd like to call to your attention to. First one, item number one. The code.
Peterson: Can we get staff a copy of this?
Jerry Paulsen: What it is is a series of arguments with a little block of code, kind of a synopsis of the
code thrown in there for you to back it up and take home and take a look at later. Basically the first one
says they need 90 feet at the lakeshore. What we call the ordinary high water line, which is the contour
line. But the code also says not only do they need that at the high water line, and so that would be...two
lakeshore properties here. They don't, they need it not only at this high water line, the curved line here,
but they also need 90 feet past the building line which does not occur on this plat. They don't have quite
90 feet the way it's arranged right now. If you read the code it says they need it at the building line, or at
the high water line, ordinary high water line, and at the building line, which is more in here. If you take a
ruler to that, that's from the 90 feet. Okay. The next item then is the code requires what we call, it was
done by the building window or building pad. If you look at item 3, I've got a little template here that
shows the code that's represented by Chapter 18 there. Section 18-61. That says you need a 60 x 60 pad
in order to even think of putting up a building. You don't use it for the building necessarily, but you do
need to require that pad as a minimum area. If you stick that pad on the plat and you have to allow for all
setbacks. 10 foot on each side. For the one end, on the setback from the lake, which is 75 feet, the area
here. The.. . setback overlaps by several feet at this point here. They'll probably... but that's another
problem, for meeting code anyway. And next item. Item number 4. There seems to be, and I don't
pretend to be a code expert because it's hard to read code at times and some of it's a little ambiguous but
there is a discrepancy, the problem with understanding what private roads are, private streets. Private
driveways. Private drives. Shared driveways. We're contending that they all mean the same thing and I
think you had a position paper on this recently discussing the impact of private driveways because you
were getting more involved in it recently I think. Anyway. it says in this section of the code that a private
street provides access to 2 or more parcels of land but is owned by 1 or more private parties. So we're
saying that what the developer has presented on any of these plats is in fact a private disagreement
because it's shared with another home. On most of the homes or examples that we've seen, usually go
along the perimeter of the property rather than cutting directly across it. So this is probably a unique
situation staff than what we've seen before. The other part of the code there, item 4 under Section 18-60
it says all lots shall abut on a publicly dedicated street. In other words, normally you have a lot with a
street on it, or on a private street. Those are the two options. In this case by definition it'd have to be a
private street because it's not a public street. Okay. Item 5 says, any lot that is accessed by a private
drive must have a lot width of 100 feet. If you look at the north lot, both lots are accessed by a private
drive and that's in some of this... lakeshore option here. That says they have to have a lot width of 100
feet, and if you look at the north lot, it shows a lot width of 90 feet at this line, instead of what should be
] 00 feet. They do have.. .on the south lot which is this line here. Okay, to give you an example.
Looking back at the old, at the first plat that you saw, by definition this was a lot line and this drawing
that came in here, which is called Lot 2, had a little asterisk next to it and... Lot accessed via a private
drive must have a lot width of] 00 feet. So they said, Lot 2, the south lot had to have 100 feet. In this
case it didn't and the developer had to go back and revise the line a little bit to get that 100 feet here.
Now they're saying the same thing on the current plat that if you look at it as your footnote to
the... package that you got from the staff in the staff report, and that where it says that this lot is being
accessed by a private drive and requires the 100 feet. So what we're saying is that this is a private street.
The lot line, it's more restrictive. You need a little more footage there. Point 6. The lot area must
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
exclude the area defined as street right-of-way's. In other words, when you're figuring your total lot
area. you're not supposed to be able to include a private street as a portion of that area to meet your
minimums. Now they come very close, or they probably don't have a problem of meeting their
minimums of20,000 for a lakeshore and 15,000 for a non-Iakeshore, or even for 20 and 20. But the
implication is that it does impact their impervious surface requirement and if they subtract out that part of
the street you'll see that their impervious surface coverage is within 10 to IS feet and it's getting very
critical. Not to go beyond that 25% of coverage. The purpose of which is to prevent erosion. You're not
supposed to pave your whole lot it basically says. Okay, where are we here? We're on number 6. I
finished that. 7 says nonnally you need a 10 foot setback from a property line when you have a
driveway. If you look at the, or either one in this case. In other words the setback ITom this 20 foot wide
driveway here comes at least 10 feet on the north side, which is not... What they're doing is they're
getting in a bind for their total property. They realize that if they start shifting things around that they're
going to be in more trouble as far as making the minimums are concerned. Okay. One more definition
here. Number 8. The last one under the word Findings. It says that a lot, definition of a lot states that an
area, that's an area of land undivided by any public street for improved private road. Now we're
interpreting this to be a private street or a private road and unless it's dividing the property, so we're
looking whether that meets code. Some of these are kind of fine points and we'd like to, if it comes to
we may need a decision from the City Attorney I think to clarify these things.
Aanenson: 1ft can make a point of order. That's your job and that's the City Council'sjob to make
those clarifications.
Peterson: I agree.
Aanenson: They will make an interpretation and a recommendation.
Jerry Paulsen: Okay, fine. So that basically takes a look at the two lakeshore options. Obviously we're
not happy with either one necessarily, but the easiest way for anyone to avoid answering your question I
guess is to, or if they don't know the answer is to avoid answering the question so if you have questions
of either side, please ask them and we'll try to answer them. I hope that the Planning Commission draws
a line in the sand and says this far and no further and in essence we're not supporting the variance by any
means and we're not supporting either proposal obviously for those of us complying ourselves. The
petition that we passed around last time now has 55 signatures on it. That's 55 residences represented
with about 88 signatures, which is almost everyone signed it. That are not supporting and are in
opposition to the splitting of this property. So what you see are some yellow ribbons, or orange ribbons
being worn tonight. The, and I hesitate to call him a developer because it's probably kind of derogatory
so we'll came him a mini-developer because he's doing a small...but he was good enough to put up, to
define the location of the upper lot with poles...what I would like him to do actually is put one up 35 feet
in the air also to show the extreme that can be built in there and how it would destroy our view. So in
essence what I'm saying again is I hope the Planning Commission takes a view that we don't want our
property values adversely affected and we don't believe they're going to be helped by going through with
a plan like this. And the other point is that we hope you'll uphold city code because r think this is a good
time to say this is far enough. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Kind: Mr. Chair, before he sits down I have a couple questions.
Peterson: Sure.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Kind: Mr. Paulsen? The impervious surface part of your discussion I didn't quite get. Will you explain
it to me. If you take out, to me if you take out the driveway that improves their impervious surface.
Jerry Paulsen: Well you have to, if the driveway takes up 6,000 square feet, you have to subtract that
from the total area and then you figure out what the impervious surface is and apply it back into the total
to see...
Kind: I've been on the commission for a year now and the way we count impervious surface is it's
included. The driveway's included in the impervious.
Jerry Paulsen: In counting the impervious surface, the house, the driveway, the deck.
Kind: And the driveway.
Jerry Paulsen: And the driveway, yes.
Kind: It's all counted.
Jerry Paulsen: It counts as an impervious surface and the DNR, we were talking about guidelines set up
by the DNR. Chanhassen has adopted the code in '94 which kind of parallels it and is not quite as
restrictive as the DNR looks for in some respects. I'm sorry, did I answer your question about
impervious surface?
Kind: So I'm supposed to take away the area of the driveway. To me it's a wash.
Jerry Paulsen: The street right-of-way, take this block out of there for that, you're eliminating that from
the total area that's eligible to be counted as part there. So if they have a total area of 20,000 square feet
say on the property, and you subtract out 5,000 for the driveway in addition to the other impervious
surface, that's not been done. The driveway has not been subtracted out for both properties here. Well, I
think it has in this instance.
Kind: Okay. And then the other question I have for you is, if your choice is between the proposal that
complies, that requires no variances. They could go build it tomorrow and apply for a building permit
and go do it, and if your choice is between that and, or giving this variance, which set up of homes would
you prefer?
Jerry Paulsen: Well we're proposing that they need a variance either way and I guess that's for you to
decide how serious some of this other stuff is.
Kind: Because of the private drive? The private street?
Jerry Paulsen: Well, the private street and the building pad. Building measures and the building layout.
As a matter of fact, it doesn't make it on the outlot either.
Kind: Okay.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Jerry Paulsen: So I think there is some serious code questions here on either side. As I say, what I
wonder is basically protecting property values in Sunrise Hills, but I also think it's very serious for the
city to uphold their codes.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
David Wallin: Yes, good evening. My name is David Wallin and I live at 7303 Frontier Trail. I was
also up here at the previous meeting when your cameras and audio went faulty and you were unable to
come up with a real deal here, like we're doing tonight. Alright. I'm opposed to this and I feel that my
neighbor, Jerry Paulsen, has brought up some very pertinent questions to you, the city. I feel that you
kind of already have made your decision by what you just said, which I'm sorry to hear Deb. You said
the variance that complied.
Kind: No way of knowing.
David Wallin: He's proving or is trying to prove.
Peterson: ...make some assumptions here... if you would.
David Wallin: I guess I was listening to what she was saying.
Peterson: Okay.
David Wallin: And if that's the case I guess I'm quite concerned because I don't have a lot of money
behind me like a lot of these attorneys do coming in here trying to get some variances on lots that are
already established. Alright. These lots were established quite some time ago by contractors that felt
these are correct lots, right lots, right sizes for the families that were going into them. There's a lot of
questions that have come up most recently in the last decade, for sure in the last 2 or 3 years from the
City of Chanhassen in regards to Lake Lotus. And what's being done in regards to the runoff. What's
being done to preserve the shoreline. What's being done to preserve the city. Making it old Chanhassen.
We're trying to bring back all these streets and cobblestones and things like that. And we want to try to,
excuse me. And now there is a possibility of people that are going to be splitting their lots, which are
going to make it uncomfortable for the people that actually moved in there quite some time back. [fthey
are able to split this lot, you're going to have considerable runoff from their driveways, the roof areas.
Double what would be nonnally put into the lake, and that's a serious concern of the DNR. [know this
for a fact by talking to the Mayor of Champlin most recently in regards to some lake areas there where
people are looking at subdividing some lots. They did not pass it just because of, they want to keep that
lake natural as much as they possibly can. I'm opposed to this also in regards to the additional dwellings
that he said this is going to enhance Chanhassen by adding another family, what have you. Well he's
packing them in. I don't know if any of you on the board have been there. It's worth while to go there
and take a look around because it's in a very small cul-de-sac. It's not a cul-de-sac that they make these
days for houses and multiple dwellings, which this person is trying to put in. Alright. It's very small. If
somebody came in there, a 4 family in each one of those houses, you'd have an area down there of about
5 houses. That would be more than crowded. We already have a problem with that street area when it
was opened up all the way through, Frontier Trail. And we've already had a serious accident that
resulted in a death because of traffic just down the road from my house. And it's getting worse. They're
small concerns but they're concerns that are going to come back to the city and possibly bite you.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Especially with the DNR. And if they don't meet code. So I'm opposed to it and I think that you guys
ought to really look at some of these things before you make a decision like this that could be strapping
to you and have ramifications in a negative way to our city. We're here to make sure that, as a board, as
a neighborhood, that things you know run smoothly. Run well. For someone to come in and try to just
make things work for, it's tough for me to say but possibly greed. I'm not sure what else. I mean what
else would he be selling it for. To improve Chanhassen? I beg your pardon. And Ijust want to let you
know I'm opposed to this. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Dick Lloyd: Hi. My name is Dick Lloyd. My family and I have lived in Chanhassen for 20 years now
and our home is 7302 Laredo Drive, which is 2 blocks from the proposed development. We moved to
this community because we, and have remained here, because we greatly appreciate the community's
natural resources, specifically Lotus Lake. In light of the city planning staffs reluctant to do so, I would
hope this commission feels that it's it's duty to protect these resources. You're being asked to approve 2
significant variances to a lakeshore frontage requirements. These variances represent a 20% deviation
from code. After reading the staff report it seems the Senior City Planner is recommending that you
approve these two lakeshore variances because they supposedly represent the lesser of two evils. Mainly
you increase the density on, and the environmental deterioration of Lotus Lake in order to preserve trees
on the western property line. It seems to me that these two proposals should be addressed independently
of each other. As stated in the staff report regarding the proposal requiring the two lakeshore variances,
there's been no hardship demonstrated by the applicant. As it relates to the alternative plat,.despite the
applicant's statement that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987, the issue has yet not been detennined
in a civil proceeding. Despite the city planner's statement in the staff report to the contrary, the city has,
and in fact restricted development in violation of the covenants over the years in our neighborhood. The
applicant should be aware that we intend to proceed with enforcing the covenants. I personally find the
applicants attempt to blackmail this commission into approving the lakeshore frontage variance with an
alternative plat disgusting. However it's not surprising given the applicants tactics to date. I for one am
willing to deal with the consequences and let the applicant attempt to proceed with the alternative plan.
It doesn't appear to be viable nor economical, or may even meet code. In summary I would suggest the
applicant be content in owning a nice home on a beautiful lot in a wonderful neighborhood. If you're
over your head financially, put the house up to for sale and cut your loses. After alienating over 50 of
your perspective neighbors you probably wouldn't enjoy living here anyway.
Peterson: Thank you.
Ron Kleve: Hi. My name's Ron Kleve. I live on 7307 Laredo Drive. I don't know if you've had an
opportunity to be on Lotus Lake. Fortunately I have. I personally think that Todd Hoffman should have
some jurisdiction over the lake. It's a beautiful resource and I think it should be protected. I enjoy
cruising the shoreline at sunset and on more than one occasion have had friends of family that, whoever
we're entertaining, mention how unique Lotus Lake is. That the houses aren't that prevalent from the
lake and everything is set back with mature trees corning out. You have a sense of being up north and I
think you are the caretakers of this resource right now and I think you should consider that because
you're setting a precedent here. This is only adding one more house, but you're aware of the 90 foot
variance now and you're going to have to make more variances in the future and this is setting precedent.
Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? There's one more.
10
.ê'
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Debbie Lloyd: Hi, I'm Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I've been a resident of
Chanhassen for over 20 years. At the last Planning Commission meeting addressing this development the
neighborhood spoke out in many different ways against this proposal. Unfortunately we do not have a
word by word transcript of that session, but to the best of my recollection, at that meeting Mr. Ladd
Conrad was sitting there that evening and he addressed Mr. Generous and he said, Bob. Is there any
reason that this should be stopped? Is there any reason this does not meet code? And Mr. Generous said
no. This does meet code. And then Mr. Conrad said unfortunately, he looked at the neighborhood and
said unfortunately then there's nothing we can do. But fortunately for the neighborhood, for the city and
for the future generations who will enjoy Lotus Lake, that was not the case. Mr. Generous did indeed not
know our code and tonight again he said he was under the impression it was 75 feet of lakeshore. A 90
foot lakeshore is the requirement. It's his job responsibility to know the code, and it's his lack of
knowledge that is why we're back here tonight. Thankfully, thank you Bob. Yet Mr. Generous who did
not know the city code then feels compelled to recommend approval of the lot split pennitting two 75
foot, or less lakeshore lots. Two. We're talking two, not one. I want to ask why he is motivated to
ignore code. Why is he so generous? Neither proposal meets code according to what Mr. Paulsen
presented, and I'd like you to take a look at that. And I'm asking is this city ignorance again?
Peterson: Thank you.
Steve Chepokas: Well I told my wife I wasn't going to do this. Hi Matt. I haven't seen you since grade
school. I'm Steve Chepokas. I live at 7304...
Burton: I saw your broken let.
Steve Chepokas: I know. It's better. You know I feel bad for you people, I really do. I'm not coming up
here, I'm not going to tell you anything you've already heard. You're big people. You know what to do.
All I can say is I think the whole thing was handled wrong from day one. Anybody in Sunrise HilJs, by
the way we've only been here a year and I was born and raised in Deephaven, as Matt can back me up.
We're both Deephaven boys our entire life. And I was transferred out to Arizona and transferred back
and I bought my house 13 years ago i,\ Deephaven and I couldn't afford to live back in the neighborhood
so. This is the same type of neighborhood which is what attracted me. It's got the Deephaven feel. It's
got the small feel. It's got the lake community feel. It's got the big lots and the houses. That's why
we're here. My house was built in 1958 and everybody in the association knows that I am married to
Martha Vila. My wife is between Martha Stewart and Bob Vila, and we have more projects going than
th~ Pope has Catholics. And I say that respectfully to all my St. Hubert's friends. My point being is
we're fun people. We host, we weren't even here a few months and I volunteered, my wife and I, to host
the whole party for the entire association. Ijust spent $28,000 on a deck, which you granted. Thank you.
On a deck and a screened porch. I mean we live to have fun. I'm severely, horribly diabetic. On insulin
4 times a day, otherwise thank god I'd probably be drinking all the time. Because I love to party and
have fun. But I don't need to do that. My point being is we've got a fun neighborhood. We've got fun
people and the way this whole thing started, I'm sorry. I mean here's my biggest thing. I've got my son
Mitchell who's 7 years old and Mitchell's best friend is Jesse Kleve. Ron was the guy up before me. I
mean these kids should have been in the womb, they're so close. The thing I don't like is all the added
cars. All the added traffic. Now the house is being rented. I understand they've got to do what they've
got to do and they've got to pay their bills, and hey listen. I'm not going to stab anybody. But anyway,
that's why I tend to slow down. But I'm concerned about the kids. I'm concerned about the traffic. I'm
concerned about the noise. I'm concerned about, I mean I'mjust concerned. I mean we didn't move here
for this crap, you know. We've been here a year and now all we're hearing from our neighbors is yeah,
it's a legitimate gripe but you know, quite frankly between you and I and the fence post, I moved out of
II
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Deephaven because of all the politics. You know it's not about money. It's not about what kind of car
you drive. It's not what, you know I saw an interesting picture. It's called, by Successories. Priorities.
And on the bottom it says, it doesn't matter what house you live in. It doesn't matter what your bank
account reads. And I mean it doesn't matter who you're, what matters is touching the life ofa child.
And what matters if family and rm a survivor of cancer. I've been in remission for 3, 2 Y, years.
Prostate cancer and colon cancer. You guys think you know hell? You don't know hell. That's hell.
And I'm alive. After 30 radiation treatments and 12 chemotherapy treatments, I've gained weight and 1
gave a lot of hair. And by the way celebrating it 50, whatever's done 1 just want it to be the right thing. I
think you know how 1 feel about it. I'm not going to say anymore. So make the right decision, please.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Closing comments. Oh, there's one more.
Bruce Malkerson: Well while I'm up here if I could. What we would like to do, new infonnation's been
submitted that we haven't had a chance to see since it was just passed out and we believe in doing our
homework and being thorough. And we don't believe in asking planning commissions to act when some
questions have been raised. 1 don't think that's fair to the neighbors or the applicant or the Planning
Commission or to staff. So we would ask that, after you take your last comments, that perhaps if the
Planning Commission were willing to just asking other questions that you might have or express any
concerns and then allow us to take a look at all this new infonnation and analyze it and submit
appropriate response and have the matter taken up at the next meeting. And we would waive any of the
requirements under the statutory 60 day rule so that you don't have to worry about timing. Thank you
very much.
Peterson: So noted. Other comments?
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen once more. My only comment is that we moved here in 1970, 30 years ago.
It was the closest thing we could have to lake shore. We don't have lakeshore. With the reason we
moved in this house, Jan found a house. We didn't think we could afford it at the time, but it has access
to lake shore and obviously that's a prime prerequisite for valuable properties in the metro area. Lake
shore use. No doubt valuable prope~. But we don't have a lakeshore home in Minnetonka. We're
going to retire here and we'd like to retire in a home that replicates lakeshore and we hope that we can
keep it halfway close to lakeshore. Those people who can afford lakeshore at a very young age
should...and enjoy it while they can. The other thing, the restrictive covenants which are said to be gone.
There is a part of city code that says you can't obligate cities by a restrictive covenants. Bob and the city
take the view that they're irrelevant but in fact they are relevant. The Igel's are the only ones that took
this restrictive covenant, purged it from their title. I have not. It gives me access to the beach lot. We
have the deeded beachlot. If I took that out of my title, I would lose that and nobody else is going to take
that chance. Unfortunately the Igel's have chosen to go that route. I'm not sure why but thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Kate, we've got 8 different things and 2 or 3 of them are relatively self explanatory and we can
interpret. Do you want to take on the challenge of trying to do that tonight or do you want some time to
go through it and do it for next time? Or Bob, excuse me.
Generous: Ifwe can address them all at one time. If we could table.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000
Aanenson: Yeah, put them in writing I think might be helpful.
Peterson: Seems prudent. Commissioners, any thoughts?
Blackowiak: I'll save my comments for the next time then if we're tabling.
Kind: Yeah, I think it makes sense to table it. I think the private drive, lot width of 100 feet is a very
good point and I'm interested in staff's opinion on that.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a comment. First of all I want to apologize that I was late. I was not here
when you had this topic previously but I did read the transcripts so I have a little bit of an idea what
transpired. And I want to respond to the last comment whether we're taking the covenants serious. It's
not that we don't take them serious. It'sjust that it's my understanding the covenants are not relevant to
the city. They're relevant to the neighborhood. It's something that is in your hands as a neighborhood to
keep the covenants active and enforced. That's not something city enforces. Ijust want to clarifY that.
And I think that's important to understand.
Peterson: I'll entertain a motion.
Kind: I move that we table.
Sacchet: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion? Kate, in us tabling this now, do you have enough direction from us
that you can move forth and work with the applicant?
Aanenson: It's clarifYing these issues. Obviously there's a difference in interpretation and I don't think
we can resolve that here...but I think as the applicant's requested, we'll put it all in writing.
Peterson: Okay. good enough. It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table for two weeks the request for
preliminary plat to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots with a variance
from the lakeshore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1,
Sunrise Hills 1" Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Peterson: So can we look for this at the next meeting potentially?
Aanenson: Correct. We will not have a meeting that first meeting in July so it'd be my recommendation
to try to keep that on track, two weeks from tonight.
Peterson: That's a common goal?
Aanenson: We don't have a meeting. the 4th of July will be in a month so what would be my
recommendation to try to keep this item moving is June 20th.
Peterson: Okay, thank you all.
13
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 553 I 7
July 8, 2000
RECEIVED
JUL 1'3 2000
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
Craig Peterson
Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission
1340 Oakside Circle
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Sunrise Hills
Commissioner Peterson:
The Planning Commission had public hearings on March 15th and June 6th to discuss splitting
this lot on Lotus Lake into two lots. The issue was tabled at the June 6th meeting until the July
18th meeting because a series of deficiencies were raised,
StatT responded to the Planning Commission in a Memorandum ITom Bob Generous dated June
8th. Attached is the Memorandum with our responses to the staff responses, We contend that
statThas understated the number of required variances on the two lake shore plat, We are also
contesting some of the staff responses.
Also attached is a series of deficiencies pertaining to the alternate plat of one lake shore and one
non lake shore lot which staff states is fully compliant with code,
Also attached is an additional item for the two lake shore deficiencies.
Cordially,
~ /1. ß ~~\)?~~
¿::, P::~~~ J~' D Pool~"
(952) 934-7032 e-mail paulseng@iuno.com
Attachments:
1. Deficiency List: Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies,
2. Deficiency List: 1 lake shore lot, 1 non lake shore lot.
3. Deficiency List: Additional item for 2 lake shore deficiencies
4. Letter ITom John Linc Stine, DNR Waters, St. Paul MN.
Copy: Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
Uli Sacchet, Planning Commission
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Scott Botcher, City Manager
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
@
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120100 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: June 8, 2000
SUBJ: Response to Two Lake Shore Lots Ordinance Interpretation
07/08100
Staff has reviewed the Ordinance Interpretations submitted at the June 6, 2000, Planning
Commission hearing regarding the Lucas Igel Addition. Following is the comment and staff's
response:
#1. Lot width. Variance request is for 75 feet lakeshore per lot. Code requires 90 feet.
Chap 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District
( a) Lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes - Recreational Development:
Riparian Lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 90
Conclusion: Developer actually requires two variances, 15 ft for each lot.
Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting the) 5 foot variance for each lot.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: This deficiency was not explicitly stated in the June 6 Staff
Report
Running total: 2 variances.
#2. The 90' lot width defined in item #1 must be met at both the OHW line and at the buildina line.
See. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitation
(4) Additional Special provisions. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public
waters shall be used to meet lot area standards and lot width standards shall be met at both the
ordinary high water level and at the building line.
See. 20-.. Definitions
Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback
beyond which a structure may not extend.
Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or
roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal
distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark.
Conclusion: Lot 2 (south lot) must be 90 ft wide at the building line. I.e., at the line delineated by
the 75-foot setback from the OHW line. The width at the building line for Lot 2 is less than 90 ft.
and does not meet code.
Response: Staff concurs. Staff estimates that the width for Lot 2 at the building line is 86.5 feet.
The 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement ITom which the applicant
is requesting a variance (Section 20-480 (a) (4). Since the applicant is already requesting a 15 foot
variance, we included any deficiencies in width as part of this variance. Staff was more concerned
that the applicant meet the 90 foot lot width at the middle of the building pad area to assure that
adequate building area be available in the buildable area of the lot. Lot width means the shortest
distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. For Lot 2, this distance is
90.5 feet.
l
,.'"
DEFICIENCY UST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120/00 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies
07/08100
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: The code specifically references the width at the building
line (a line equivalent to the 75-foot setback from the OHW line). Code says at the buildina line;
not lot width at the midpoint of the building line. This deficiency was not stated in the June 6 Staff
Report. This should be a separate variance.
The staff response would interpret code to permit a 90-foot width at the OHW line narrowing to
any width at the 75-foot setback from the OHW line, and then widening out to a 90 feet width to
begin definition of a buildable area. This contradicts the DNR interpretation (see attachment).
Running total: 3 variances. "
.
~"
1
#3. A 60 x 60 buildable ad is re uired on all RSF lots. Lot 2 south lot fails this re uirement.
Chapter 18. Subdivisions
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that
suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a sixty-foot by sixty-foot building pad
(which includes deck area) without intruding into required setbacks and easements.
Conclusion: Lot 2 does not accommodate a 60 x 60 building pad ("window") without intruding
on required setbacks. The pad does not fit within the building window. The lot does not meet
code.
,
Response: Staff interprets this ordinance to mean that subdivisions must be reviewed tò
determine that a suitable building site exists on each lot. A 60 by 60 foot building pad represents a
3,600 square foot area. The applicant has drawn a 3,770 square foot buildable area with average
width of53.5 feet and average length of70.5 feet. These dimensions could adequately
accommodate most houses and decks that are proposed in the City ofChanhassen. However, the
buildable area for Lot 2 begins at the point at which the lot, accessed via a private drive, achieves
the 100 foot lot width (Section 20-615 (3). This area is approximately 84 feet wide by 70.5 feet in
length which exceeds the 60 foot by 60 foot requirement.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We concede that 60x60 pad can be accommodated
(however, is the 30-foot set back line on the plat on the west side of the Lot 2 meant to be a
distraction)?
Regardless, it is not logical to say that the building pad dimension can be something other than a
60x60 foot square. Since this is 3600 ff, would a 40x90 pad be equivalent? Would a 10x360
pad be equivalent? If the code were intended to be 3600 ff, it would say so.
The only other reference to a pad is in the wetlands code:
Sec. 20-406. On single-family subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate
that each lot provides ·sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, sixtv-foot
bv fortv-foot deeD buildina Dad, and a thirty-foot rear yard area.
']
The wetland pad is a/so defined as having specific dimensions (60x40). These dimensions are
less restrictive than the RSF 60x60 pad. Code states that the greater restriction takes
precedence over the less restrictive code.
Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions.
Where any provision of the Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than the
general provision imposed by the Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or
regulation shall be deemed to be controlling.
Conclusion: A 6Ox60 pad is required for RSF zoning.
2
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120/00 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies
07/08100
#4. The terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, private drive, and
shared drive are used s on mousl .
See. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street
as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a
minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage.
(b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially
radial to curved street lines.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions. .
Private street - a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is
not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties.
Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to
the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public
access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial,
parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an
entity comply with the preceding requirements.
Conclusion: Lot 2 (south lot) does not abut a public street. Code requires that it must abut a
private street, and what the city refers to as a driveway through Lot 1 (north lot) is, in fact, a
private street.
Response: Staff agrees that the driveway accessing Lot Two is a private drive/street and that it
can be defined as a private street in the subdivision ordinance. The City of Chanhassen
distinguishes between public right-of-way and private property in calculating lot area, net density,
impervious surface, etc. This lot meets the criteria established for permitting a private street in the
subdivision ordinance.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: Defining the access to both lots as a private street is used
to prove our next point.
#5. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. Lot 1 (north lot) is
accessed by a private driveway, and is shown on that plat as having a width of 90 ft (not 100 ft).
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as
measured at the ITont building setback line.
Remarks: Compare the current Staff Report (June 6, 2000) with the previous Staff Report (Mar
15,2000)
The current staff report (p. 5, Compliance Table) refers to Lot 2 (south lot) as "Lots accessed
via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 ft..."
Note that this private drive originates in Lot 1 (north lot) and crosses into Lot 2 (south lot).
Now refer to the previous March 15 Staff Report. The Compliance Table again refers to Lot 2
(south Lot) as "Lots accessed via a private drive (which) must have a lot width of 100 ft..."
However, note that this private drive, in contrast, originates in Lot 2 (south lot).
Conclusion: It doesn't make any difference whether the private drive originates in the north lot
or the south lot. In both cases, the requirement is for a lot width of 100 ft. These two examples
show that the city considers both the north and south lots to be accessed via a private drive.
J
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120100 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies
07108100
In both cases, code states 100 ft is required. Therefore, any lot accessed via a private drive must
have a width of 100 ft at the front building setback. I.e., on the current plat, both lots require a
100 ft. lot width. Lot 1 (north lot) shows a lot width of 90 ft., not 100 ft.
Response: One lot has its entire ITontage on a public street and technically could access via a
separate driveway at any point on the street ITontage. The other property has no street ITontage
and must therefore access via a private driveway across the other property. It is only for the
convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees that the City ofChanhassen is requiring both
properties to access via the same curb cut. Since Lot I could access directly to the street, we do
not interpret that this Lot must comply with the 100 foot lot width requirement. However, if you
look at the preliminary plat, the line drawn across Lot I at the ITont of the house is 106.1 feet.
Were the City of Chanhassen to interpret the code as requiring that this width be met, Lot 1 would
already comply with that requirement.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We disagree. The Compliance Table in the staff report (p.
5) incorrectly states that 90 ft of frontage is required for Lot 1. 100 ft of frontage is required for
both lots. This frontage must be measured at a radial to the cul-de-sac, i.e., perpendicular to the
street (cul-de-sac). Instead it is drawn parallel to the lake shore. Frontage must be measured in
relationship to the street (cul-de-sac).
CHAPTER 18 Subdivisions
Sec. 18-60. Lots.
(b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially
radial to curved street lines.
#6. The lot area must exclude the area defined as public or private rights-of-way. This impacts
the 25% imoervious surface requirements.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot area _ the area of a horizontal pl~n bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not
includina any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street riahts-of-way.
Street means a public riaht-of-way accepted or a private riaht-of-way approved pursuant to the
requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access
to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway,
collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity
comply with the preceding requirements. -
Sec. 20-485. Storm water management.
Impervious surface coverage of a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area ...
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of
stonn water. It shall include, but not be limited to aravel driveways parkina area. buildinas and
structures.
Conclusion: Since portions of the lots are crossed by a private street, that portion must be
excluded from the lot area. The calculation for a maximum 25% impervious surface for both lots
must be recalculated.
Response: The City of Chanhassen only excludes public right-of-way ITom lot area calculations.
As stated previously, we distinguish between public right-of-way and private property, Both lots
meet the impervious surface requirement as defined in the City of Chanhassen Code.
4
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120100 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore defICiencies
07/08/00
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We disagree. The point we want to make is that the area
within the street right-of-way (public or private) must be excluded from the total lot area.
However, for the purpose of determining impervious surface coverage, this street area must be
included as part of the impervious surface area. The net effect is that when a street right-of-way
is involved, it becomes more difficult to meet the impervious surface requirement (maximum of
25%). This is especially critical for Lot 1 because it is within 15 tt2 of maximum impervious
surface coverage. The intent of the ordinance is to discourage long private streets.
#7. The entrance street requires a 10-foot setback from the (north) property line, but has only 8 ft
(both Dlats).
Sec. 20~4. Placement and design of roads, driveways...
(b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed
within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement altematives
exist. If no altemative exists, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be design to
minimize adverse impacts.
Conclusion: The common 20 ft wide private street does not have a 10 ft setback from the north
property line.
Response: While it could be argued that this ordinance applies to the lake setback requirement,
staff can concede the issue. This problem can be easily rectified by adding a condition of the
preliminary plat approval that the driveway alignment meet structure setback requiremellts. The
applicant shall realign the driveway to meet the 10 foot side yard setback. A very minor portion of
the entrance to the street is only eight feet ITom the north property line. This flaw is not fatal in
regards to the approval of the subdivision.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: This "flaw" was ignored in the Staff Report.
#8. The definition for a lot states it is an area of land undivided by any public street or approved
private road.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved
private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise
permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a
principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal use
and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are design and arranged
or required by this chapter for such building, use or development.
Sec. 18-76. Easements.
(b) Easements at least 10 feet wide along all street right-of-way lines, 5 feet along both
sides of rear and side lot lines, shall be provided for utilities where necessary. If appropriate,
easements of lesser or greater width may be required by the city. All utility easements shall have
continuity of alignment from block to block.
(c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerfine of any water course or
drainage channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to
provide for storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of 24 hours' duration. Where
necessary, drainage easements corresDondina to lot lines shall be provided.
Conclusion: The private road on these plats does not traverse the perimeter of the property as
is true in the examples we have seen in the city. It crosses through the middle of the lots which
code says cannot be done.
,.
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120/00 Preliminary Plat):
Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies
07/08100
Response: Staff has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not
divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the
property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one
or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a
drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be
creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case.
The private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection. We could have the
applicant run the private driveway along the property line to access Lot 2 and have a separate
access for Lot 1. However, we would lose all tree preservation that we hope to achieve through
the current design.
REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: When easements are defined in code, they are required to
follow lot lines. The only exception is for a water course or drainage channel easement which
logically follows the path of the drainage.
A lot must be accessed by a public or a private street. A private street must access at least two
lots, or it cannot be defined as a rivate street:
Sec. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a cubliclv dedicated street as
required by the zoning ordinance or on a crivate street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of
30 feet of frontage.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Private street - a street serving as vehicular access to two or more carcels of land which is not
dedicated to the ublic but is owned b one or more rivate arties.
"Historically interpreted". Does that mean the city justifies an action by previous mistaken
interpretation rather than by code? E.g., "we've always used 75 ft of width as required for
lakeshore". The only way a private street can exist is to locate it next to a lot line.
Staff Conclusion: Staff stands by the comments ofthe staff report for the June 6, 2000, Planning
Commission meeting with the addition of the condition that the driveway maintain the 10 foot side
yard setback. While it may not be 100 percent clear that there are two variances involved, one for
each lot, the staff report clearly intends to address a IS-foot lakeshore width variance request for
each lot. Included in this request would be a variance ITom the 90 foot width at the building line,
since this requirement is in Section 20-480 (a) (4).
REPONSE TO STAFF CONCLUSION: Assuming that the 10-ft side yard setback is a "condition"
to be met, there are at least three variances on the two lake shore plat, plus other items cited
above.
6
DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT
(4120/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat)
07108100
Pñvate Street: The terms "private streeF, "private right-of-way", "private road", "private
driveway", "private drive", "shared driveway", and "streets not classified" are used synonymously
in ordinance. Both lots are accessed via a private street. This was confinned by Staff (June 8
response to 2 lake shore deficiency list).
#1. Because Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is accessed by a private street, it requires a 100ft lot
width, a front yard set back of 30 ft, a rear yard set back of 30 ft, and a side lot set back of 10 ft.
The buildin "window" is inaccuratel defined on the lat.
CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article XII. RSF
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional
requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed bv private drivewavs shall be 100 feet as
measured at the front buildina setback line.
(6) The setbacks for lots served bv private drivewavs and/or neck lots are as follows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-
way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front
lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Building setback line-a line on a lot, generally parallel to a lot line, high water mark, shoreline or road
right-of-way line, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by this
chapter. The building setback lines delimit the area in which buildings and other regulated structures
are ermitted sub'ect to all a licable rovisions of this cha ter.
Conclusion: Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is accessed by a private street. The lot width must be
100 ft at the building setback line (a line parallel to road right-of-way). This defines the west line
of the building "window". The lot width for the west side of the building "window" is not 100 ft.
The developer shows a building window arc on Lot 1 30 ft from the cul-de-sac and a house with
a 5-foot setback from the building window. A house cannot be located as far west as the
location shown.
We conclude that the developer is intentionally misrepresenting the building window with the
object of creating the maximum shock effect. He is saying to Sunrise Hills residents, if you
object to my two lots on the lake, I'm going to create a non lake shore lot and put a house where
it has the most visual objectionable result. The attomey for the developer has one reference
(letter of May S, 2000, p. 5, item 2) to a house on the non-riparian lot 45 ft from the cul-de-sac
(not in the location shown on the plat).
It appears that the developer has also tried to confuse the issue by enclosing an area on Lot 1
with a 4-foot orange snow fence to lead us to believe this is the part of the wooded area that
would be obliterated by a house on the non-riparian lot. If his intent is to delineate the trees that
will be protected if he gets his two lake shore lots, then he is not including all the trees that
would fall into this category.
Staff is playing the same game by approving the erroneous preliminary plat, while stating in the
staff report (Compliance Table, p. 5) that Lot 1 has SO-feet of frontage (not shown on the plat).
DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT
(4120100 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat)
07108100
#2. Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is located in ·shoreland". The building "window" requires a 20 ft
setback from the rivate street 'streets not classified" .
Sec.20-1. Definitions.
Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: 1000 feet from the
ordinary high water level of a lake of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or
the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is
greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by
topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved
by the commissioner.
Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of
the classification of the waterbody:
Setback From: Setback (in feet)
4 Ri ht-of-wa line of town road, ublic streets, or other roads or streets not classified. 20
Conclusion: For Lot 1, staff says the private street traversing the north side of the lot
(providing access to Lot 2 (lake shore lot) requires a 10ft setback on each side of the private
street. This results in a 30 foot width along the north side that is unbuildable. Sec. 20-481
states 'that another 20 foot setback is required on the south side of this private street resulting in
a total of 50 feet along the north side of the lot which cannot be included in the building
"window". (On the plat, the building ''window'' is erroneously shown as overlapping the private
street).
#3. A 60 x 60 building pad is required on all RSF lots. Both lots fail this requirement.
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that
suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad (which includes
deck area) without intrudina into reauired setbacks and easements.
Conclusion: Lot 2 (lake shore lot) does not accommodate a 60x60 building pad without
intruding on required setbacks. To accommodate a 60x60 building pad, the lot line would have
to be moved west. Lot 1 (non lake shore lot), with the 50 foot setback described in item #2,
also does not accommodate a 60x60 building pad without intruding on required setbacks.
#4. Relocating of the building "window" further to the east as stated in item #1 above, would
require a longer private street (20 ft wide) which would increase the impervious surface. The
plat shows the impervious surface as 5420 ff with allowable coverage of 5438 ff (only18 ff
difference).
#5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25%
im ervious surface re uirement for Lot 1 non lake shore lot.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot area-the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not includina
anv area occupied bv the waters of lakes or rivers or by street riahts-of-wav.
Street-a public right-of-way accepted or a private riaht-of-wav approved pursuant to the
requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to
abutting property. The tenn "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway,
collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar tenn describing an entity complying
with the preceding requirements.
Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Sec. 20-485. Storm water management.
1m ervious surface covera e of lots shall not exceed 25 ercent of the lot area.,.
'2
DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT
(4/20/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat)
07108100
Sec.20-1. Definitions.
Impervious surface - any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water.
It shall include, but not be limited to, ravel drivewa s arkin area buildin s and structures.
Since portions of the lots are traversed by a private street, that portion has to be excluded from
the lot area. The calculation for a maximum of 25% of impervious surface for Lot 1 (non lake
shore lot) must be recalculated.
The staff response (June 8) stated that The City of Chanhassen only excludes public riaht-of-
way from lot area calculations (not Drivate rioht-of-waY¡. We disagree with that interpretation.
The definition for a street includes public and private riaht-of-way.
#6. Preservation and protection of trees is not observed by placing a house on the upper lot as
shown.
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural environment
throuah the preservation. protection and planting of trees. The city finds that trees provide many
benefits including: stabilization of the soil... prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of
storm water runoff..., improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat
island effect, rotection and increase of ro rt values rotection of riva etc.
Conclusion: Removal of 33 mature trees plus many others would violate all the mentioned
benefits including protection of property values for some 6-7 other homes whose view would be
affected.
#7. Preservation of views is not adhered to.
Sec. 20-110. Standards
(6) Protection of adiacent and neiahborina properties throuah reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of
design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neiohboring land uses.
Conclusion: Removal of 33+ mature trees including oaks up to 150 years old, plus many other
trees, would have substantial effects on neighboring land use, would be detrimental to
neighboring property values and would have a visual impact on neighboring properties.
The staff report, in many places, describes the negative impact and undesirable nature of the
alternate plat for 1 lake shore and 1 non lake shore lot.
3
DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120100 Preliminary Plat):
Additional item for 2 lake shore deficiencies 07108/00
The east-west lot line between Lot I (north lot) and Lot 2 (south lot) where the private street
crosses ITom Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the ITont lot line for Lot 2. The rear lot line for Lot 2 is
therefore the lot line on the south side of the lot (terminating at the lake shore).
CHAPTER 20 Zoning
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot line. front means the lot line separatina a lot from a street riaht-of-way. In the case of a
comer lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street.
Lot line. rear means the lot line which is parallel to and most distant from the front lot line; or in
the case of triangular or otherwise irreaularly shaped lots, a line 20 feet in length, entirely within
the lot, parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows:
a. For front yard, 30 feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public riaht-of-way
that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front
lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines.
Sec.20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional
requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(3) The minimum lot depth is 125 feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated
below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 1 00 feet
as measured at the front buildina setback line.
Remarks: The ITont lot line is the line where the private street provides access to the Lot 2. The
lot line immediately east and continuing to the lake shore is a continuation of the ITont lot line. .
Lot 2 is an irregularly shaped lot. The rear lot line must be the lot parallel to and most distant
ITom the ITont lot line. The rear lot line is therefore, the south most lot line that contacts Lotus
Lake. The two remaining lot lines are the rear lot lines (the south lot line trending NW to SE,
and the north/south line bordering Lotus Lake).
Conclusion: The lot depth (north to south) does not meet the 125 ft required by code, The
building "window" for Lot 2 must provide the required 30-foot setbacks ITom the ITont and rear
building line. The resulting window does not accommodate a 60x60 ft building pad,
1\'"7/I\OIr\f\
~rom: ".Ionn wnc ~Dne " olUl.sun"lSIonr .sld'''.mn.us'>
To: <Paulseng@juno.com>
Cc: <Mary.cummins@houseJeg.state.mn.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:39:33 -0500
Subject: Shoreland Rules Inquiry
Mr. Paulsen;
I am responding to a letter that was sent to Kent Lokkesmoe, DNR Waters
Director by Representative Workman on May 23, 2000. I presume you have a
coy of Rep. Workman's letter. If not, please contact me and I will end
you a copy.
There are two questions in Rep. Workman's letter:
1) re: Lot width - the lot width standard must be met at the OHW (near
the lake) and at the buDding setback (from the OHW) line. Emphasis
added. From DNR's perspective, there is no requirement that the lot width
be met at the street setback line, unless that line is coincidental with
the structure setback from the OHW line. The goal of this standard is to
have consistent lot widths between the structure setback from the OHW and
the lake to better provide for aesthetics and area for natural vegetative
growth to better protect the lake environment.
2) re: streets not classified. A private street would be included in
DNR's definition of a "street not classified" from our "Guide to Buying
and Managing Shoreland" brochure. The following rules (MN Rules
6120.3300, subp. 5) apply:
Subp. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and
parking areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking
areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation
and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from
public waters. They must be designed and constructed to
minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with
the field office technical guides of the local soil and water
conservation district, or other applicable technical materials.
A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet
structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore
impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement
altematives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be
placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize
adverse impacts.
B. Pubfic and private watercraft access ramps,
approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed
within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and
erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private
facilities, the grading and filling provisions of subpart 4,
item B, must also be met.
Hopefully, this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can do
more to assist you.
John ünc Stine
DNR Waters
Phone: 651.296.0440
Fax: 651.296.0445
Visit our new website @ www.dnr.state.mn.uslwaters
JI
MALKERSON
GILLILAND
MARTIN
LLP
SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER
901 MARQUETTE AVENUE
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-3205
TELEPHONE 612_344-1111
FACSIMILE 612_344,1414
Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq.
Direct Dial No. 612f344-1699
E-Mail: bdm@mgmllp.com
July 13,2000
Chanhassen Planning Commission
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Application by David and Rachellgel for Preliminary Plat and for Variances as necessary to
subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel intO twO single family lots
Case No. 00-2SUB _ To be heard again by the Planning Commission on July 18,
2000
Our File No. \392.001
Dear Chairperson Peterson and Commission members:
I. Introduction.
Thank you for having patiently listened to testimony at the meeting of June 6, 2000 concerning the above,
referenced application. As we know sometimes emotions run strong when somebody seeks to develop a parcel of
property in an existing neighborhood. That is understandable. We have tried during this application process,
however, to address in hopefuUy a very rational way, aU issues that have been raised by the Planning Commission,
City staff and the neighborhood. My clients have drafted and redrafted the plans repeatedly to address issues that
the neighborhood has asked them to address, even though those issues did not require changes pursuant to the code
and, of course, to implement suggestions that the staff had at different times relating to the development of this
parcel. Therefore, unfortunately, this application has taken more time in front of the Planning Commission than an
application for a smaU development of this sort should have taken. What we are trying to do in this letter is respond
specificaUy to the written objections submitted by Mr. Paulsen at the Planning Commission meeting of June 6,
2000. As you may recaU, we requested that this matter be tabled because we did not have the benefit of being able
to review the objections that Mr. Paulsen had prior to that meeting. We did not think it was a beneficial use of your
time, the staffs time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr.
Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity to read his written materials, analyze them
pursuant to the code and then respond in writing. Again, thank you for granting our request to continue this matter
to the above-referenced meeting.
11. Overview of the Application before you as of the prior Planning Commission meeting on June 6,
2000.
As you may recaU from the staff report, at the June 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission had before it an application for preliminary plat with variances as necessary to subdivide a 1.1 acre
lakeshore parcel into two single family lots on property zoned RSF. The request for subdivision approval had
39518
~
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13, 2000
Page 2
received prior approval by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2000 to create two lakeshore lots, with the
variance to the lakeshore width requirement. The lot areaS shown are 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet.
The parcels would be accessed by a shared driveway. The lot to the north will be razed to accommodate the two
new houses.
Thereafter, staff found that although State law requires only a 75 foot lot width at the front building setback
line, the City ordinance required a 90 foot lot width at the ordinaty high water mark and at the building line.
Therefore we decided it was appropriate to apply for a variance and bring the matter back in front of the Planning
Commission again, which of course has been done, and you reviewed this matter on June 6, 2000. Prior to that
meeting the staff report recommended approval of the variances for the lot width for both lots. The detailed report
b staff outlines all the reasons wh the think it was a ro riate to a rove the re uested lot variances. As art of
this re-a lication to the Plannin Commission m clients asked that in the event that the Ci does not a rove the
necess variances to allow for the two lakeshore lots then m clients asks that the Plannin Commission and the
Ci Council a rove an alternative lat which the rovided to the Ci and has been reviewed b the Plannin
Commission. showing one lot on the lake and then one lot to the rear. In the event that my clients are not able to
obtain approval for the two lots on the lake, they have no choice but to subdivide the property in such a way so that
there is one lot on the lake and one lot off the lake. By having those two applications concurrently in front of the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission also had the benefit of seeing which subdivision made the most
sense from an overall planning and neighborhood perspective. As was noted by staff, and I believe by one or more
members of the Planning Commission at the June 6 meeting, the alternative proposal of having one lot on the lake
and one lot to the rear met all of the requirements of the zoning and subdivision code without any variances
required. However, as was outlined by my clients and by ihe staff, such a plat is not the best for the City and the
neighborhood for all the reasons noted, including but not limited to the following:
As stated in the June 6 staff report, "while this plan complies with the ordinance, its does
significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight percent to 22
percent ofthe site. The placement of the homes is close to the abutting home to the southwest.
This alternative would stack the houSe, altering the pattern of development along the street.
Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the Lake, vis-á-vis the
applicant's preferred plan."
In addition, my clients have concluded that to accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard of
the rear lot, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage
to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide
building pads and additional hardcover because the widths of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots.
It seemed as though those individuals who spoke from the neighborhood felt that if the application for a
plat approval for the two lots on the lake were denied that then this property would not be developed into two lots in
any case. I am not sure why some in the neighborhood believe that is the case, but it is clearly not the case. I think
perhaps those people who spoke hope that if the City denies the plat for the two lots on the lake then this existing
parcel of property will always just have one house on it. That is an unrealistic hope and assumption, given the fact
that the total acreage is 1.09 acres and it is one of the largest lots in the area and a subdivision of the property can be
accomplished as discussed by City staff in its report without any variances. Quite frankly, not many people can
afford to own one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the
phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the City generally and on Lotus
Lake.
Ill. Response to Information submitted by Mr. Paulsen at the June 6, 2000 meeting.
As you know, Mr. Paulsen submitted a memo to the Planning Commission raising several questions based
upon how he interpreted the ordinances of the City. The City staff at that time indicated that it did not agree with his
interpretation. Subsequent thereto, the staff has submitted to you a memo that addresses each of those items. While
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13, 2000
Page 3
we a ree with Ci staff's conclusions and believe the should be iven reat wei ht b the Plannino Commission
m clients have also decided that the will seek to sli htl modi the a lication before ou as it relates to the
ro osed two lots on the lakeshore to once a ain ho efull satis the re uests of the nei hbors relatin to how this
propertY should be subdivided. We do not believe that these changes are necessitated by ordinances, but we submit
these changes as an amendment to the plan to address those concerns raised by Mr. Paulsen. Enclosed find a copy
of the plat map for the two lots on the lakeshore that was submitted to you at your June 6, 2000 meeting with some
changes noted thereon that reflect my client's voluntary amendment of the plat application before you. For ease of
reference we have noted on the plat by number the issues raised by Mr. Paulsen and the response thereto.
Lot I _ Lot Width. Mr. Paulsen states that the variance request is actually for a variance for the lot width
of each lot from 90 feet to 75 feet and therefore, it is two variances, one of 15 feet per each lot. The City staff agree
and we agree. The application in front of the City of course has always shown that the plat requires a variance from
90 feet to 75 feet, or 15 feet per lot. All of the reasons for granting that variance have been set forth by the City staff
and in prior communications to you by me and my clients. Those reasons are briefly summarized hereinafter:
As stated in the June 6 staff report findings offac!:
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; the proposed subdivision is consistent
with all applicable City, County and regional plans, including but not limited to the City's comprehensive
plan; the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation,
susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for
the proposed development; the proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewer disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; the
proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; the proposed subdivision will not conflict with
the easements of record; and the proposed subdivision is not premature.
In regards to the need for development of a public street to service the proposed subdivision, the staff
concluded the following:
The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street.
The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent
properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots I and 2, the use of the existing
driveway on Lot 1 in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical.
As required under Section 13-22, variances, the City staff made the following finding:
The proposed variance to the shore land width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a mechanism to
reduce the potential impacts of the addition of a new lot to the neighborhood by preserving the trees along
the western property line, maintaining the character of the area by pushing the houses away from the right,
of-way, and maintaining off-site views of the lake. The proposed variance is generally in accord with the
purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
As required under Section 20.58, General Conditions for Granting, states:
1. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of
the following criteria are met:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the
property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography.
Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of
it. TIle intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variance, but to recognize that in developed
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13, 2000
Page 4
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without
departing downward from them meet this criteria.
The City staff made the following Finding:
The literal enforcement ofthe ordinance does create a hardship. The topography of the site, the desire to
preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to preserve the character of the area make the
granting of the variance more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The literal enforcement of this chapter would negatively impact the property and the
neighborhood. The applicant has prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of
the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-]akeshore property. While this
plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing
canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-two (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is
closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern
of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the
lake, vis-å-vis the applicant's preferred plan.
Staff has reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that fifty-five (55) lots have lakeshore
widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore width of 47.27 feet as shown on the
plat. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a
lakeshore width of70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with less than 90 feet
oflakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management
district regulations. The average lot area in this development is ] 8,992:65 square feet, whereas the
proposed development has lot areas of 27, 159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot area for
RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for ]akeshore property is 20,000 square feet.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
The City staff made the following finding:
In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique because the existing housing
pattern is set and the existing house on the property blocks the house to the southeast fOnTI the lake view.
The desire to preserve natural amenities on the site, the enhancement of lake views, the desire to maintain
the lot patterning of the neighborhood are unique to this development proposal. If the lots were stacked,
the internal lot would eliminate almost all of the views of the lake vis-å-vis the applicant's preferred plan.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel ofland.
The City staff made the following finding:
According to the applicant, the variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the property, but instead is requested to create two lakeshore lots to allow the best use of the
property in a way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart
downward from them,
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a se]f,created hardship.
The City staff made the following finding:
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13,2000
Page 5
The applicant has not created a hardship that would result from the literal enforcement of the City Code.
The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which meets ordinance requirements
in area, depth, frontage, "lot width", but not lakeshore width. The applicant has prepared an altemative
subdivision plan that meets aU requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one
lakeshore and one non-Iakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does
significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-
twO (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest.
This altemative would stack the houses, altering the pattem of development along the street. In addition,
the two proposed houses would eliminate almost aU views of the lake, vis-å-vis the applicant's preferred
plan. FinaUy, fifty-five (55) lots around Lotus Lake have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. At least three
properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen
. adopted the shore land management district regulations. These lots aU meet the 75 foot lakeshore lot width,
In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills I st Addition subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a
lakeshore width of70 feet (75 feet at the survey line).
5. That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
The City staff mead the foUowing finding:
The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Requiring the applicant to meet aU requirements of the
ordinance would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental because the proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area. The
proposed lots continue the pattem of lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be
barely be visible froin the street.
6. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantiaUy increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety or substantiaUy diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
The City staff made the foUowing finding:
7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantiaUy incase the congestion of the public streets. Requiring the subdivision to meet all
requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for a crowding of houses near the cul,de-
sac. The proposed lots allow for ample space between the proposed homes and the surrounding
neighbors. The proposed lots continue the pattem oflot and house placement along the street and
the building pads will be barely visible from the street. The surrounding infrastructure will be
adequate for the proposed lot development. The proposed lots will not adversely affect property
evaluation in the neighborhood because the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring
homes.
ll1e 75 foot line is shown on the enclosed map at location number one.
Mr. Paulsen's second question is related to where do you detennine the 90 foot lot width, He states that
the 90 foot width at the building line for the south lot must be at the building, which is 75 feet from the ordinary
high water line. He believed that the width at that building line at the south lot is less than 90 feet and does not meet
the code.
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13,2000
Page 6
This issue is identified generally as number two on the enclosed map. The staffs response is that the 90
foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement from which the applicant is requesting a variance
for both lots. Since the applicant requests a 15 foot variance for both, the staff rightfully concluded within that
request is any variance necessary for the required 90 feet at the building line, which is 75 feet back from the
ordinary high water line. The staff is 100% correct that this is the plain meaning of the code.
Although staff is correct and we could keep the plat application before vou the same. once again mv clients,
in attempting to address the concerns of the neighborhood. are amending their application to move the lot line
slightlv between the north and the south lots so that there is a 90 foot width of the lot line at the building line and
that same 90 feet or greater lot width continues through the entire buildable area of 60 x 60 feet. This is not required
by the code.
Mr. Paulsen stated that he did not think the 60 x 60 building pad is met on the south lot. The City staff has
stated in its report that a 60 x 60 building pad represents a 3,600 square foot area. The building pad shown on the
south lot is 3,770 square feet, with an average width of 53.5 feet and an average length of 70.5 feet. The staff notes
that the buildable area begins at a point at which the lot, access via private drive, achieves the 100 foot lot width
(Section 20-615(3», and that area is therefore approximately 84 feet by 70.5 feet in length, which exceeds the 60 x
60 foot requirement. Staff is saying. therefore. that my clients' application was 100% in compliance with the code
in this regard. However, again, in order to address the Questions raised by the neighborhood, my clients have
modified their plat slightly to move the line so that even under Mr. Paulsen's interpretation of the code, there is
more than 60 x 60 foot building pad for each lot that does not intrude into any of the required setbacks. That is
shown on the enclosed drawing as area number 3.
Mr, Paulsen has argued that what has clearly been shown as a private drive from Laredo Drive, which
services Lot I and also services Lot 2, is somehow to be construed as being a public right-of-way or a private right-
of-way that provides public access to Lot I or Lot 2. As noted correctly by staff, a private driveway does not
provide public access to either Lot I or Lot 2 and therefore, Mr. Paulsen's arguments are not relevant to this fact
situation.
As staff correctly points out, Mr. Paulsen has misread the sections of the code relating to lot widths and
those lots accessed by a private drive such as the proposed southern lot and a lot that has access directly on the
public cul-de-sac, which is the case with the northern lot.
As staff notes, the northern lot has its entire frontage on the public street and could have access via a
separate driveway at any point on the street frontage. The southern lot has no street frontage and must therefore
have access via a private driveway across the property, which is allowed by the City code. It is only for the
convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees. that the City is requiring that both properties have access via the
same curb cut. Even if you were to accept Mr. Paulsen's arguments, Lot I does have a 100 foot lot width as
measured at the building set back line. Staff notes that it is at 106.1 feet. With the modifications that my clients
have made in order to satisfy other desires of the neighborhood. with the resulting moving of the building pad area
slightly to the west, the lot width is no longer 106.1 feet. but is 100 feet. which still is in compliance in the event that
you accept Mr. Paulsen's interpretation ofthe code. which as you know has been rejected by City staff.
Concerning Mr. Paulsen's argument that the private street area must be excluded for determining the
maximum 25% and impervious surface, City staff has rightfully pointed out that the City's ordinances only excludes
public right-of-way and a right-of-way that is made available for public access. This private driveway does not
allow the public to travel up and down it and, therefore, it is not public access.
Mr. Paulsen argues that the entrance street requires a ten foot setback from the north property line, but it
has only eight feet as shown on the plat, on the lake or the plat with only one lot on the lake and one lot to the rear.
In response thereto. my client has moved the driveway two feet to the south as shown as area number 7 on the
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13, 2000
Page 7
enclosed plat. Therefore. this is a non-issue. Please note that no additional trees need to be removed by moving it
two feet.
Mr. Paulsen argues that because there is a private driveway coming onto Lot I that also services Lot 2,
somehow that means the area of Lot I needs to be modified by deducting that portion of the lot that is easterly of the
driveway as it traverses over Lot I to Lot 2. City staff has stated that definition implies and private street is included
in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the property into two separate parcel. City staff correctly notes that the
private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection and the City could require that the
applicant run the private street along the property line to access Lot 2, however, then there would be a loss of trees
that would not be necessitated by the use of the designed presently in front of the Planning Commission.
Quite frankly my clients are very frustrated on this issue for the reasons I will discuss.
My clients submitted to the Planning Commission a layout, please refer to Proposed Lucas Igel Addition,
revision date 3/8/2000, which shows that the driveway for Lot I and the driveway for Lot 2 would both be located
on Lot I at the cul-de-sac. This is allowed by code. The driveway for Lot 2 would then swing immediately from
Lot I into Lot 2 and extend down to the building site on Lot 2. However, Mr. Paulsen did not like that because he
did not want to have the trees removed on Lot 2 near his property line. The Planning Commission asked my clients
therefore to modify the plan to make sure that the access for Lot 2 by the private driveway was moved further to the
east and away from Mr. Paulsen's property line. Although my clients did not want to do so, they did acquiesce with
Mr. Paulsen's and the Planning Commission's request as shown in the plat that was submitted to you, please refer
to proposed Lucas Igel Addition, revision date 3/30/2000: Now, on June 6, Mr. Paulsen wants to argue that by
doing something that he asked the Planning Commission to have us do that somehow my clients should be penalized
for that. My clients are doing what Mr. Paulsen wanted them to do and what the Planning Commission asked them
to do. My clients would in fact prefer to have the driveway configured the way that they showed it to you originally,
Instead of asking for a variance if one is necessary, my clients have modified the plat again to go back to
what they have showed previously to the Planning Commission (see Exhibit A), which hopefully now will satisfy
Mr. Paulsen regardless of what interpretation of the ordinance is used and will not require any variance relating
thereto under anyone's interpretation of the ordinance. We realize that this is contrary to what the Planning
Commission wanted. However, we agreed to give the Planning Commission what they wanted and the Planning
Commission wanted that because that is what Mr. Paulsen wanted. Now that is being used against us and we
assume, therefore, that the Planning Commission may acquiesce to Mr. Paulsen's desire to interpret the code in that
way which results in our needing to go back to the original plan, please refer to Proposed Lucas Igel Addition,
revision date 3/8/2000, even though, noW under anyone's interpretation, a variance is not required, because my
clients are going back to the original position or layout, which Mr. Paulsen apparently wants us to do, which results
in the removal of trees that otherwise would not have been removed, my clients once again are willing to give the
tree conservation easement over the northerly ten feet so there will not be any removal of trees, and my clients are
willing to plant no less than six trees ofa height no less than four feet along the line, even though not required by
code and even though this road location is now being necessitated by Mr. Paulsen's desire to interpret the code in a
certain way.
IV. Summary.
I apologize for the length of this letter, once again. However, as shown above, it was necessary to address
these last minute comments by Mr. Paulsen, and to show you why at least one of his comments reverses what Mr.
Paulsen wanted my clients to do before, which caused prior delays for my clients when they modified their plans to
do what Mr. Paulsen wanted. Again, as stated above, although the City staff and I agree that other modifications
are not necessary, except as it relates to the setback from eight feet to ten feet of the private driveway, in order to try
to satisfy the neighbors again, my clients are modifying the lot line to eliminate those issues raised by Mr. Paulsen,
which are non-issues from the perspective of code compliance and interpretation of the code. I do not know what
else my clients can do. I imagine that the neighbors will say my clients should not seek to subdivide this property in
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Ju]y 13, 2000
Page 8
any way. However, as discussed above, that is not a realistic option. Mv clients ask vou to approve the plat as it is
now before you. with two lakeshore lots for all the reasons discussed by staff. and my clients in the past. If the
Planning Commission is not willing to recommend approval. then we ask that you recommend approval of the
alternative plat that meets all reQuirements of the code as found by City staff, so my clients can proceed accordingly
to the City Council for final action. I think that if the neighbors ever realize that my clients can divide this property
without any variances with the lot to the rear, they would be the first to say that it is far preferable to grant the
minimum variances necessary to allow the two lakeshore lots in lieu of having a non-Iakeshore lot with a house
thereon that is visible to the neighborhood and would adversely impact Mr. Paulsen's view to the lake as has been
discussed. However, the neighbors may feel that by denying the two lakeshore lot plat then this will end the matter.
As noted, it will not. Hopefully, the Planning Commission will agree that what makes the most sense for the
neighborhood given the facts and the most sense for the City as a whole is to approve the two lakeshore lots for the
reasons discussed. Again, I realize the neighbors may say "do not do that," but that will result in the non-Iakeshore
lot being developed, which we know also the neighbors do not want.
As I said on June 6, the Planning Commission does have discretion to grant the variances requested. The
court cases are clear on that subject. In fact, this very fact situation demonstrates why the courts have granted this
sort of flexibility to the City. The Planning Commission is faced with having two lots on the lake or one lot on the
lake or one lot off the lake. The layout with one lot off the lake does not reQuire a variance so that is the simple
solution. but that is not the right solution, that is not the right way to plan the development of this property for all the
reasons stated. This is why you have the very flexibility that the courts have talked about so you can do what is
right. Perhaps somewhat similar thereto was the variance noted by one of the objecting neighbors who said that he
enjoys sitting on his new porch that cost him $28,000, for'which a variance was requested and granted. The
Planning Commission and the City Council used the flexibility allowed to it under the ordinance and State law to do
what was right in that situation.
It is also important to mention that my clients recently received a letter from the previous owners of the
property at 7303 Laredo Drive. It appears that Mr. Paulsen has attempted to place my clients in a bad light by
suggesting that somehow the previous owners were denied the right to 5ubdivide the property by the City and by the
Igels. As you can see ¡¡-om Ms. Lipe's letters (see attached), Mr. Paulsen's statements are not supported by the
record. One could say more, but I will not do so. We have been told by the City's Planning Departmennhat
numerous calls have been made by Mr. Paulsen to members ofthe City Council and possibly the Planning
Commission, perhaps making similar statements. It is unfortunate that Mr. Paulsen has chosen to take such a
position. However, I can assure you that my clients have approached the sale of the property and the subdivision
process with the highest integrity and have put their faith in the public process.
If you need any additional infonnation or would like to tour the property with my clients, please call me at
the above telephone number or call David or Rachel at (952) 401-3377. If, in orderto approve the plat with the two
lots on the lake, vou feel that some additional conditions must be imposed in order to recommend approval then we
ask you to please articulate what they are and to make them conditions of approval. I am sure that we all agree that
there is need for closure on this subject. Hopefully that can be accomplished at the next Planning Commission
meeting. However, again, if infonnation comes up that requires more study, we will ask for a continuance because
we do believe, as it has been demonstrated by the City staff most recently, again, in response to comments by Mr.
Paulsen, if one looks at the facts, the facts and the law support the requested variances.
Enclosure
cc: David Igel
39518
Chanhassen Planning Commission
July 13,2000
Page 9
Rachel ¡gel
39518
JoAnne & leonai'd lipe
1345 Lexington Court· Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone 952.448.5187 . Fax 952.831.8946
June 26, 2000
."
Rachel and David Igel
6195 Strawberry Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Igels:
i am enclosing a copy of a ietter that i sent to Jerry and jan Pauls"n today. i did not learn uf the
letter with Chris Baird's signature sent to' Ms. Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen until June 22.
Needless to say, I found Chris's letter very distressing.
I would like to apologize to you for Chris's actions. Chris has been very upset by the sale of the
house, but he had absolutely no business getting involved with the Paulsens, In fact, he was told in
March by his wife and me to leave it alon'e. However, Jerry Paulsen repeatedly called Chris and was
finally able to get Chris to sign a letter that Jerry wrote. Frankly, I'm pretty sure the letter sent to the
City wasn't actually evén signed by Chris. That letter is dated May 7. On May 6, Chris's wif.e had a
baby and the entire family was at the hospital on May 7. I'n, positive Chris was not signing letters
b~~~oo~~ . ,
The Baird family has no desire to stop you from doing whatever you want with the property.
Yóu bought it; it's yours, and if the City ofChanhassen feels you have presented them with an
appropriate plan for subdivision of the property, then that's what you should be allowed to do.
I am very sorry for any delays that may have been caused by Chris's participation in the
Paulsens' actions.
Please let me know if there is .any way that I can be of assistance to you in this matter.
Sincerely,
0::t\V))\LUF-
JoAnne Lipe
P.S: 01) what I assume to be a totally unrelated matter, could you please sign the release for the'
escrow account at your earliest convenience so that Peer Environmental can get the money
owed them? Thank you.
·
JoAnne & Leonard Lipe
1345 Lexington Court· Chaska, Minnesota 55318
phone 952.448.5187 . Fax 952.831.8946
June 26, 2000
Jerry & Jan Paulsen
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paulsen,
I am Chris Baird's sister, and my husband and I have been handling my mother's estate since her
death last July.
On June 22, Noel Wellman faxed me copies of a letter dated June 16 that you sent her, along with
the enclosures to that letter which included a letter signed by Chris addressed to Kathryn
Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen.
As you probably know, Chris has had a stroke. As a result of the stroke, Chris suffers from aphasia,
which means he has lost some ability for speech, and is also far more emotional than the average
adult. He is having a very difficult time coping with the death of both parents in a short period of
time and having to sell the family home. I believe he is suffering from depression, although to my
knowledge he has not sought professional help.
Because of Chris's disabilities, it is very difficult for him to find and hold employment. As such, his
income is very limited. Also, Chris was not the sole owner of the lot. Ownership of the lot was
divided equally among the three Baird siblings. In order for one sibling to remain in the house, the
other siblings' shares would have had to been purchased by the sibling retaining ownership in the
lot. Due to Chris's financial situation, there was never any possibility for Chris to continue living in
the house, even if the family had been able to subdivide the lot, and Chris knew that.
Also, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that
we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us if we wanted to put the time and effort into the
project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the City of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as
subdividable if and when we obtained City approval. The alternative was to put the house on the
market as is and hope for a quick sale. Since the house had a large mortgage and the brothers
weren't interested in contributing to monthly payments to keep the mortgage current, we put the
house on the market as is and sold the house a month before it went into foreclosure. Chris was
aware of this, also.
I spoke to Chris and his wife, Char, on June 22 regarding your letter to Ms. Wellman and the
enclosures, including the letter Chris signed. Chris informed me that you wrote the letter and he
signed it. Because of Chris's aphasia, which becomes more pronounced when he is under stress,
he was probably unable to tell you that the above-mentioned items in the letter that you wrote for
his signature were not true. He probably tried to, but it was difficult for him to get the words out.
When this happens, Chr!s hás a tendency to agree to whatever is being said.
page 2
Back in March, after your conversation with Ms. Wellman regarding subdivision of the Igel property,
both Char and I told Chris he had to forget about the Igel property and move on with his life. He
agreed that he would. However, apparently you continued to call him on a regular basis, creating
further distress for Chris. Because he knew his family would be upset, Chris told no one that he
was still involved in your fight with the Igels.
The Baird family believes you have taken advantage of Chris and that you manipulated Chris into
signing the letter to Ms. Aanenson. The letter is very misleading and contains statements that
simply aren't true. The Baird family believes the proposed subdivision of the Igel property is none of
our business. It's your fight, not ours.
We would appreciate it if you did two things:
1. Stop calling Chris. This business is very distressing for him, and his life is already stressful
enough without you adding your problems.
2. Leave Ms. Wellman alone. She did nothing w~ong. She gave us our options, and we made the
best choice for the entire Baird family, including Chris. Also, I don't think our arrangements with
Ms. Wellman, or anyone else, for that matter, are any of your business.
If you have any questions, please call me. My work number is 952.831.4207. Thank you.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Lipe
cc: Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen
Noel Wellman, Coldwell Banker Burnet
David and Rachellgel
~
'/.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, UIi Sacchet,
and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Dave Hempel, Assistant City;
Engineer; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I;
and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE
LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE
LAKESHORE WIDTH REOUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON
LOT 11. BLOCK 1. SUNRISE roLLS 1ST ADDITION. 7303 LAREDO DRIVE. LUCAS IGEL
ADDITION. DAVID IGEL.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steven & Becky Chepokas
Don Huseth
Linda Landsman
Eun ice Peters
Ann & Alan Fox
Tom Pzynski
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Ron & Ann Kleve
Dana Muller
Janet Holler
Jim Waletski
Arlis Bovy
Connie Robertson for Fred Cunes
Joel S. Jenkins
Shirley Navratil
Cathy Greeley
Greg Larsen
Rachel & David Igel
Bruce Malkerson
Robert Eastman
Larry Couture
7304 Laredo Drive
7332 Frontier Trail
7329 Frontier Trail
7301 Laredo Drive
7300 Laredo Drive
7340 Frontier Trail
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7307 Laredo Drive
500 Highland Drive
7206 Frontier Trail
7334 Frontier Trail
7339 Frontier Trail
7335 Frontier Trail
7305 Frontier Trail
7337 Frontier Trail
7341 Frontier Trail
229 Benton Avenue
6195 Strawberry Lane
90 I Marquette
2115 Shorewood Oaks Drive
8713 Dayton Avenue So.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
-, .::~.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chainnan. Bob, we received a new proposed plat for two lakeshore lots that's dated
7/13/2000 and that addresses some of the width issues. All of the width issues with exception of the 75
foot width so right now we're looking at just the 75 foot width, which is a 15 foot variance on two lots.
That's the only variance we're looking at right now.
Generous: Correct. And also as part of we approve it does say revised. We should add this last revision
date of this plat so we're aware of which copy we're working on.
Kind: And then are we tonight considering the alternate plat? If we deny the two lakeshore lots, are we
in effect approving the alternate plat?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: No.
Generous: You would have to make a specific motion to recommend approval.
Kind: And the alternate plat was not provided in this week's packet but I'm assuming it's the same as
what we've seen before.
Generous: Correct.
Kind: And if we decide that that's the way to go, ifthere's revisions to that, then we'll deal with that.
Aanenson: You'd go back through the process.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question about there is a driveway alternate option in the plat that
was handed out. What's the status of that?
Generous: The applicant isjust showing a proposal that separates the driveways on the site. Staff would
not support that. Our position is we'd want them to stay together and we would preserve the area to the
west of any easements. That would be created for those driveways.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Rachellgel: Hi, my name is Rachel Igel and I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. Just wanted
to take a quick moment and re-introduce myself, our attorney and also the neighbors that will be moving
in to the lot next to us. First off my husband is David Igel and our attorney is Bruce Malkerson and we
should have done this last time but I just wanted to take a quick moment to introduce the Eastmans. Bob
Eastman is right there. Susie Eastman and their two children. They are our current neighbors in our
current neighborhood and they're planning to move with us into the new neighborhood. The other thing I
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
wanted to mention is as far as the plat goes, we were not asked or required by the city to change the plat.
However we chose to go ahead and make different changes to keep this .as simple as possible and be as
cooperative as possible in the process and at this point we agree that the only variance that is needed is
for the width at the lakeshore. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that if there are any other
comments that are made, if we could have an opportunity at the end to respond to those as well. Thank
you. And if you have any questions, please let one of us will be happy to answer them.
Peterson: Okay. Then I'll question to my fellow commissioners. Should we open this for public
hearing?
Conrad: Question Mr. Chairman, is this a public hearing? I thought that was closed.
Peterson: That's correct. I'mjust asking, should we open it up again. And I don't know whether we
legally can. Kate, is that.
Aanenson: You can always open it up for comments. You legally have had the public hearing.
Peterson: Why don't we do that. I guess the caveat being that in lieu of everybody's consideration of
time and for a lot of presentations are going to be made tonight so if we could limit those comments to
anything that's additional or new, it would be greatly appreciated. So with that, any additional
comments. Please come forward and state your name and address please.
Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. The first thing I'd like to present
is signatures, a petition from 25 other lakeshore owners who are against the division of a lot on Lotus
Lake. I have a lot of comments. I'll try to keep them simple. I'm just going to follow the staff report
tonight. So if you turn to page 2, paragraph 3. Interestingly, a lot in Sunrise Hills subdivision in which
this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of70 feet. I want to point out that was
grandfathered in before there were city ordinances... It had established lot size, lakeshore frontage,
everything before there were rules here in Chanhassen. Next I'd like to show. These are copies of just
one page from the three lots that are next referenced. That says at three of the properties with less than
90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted shoreland
management regulations. And what I'd like to point out to you in each of these pages is that staff
overlooked the regulation. And you at the Planning Commission relied on staff for accuracy as did the
City Council. On the first one, frontage required by code. It refers to 90 feet. There is no identification
there oflakeshore frontage. That's on the Hiscox plat. On Alicia Heights, the next page, again you'll see
there's no notice of lake shore and if you go through the files like I did, there's extreme documentation of
every aspect of the lot, but they totally ignored what the lakeshore frontage requirement was. And the
third shows the documentation of this one after by the way Mr. Paulson found that there was a different
lakeshore requirement here in Chanhassen than was on the original staff report. So I'm submitting these
to you to show you that errors have occurred in the past and that we don't expect variances should set
precedent for changing code. And that if you seriously consider changing these lots to 75 feet, I suggest
you go through the entire process of exploring changing code regulations for lakeshore lots in the city of
Chanhassen. Not set a precedent. There's no precedent set here because errors were made. The next
point. The average lot area in this development is 18,992 square feet. Forgive me if! don't know the
technical term but this plat is where that information came ITom. They're documents ITom the city
offices. It's the GIS which they showed Sunrise Hills and the lot size for every lot. Subsequent to this I
have received an estimate of what the lakeshore frontage is. So if you go through the first two pages are
going to come up with the average lot size in Sunrise Hills. The average lot size is 22,432 feet. The next
two pages will show you the average lakeshore lot. That area is 36,353 feet and the average lakeshore
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
width or lakeshore frontage is 126 feet. Another neighbor will be addressing downward, how can I say.
Decrease in standards within the neighborhood and that's why I'm pointing this out to you. On page 3,
second paragraph. Third statement. However the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. The city
does not enforce restrictive covenants, although historically the city has taken historic covenants, any
restrictive covenants into consideration. At the bottom of the page. The zoning provisions. I just want
to say that the DNR has substantiated the support of the regulations on the lake. They have agreed that
that is what the regulation is. Next I'd like you to turn to page 9 but continue, hold your hand on page 4.
Page 9. First paragraph. Last sentence. Referring to landscape and tree preservation. Assuming a 10
foot by 100 foot buffer yard, minimum requirements include I oversize tree, 2 understory trees and 3
shrubs. I'm pointing this out to you because this was the specific dimension in front of a buffer yard.
It's implying if you look, it's saying alO by 100 foöt buffer yard, which is 1,000 square feet. It is not
saying a 5 foot by 200 foot buffer yard. It is not saying a 20 foot by 50 foot buffer yard. Now, if you go
back to page 4, point 2. The city's response to Jerry Paulsen's question about a 60 by 60 foot buildable
pad. It reads, a 60 by 60 building pad. Again, it's a 60 by 60 pad. It doesn't represent 3,600 square feet
in by 40 by 90. Or by the next configuration, 20 by 180. That's not what it represents. It's an adjective
to what the buffer yard is or it's an adjective to whatever the noun is you're to describe. And I have
checked that out with other cities. I don't have it documented but it has been verified. Page 8.
Background. Second paragraph. It says upon discovery of this error staff notified the applicant. I want
to point out Mr. Paulsen discovered the error. He and his wife Jan have diligently been working on it
trying to interpret everything and I'm afraid that that's being misconstrued as not being good citizens or
something. They are diligent. We don't have attorney representation. We're trying to define everything
ourselves. Variance findings, page 12. Just points I want to make. Someone else again will be
addressing these. Put to reasonable use. I think the property is reasonably used right now. It has been
for 40 years. Single family home. On a lot that works well. Pre-existing standards in this neighborhood,
without departing downward, and again we'll be addressing that. Mr. Malkerson's letter dated July 13"h.
I'm going to read a sentence in the introduction. We do not think it was beneficial use of your time, the
staff time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr.
Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity to read his written materials, itemize
them and pursuant to the code, to respond to them. Well, we came to the first Planning Commission
meeting that addressed this with a real emotional response. As a neighborhood we were upset. We were
very emotional. Since then we've learned you need to look for the facts. I think the facts very well
support our dislike of the subdivision. And it's not emotion. I mean it's emotional because it affects our
lives and because of what it's become. But there's facts supporting it. Page 2 on the top of the page, and
I've got to start from the previous page. Underline, the request for subdivision approval had received
prior written approval by the Planning Commission on April 21 ~ to create two lakeshore lots. This is a
key word, it says with the variance to the lakeshore width requirement. That's wrong. Without. You
didn't know a variance was needed. Again I want to point out, thereafter staff found. No, Jerry Paulsen
found. The second paragraph. As when...by staff, and I believe by one or more members of the
Planning Commission at the June 6"h meeting, the alternate proposal of having one or more lots on the
lake to the rear met all the requirements of the coding zone. I don't know if anyone really has conceded
that the alternate plan meets code. I don't think we've come there yet. The last statement before
paragraph 3. Again, this is the attorney's statement. Quite frankly not many people can afford to buy
one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the
phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the city generally
and on Lotus Lake. I have to ask, we all take risks in investments. This is a risk. Do people over buy?
Maybe so thinking they could divide but that's their risk. I'm holding back on some comments so. Page
4. Third paragraph. Last two sentences. The placement ofthe home. This is the alternate plan. The
placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate would stack the
houses altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally the two proposed homes would
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
eliminate almost all views of the lake vis a vis the applicant's preferred plan. Well, I think we've.all
tried to be sold on the alternate plan and I think that mistakenly people can be led to think that self
interest is above public interest. But I have to tell you, the Paulsen's are people that care about the land.
They care about public interest and if they were in this for themselves, they'd totally be adamant that yes,
we want two lakeshore lots. Because that house wouldn't be butting up to their property. But they're not
those kind of people. They're amazing people. They're taking the public interest ahead of their own
personal interest and the risk that that house could be built right in their back yard. And I think that's
amazing. And repeatedly you know little comments, they're being put down. It's amazing to me that
people are put down for seeking the truth. For trying to find the right. For analyzing everything. To
come to a good decision, a right decision and I know that's been referred to in here. It's a right decision.
I do want to correct one other thing here. My neighbor is the one who built the $28,000 porch. He sits
right next to me. He didn't need a variance for that. It's alluding to the fact he needed a variance. He
didn't. Findings of Fact. Page 17. Section 4.a. I want to clear up one thing here. The proposed
subdivision is consistent within the zoning ordinance. That has to be inconsistent. If you vote for a
variance on the lake, you can't put the word consistent. That's inconsistent and I think again, we'd have
to explore city code. By the way, I did go up to the city and that's where I got some of this good stuff
and everyone, I have to say, is exceedingly helpful. I have to say staff goes out of their way to help us.
But I did ask for a file and that was the shoreland regulation file because another interested party in the
city told me, you really need to look at the file and explore why the law was changed in '94 on the
shoreland regulation. You need to know that. Guess what? The file's missing. They searched for two
days. The last person that was known to have the file was Bob and he can't find it. I'd like to know
where it is because I would really like to explore why the code was changed in 1994. Okay. On the
JoAnne and Leonard Lipe letter to the Paulsen's. Paragraph 5. JoAnne states, Ms. Wellman never told
us we couldn't subdivide the lot. Okay, that's a sound fact but the next statement is, she told us it would
be unlikely that we would be able to subdivide. I'm getting more comfortable up here. I'm sorry I'm at
the end of the report because the more I talk up here, I feel so much better. The first time I was nervous
as all heck. I was like quivering. This has almost starting to be fun. Thank you for the opportunity.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else, please come forward.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. I'm Jerry Paulsen. Live at 7305 Laredo Drive and we just happen to be
the joy of being on vacation in Glacier National Park this past week and I wish you could all have the
same opportunity some time. We raced back here to shorten our vacation a little bit so we wouldn't miss
this exciting event. Sunday morning as I was lying in my sleeping bag, your thoughts so through various
things obviously. Two topics came to my mind. One was a bear walking through the campground and
secondly, being back here in time for this meeting. So sometimes I wake up early in the morning and
think about those things. So after being away for 10 days, we may be not aware of some of the more
recent information that's been presented as far as the staff report is concerned. I apologize for that if I
interpret anything improperly. So it will be something of a review, if you allow me time to do that. It
appears that the developer has yet another plat. I'm not sure if it's number 6 or 7 now, but it's kind of
like a shell game where you lift one shell and the developer says no. That plat is not quite right. Will
you revise that one arid the next one the attorney says well, that's the right now but we're going to revise
it a little bit more so we're still waiting for a final plat that the Planning Commission is going to be asked
to approve I believe. First question I think the Planning Commission has to answer is, do any of these
plats fulfill city code, and we believe that all of them are short in some respect. Admittedly, the plan for
the two lakeshore ones need a variance as you know. 90 feet instead of the 75 feet. The second question
you must answer is, should the city approve a plat with numerous variances in it? And the developer has
admitted there are multiple variances as opposed to one variance, which was presented to in the staff
report on June 6th. Again, we believe the developer does not meet all of the city code, and admittedly you
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
have the right to go ahead and recommend approval even ifthey don't meet city code, but our point here
is that we hope you'll take this into consideration. As I said at the last Planning Commission meeting,
our intent is not to be unfriendly with our new neighbors the Igel's. Rather it's our hope that the city will
stand by it's code and especially the new interpretation of the code in regard to lakeshore property. Both
from the Standpointof protecting the lake and protecting the character ofthe neighborhood. And in fact
only through a series of variances that you can approve, we believe, the subdivision of this property. The
most serious variance obviously is the 90 foot lakeshore, and I don't think it's anything like granting a 5
or 10 foot deck extension. It's certainly more serious. Has more impact, both on the city and on the lake
and on the neighborhood. It's not a routine variance that falls in this category. The city readily admits
they made a mistaken in recognizing that 90 feet was required instead of 75 feet in the past here. Just as
an aside, the developer and his attorney has stressed that it's unfortunate this issue has been prolonged,
starting back in March and June and going to this meeting. They say, everything sailed through the first
meeting properly and you approved it. And then we came upon the fact that the city should require 90
feet instead of 75 feet and that did throw kind of a monkey wrench into the procedure obviously at that
point. The fact is that we walked into the Planning Commission meeting on March 15th cold, not
knowing city code and it was an emotional issue as far as the people who spoke, saying we don't want
the property split. Now we're on more solid ground certainly. Calling on code to be the decision factor.
The developer on the other hand had severa] months in advance to get his ducks in line and through his
staff of attorneys to make sure everything was fine. Oddly enough, through all these attorneys, you
would think that one of them would have had at least the opportunity to look at code and realize that
there was a deficiency in presenting this plat, these plats as presented. And my contention is any attorney
worth their, his or her salt should have found these things instead of a private citizen finding them.
...neighbors by revising a plat. The fact is I think he's acknowledging that one plat doesn't quite meet the
code and therefore he goes onto the next plat to see if he can meet code with the next plat, and that's why
you've gone through a series of plats here. Developer has also not responded to our question about
whether or not there really is a full 150 feet of lake shore available. We pointed out in the last meeting,
and I called it the Battle of the Bulge. Why was the contour lines of the ordinary high water line changed
on one subsequent plat to apparently be lengthened to a full 150 feet and allow 75 feet per lot? We don't
think they have 75 feet for a lot at the high water line. Originally they were going on the fact that they
had 75 feet at the survey line, but that was pointed out to be an error also. Another argument the
developer says is this is at the 75 feet that the ]akeshore requirement comes from the DNR. That's true.
The DNR requires a minimum of75 feet of lake shore. Chanhassen chose in ]994 to say 90 feet is
required. Other cities in the metro area have stricter regulations than what the DNR requires. I can name
a neighboring city that requires 120 feet of lakeshore as opposed to 90 feet, which Chanhassen requires.
So the DNR requires a minimum for many things and each city can go beyond that if they want to, or
stick with it. Actually Chanhassen did not go with the DNR code that says what the maximum height of
the lakeshore property should be, and we see that. And perhaps that's something that should be
considered in the future as being no more restrictive. The most, I'm reading, we're going about 70 miles
an hour down the interstate so I hope I can read my own writing here. In my quick skimming of the
recent letter from Attorney Malkerson, I see a sprinkling of my name in it saying I'm responsible for this.
I'm responsible for that. I should be, I'd like to give a little more credit to those people who actually
have helped in this. My family, my neighbors and other friends. I am not certainly solely responsible for
raising this issue and the people who have come to these meetings and are neighbors, if it hadn't been for
them supporting us on this issue, I don't think we'd be here tonight arguing this issue. Attorney
Malkerson in his letter of July 13th states that someone in the Planning Commission told him that I had
made numerous calls to members of the City Council and possibly the Planning Commission. Yes, after
the March 15th meeting I did in fact call several Planning Commission members with the intent of
alerting them to the fact that we had discovered the 90 feet requirement and I wanted to see if they had
signed off on the approval, which would be passed onto the City Council, and I wanted to short cut that if
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
possible. I would challenge anyone in the planning department to name a member of the City Council
that I have initiated a phone call to. Which Attorney Malkerson alludes to. I have never initiated Ii phone
call to a member of the City Council at this point. So I question the validity of that statement. If it's
improper or sinister for me to call a Planning Commission member or a City Council member, then I
pleàd guilty to that. I think any citizen has the right to do that and I don't think that the developer should
complain about me or anyone of the citizens ofChanhassen expressing an opinion to the commissioners .
or to the City Council. And the fact that this sort of rhetoric has kind of polarized the issue a little bit
more than it should be perhaps. The developer says now the city has two choices. Two lakeshore or one
lakeshore and one non-Iakeshore lot. Both of which we believe require variances. Staff says the second
choice of one up, one down is not, would be a lousy idea, and we agree. We also don't think that the two
lakeshore ones, plan is a valid, a good way to go either. Either one of them is going to destroY a bunch of
trees and let me just give you a couple pictures that show a view of the mature trees that are involved
with our property. I think we've been spoiled with our...forests there for years since the bears lived there
since 1970 when we moved in, This is just to show the fact that there are a lot of mature trees. Many of
which would go if the plan is approved. I guess I say the same thing I did last time. The motive, prime
motive is to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and not to change the character of the
neighborhood by allowing a subdivision and two large houses to go into this property, whether it's on the
lake or up and down. Either way it would have an impact on the lake and on the adjacent properties and
the character of the neighborhood. Finally, let me make one suggestion. The 10 day notice is really a,
cuts things pretty short for allowing people to react. I've come to other Planning Commission meetings
since then and I see people up here saying, what can we do to stop this and they don't really have time to
do it. Maybe a 20 day notice would be more proper. In this case admittedly we've had a little bit more
time since the early March meeting and prolonged because the developer has asked for delays at times to
work out a few problems here. But the more time you have obviously the more possibility that you might
have of answering questions, as far as the citizens are concerned I think. So thank you and I hope you all
have the opportunity to go to Glacier National park some day. I enjoyed the beauty of the park out there.
Peterson: Excluding the bears, right. Anyone else?
Linda Landsman: Hi. My name is Linda Landsman and 1 live at 7329 Frontier Trail. And I guess the
question that I'd like to bring before you is the city ordinances around what constitutes a variance and
when it should be granted. According to Section 18-22, which is your subdivision code, when I go
through and read this it basically says that the council, and i.e. in preparing for this the Planning
Commission, can grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat
approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist. The hardship is not a
mere inconvenience. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions ofthe land. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are
unique and not generally applicable to any other property. And the granting a variance will not
substantially be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the
chapter on subdivision, the zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. First I guess I would like a
definition of hardship. I don't feel that the Igel's are in hardship here. I feel that they made a decision
financially that they came into the property. Saw dollars. Bought and probably looked around and saw
well, it's kind of a sleepy little neighborhood. Kind of sleepy little town. Sleepy little Planning
Commission and Council. This should be pretty easy. We're not a sleepy little neighborhood, and I
don't live in a sleepy little town. I hope you are fully awake and engaged in the process of determining if
they should even be looking at a variance based on your code. You need to make the ¡gel's and anyone
else present here understand that code is passed and law is passed for good reason. We and you are
stewards of this community, of our natural resources, and of our neighborhoods. Please keep that in
mind when you make your decision. Thank you.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Janet Holler: My name's Janet Holler. I live at 7206 Frontier Trail. Just a couple brief comments. First
of aliI do hope you take into account the character of the neighborhood and the size of the lots at the
lakeshore. I think it's vel)' important. Many of us signed a petition and we agreed to the covenants. The
Igel's have had them removed legally. We think they're vel)' important. The character of the
neighborhood is vel)' important and we would like you to preserve that. Also, I hope that you enforce
this restrictions. I think you saw the petition. How many people signed the petition? How many was it,
like 60 or so? .
Audience: 55.
Janet Holler: 55. Our request is that you follow and keep those regulations. We are behind you. We
support you in following those regulations that you've set up. The Igel's put a note in some of our
mailboxes today. It was with my mail, and the first point that they say is that they've invested a major
investment in time and money. That was their first point. I hope that that is not a factor in your
detennining what you do on this lot. I can give you names of people that looked at that lot before the
Igel's. Knew that this was probably not a lot that could be subdivided and he stopped at that point. The
fact that they're looking back on it now, I hope is not a detennining factor in your decision. Their time
and money, that was their decision. I also think that, in this letter it was stated that if we understood
more we would agree with them and I just want you to know that we do understand. As you can tell
many people have done quite a bit of homework. It's not that we don't understand. It's that we disagree.
And lastly on a personal note, these letters that were sent around to the neighbors that personally, I
thought were pretty derogatol)' to the Paulsen's and I think the Igel's owe the Paulsen's an apology by
sending these around to the neighbors. I thought it was vel)' inappropriate and had nothing to do with
building a house on a piece of land by slandering someone's name.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. I'm Attorney Malkerson, 90 I Marquette, Minneapolis. First of all,
the last comments. The Igel's sent a letter to the neighbors saying we are to talk about anything you
want. We're tl)'ing to communicate. We're tl)'ing to find out what your concerns are. If you've got any
questions, anything you want to discuss with us, we'd love to discuss it with you to see whether or not we
can address the questions that you have. The concerns that you have. There is in the city's files, there is
letters relating to what mayor may not have been communicated by others to the prior owners that are in
the file and I think you've gotthem. And I think you got them a month ago. We just found out the other
day that indeed they were filed and we couldn't let them sit there and the ones that were filed with you,
paint a stol)' that's totally different from what the sellers to us are saying in writing, which we didn't·
even ask them for. But they found out about it and they said, wait a minute. What was being filed by
others with the city was not correct and we want the record clear. So it was our affinnative duty to make
sure that people understood not what we asked for, but what the sellers to the Igel's thought was
appropriate to make sure that people understood were the facts so that they weren't being painted
incorrectly. We're not painting anybody anything. As we said in the letter, we're just trying to answer
questions. We're an open book. We'll provide all the facts to you and that's what we've tried to do.
Now at the end of the last meeting a lot of facts came in at the meeting and we did ask for a continuance
and you were gracious enough to grant one, because I think that's important to make sure we have that
chance. Evel)'one has a chance to respond to new infonnation. Now again this evening, all sorts of new
infonnation was submitted. I don't even know what it was. Copies weren't offered to us. They were
8
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
submitted to everybody for the first time tonight. I guess we could ask for another continuance so that
we could review those things. But out deference to you and to the neighbors so they don't have to come
out again another night, I guess it's time to proceed on. Because I certainly think, and you've been on the
Planning Commission. You understand these things. You understand there are always conflicts of facts
and different interpretations of the law. There always are and you have to weigh the facts. You've got to
decide what weight you're going to give the staff's recommendations. And staff's interpretation of the
law. And I'm sure if staff's interpretation ofyourlaw was wrong the city attorney would have said staff,
you're wrong. I'm not really hearing a whole lot of statements that there's proof that there's any
misinterpretation of the law that the staff has presented to you. Staff has recommended repeatedly
approval. Weare down to under anyone's interpretation, one variance for each lot. The lot width. Yeah,
we've made some changes. We've made some changes to try to address staff's concerns. Your
concerns. Neighbors concerns. We've made changes that we don't think are required by code. Staff
doesn't think is required by code but my god, if there's any way we can make people feel more
comfortable, that's what we're doing, so we did it. And so you have in front of you a plat that requires
the one variance for each lot and no others. If somebody thinks it really requires another variance, I'd
love to talk about it because I don't think staff thinks it requires anything. But again, if there's something
else we can do, we'll be glad to address it and do it. So it probably is time to go ahead and make a
recommendation, unless you have some infonnation you need from us. We'll be glad to provide it or
answer any questions that you've got and if that requires us to ask for another continuance so we can get
some more infonnation to you, we'd be glad to do it. But again, I think everybody's been pretty well
stated and re-stated and we've just been trying to address concerns that are raised, whether they were
valid or not. We're trying to address them. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Thank you.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen again. One thing I forgot before was,just before we went on vacation we
provided the Planning Commission and the staff with a list of deficiencies for the one lakeshore and one
non-lakeshore plat. We haven't seen a response to those and therefore we still believe that that alternate
plat does not meet code also. We haven't seen a response to that. If there is a response, we'd like to see
that. I was asked by a Planning Commission member at the last meeting whether I had a choice between
one and two, which would I take? The multiple choice should be extended to three choices I believe.
Keep the one lakeshore lot as is and allow another large house to go up there at the prerogative of the
purchaser. Thank you.
Peterson: Any final comments?
Joel Jenkins: I'll keep my comments brief. My name is Joel Jenkins. I live at 7305 Frontier Trail and
I've been at two meetings. Now this evening and the briefly for the meeting on June 6th and I had to
leave early. And the bottom line I think comes down to, do we want Chanhassen to have increased
density? Or do we not? Is it not the Planning Commission's responsibility to detennine what is
increased density. We as a neighborhood bought, 19 years ago I bought my home there and then
purchased a second home across the street because of the neighborhood. We have multiple people who
have moved from our neighborhood and returned to that neighborhood because of the size of the lots. Of
the neighborhood itself. And if you allow this variance to go through and these two houses to be built,
you are setting a precedent that Chanhassen wants increased density. Now a few years ago I stood here
in front of Mayor Tom Hamilton and a few other people and said that we are a citizenry of people who
live here. We are not developers who are coming in to build the community and then be gone. I'm
thankful that people who are here tonight are planning on living there because if they weren't I would be
much more upset. Because at that Planning Commission, and I don't think any of you were on that, we
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
had a development at the end of Frontier Trail that started out with I think 121 lots. They were told to
reduce it by 8. And when it was finalized, I think there were 132 lots. Just because of pushing and
shoving, etc. Increased density. . Planning around the rules that were set up to maintain the integrity of
this cominunity. Now attorneys can give you emotional pleas, and Mr. Malkerson certainly having his
last say hopefully did that this evening. I hope that my comments to you about let's keep Chanhassen a
community for the people who live here and not increase the density any more. Thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: I just have one more quick comment. I forgot the paperwork at home. My table was full
of things and I was scrambling. I realized afterwards, I had gone up to the CÎty to get the minutes ITom
the last planning meeting and at that meeting, for those of you that were present, you discussed a
subdivision that had been granted adjacent to a wetland and a mistake had been made. Mistakes are
made and that's why we have tò review the plats and I know that upper lot, there's some issues there as
well and I don't want that to be overlooked. I know mistakes are made but people have to be
accountable. I know in my position, if! don't do my job, if! don't run down my checklist to make sure
I've done everything related to my contracts, I wouldn't be working where I am. Thank you again.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. And I do have an issue with the
present plat and now they've changed the lines a little bit. But thanks to Mr. Malkerson's delay we
looked atthat. What is the front of that lot? Lot number 2. And we decided, I'll turn it around. This is
the front ofthe lot according to code. And this would have to be the back of the lot according to code.
And a lot like this is not accessed by the street. It's accessed by a private road. It has to have 125 foot
depth and this lot does not have 125 feet depth. It's not adequate. This is the front. This is the back.
It's a multi sided lot. The way you measure that according to code is to run out a 20 foot line parallel to
the front line, which would be about down here. You extend that out, I left my ruler back there. That's
not 125 feet. This isn't the front. This isn't the back. This is the front and back. And it's not wide
enough. Not deep enough. There's no room for the building pad. There's no room for the 30 feet for the
ftont yard and there's no room for the 30 feet for the back yard. So thank you Mr. Malkerson for the
extra time.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Bruce Malkerson: Bruce Malkerson. I do believe in extra time. Make sure that everyone has a chance to
analyze everything. Having heard that comment for the first time, I would note to you and perhaps your
staff is aware of it, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to lakeshore lots, as a
matter oflaw in the State of Minnesota, the portion of the lot that ITonts on the lake is the front of the lot.
And the portion that doesn't is the back of the lot. And I don't even quite understand the comment but no
matter what, I mean that's the law of the State. If it's at all relevant but again it's just another whatever, I
think if staff thought that they were wrong in their interpretation, they would have pointed that out too
but I don't think there is validity to that. Thank you very much.
Jeff Mortenson: I'm here this evening. I own a property that's on the lake and I have similar
circumstances to this and I'm curious of our property and it's possibilities of subdividing it and that sort
of thing. It's a similar sized property. I don't know. Ijust want to, for the record I want the same
considerations if I decide to look at some of these types of options in the future. You know this type of
planning and that. I believe I have the same square footages and density. I don't know ifthat's a
consideration but most certainly I'd like the same consideration as these people if! wish to approach this
type of situation with my property at 7199. Thank you.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
Peterson: If you could for the record, state your name too please.
Jeff Mortenson: Jeff Mortenson.
Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. I don't know.
Conrad: Public hearing closed? I move to close the public hearing.
Peterson: It's not a public hearing so.
Conrad: I thought it was. Just comments?
Peterson: Comments, yeah. For those of you who have seen the movie Groundhog Day, I kind of feel
like Bill Murray to some degree. We are challenged tonight with obviously an emotional one full of
interesting facts and I think our task tonight is to both interpret the intent of city code and ordinances,
along with the interpretation of what's in front of us tonight so with those opening comments, any
follow-up comments by my fellow commissioners?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for staff before we get into comments. Just for
clarification. If the Igel's decide to pursue the alternate plat, plat approval does need to come through
City Council? Or Planning Commission and City Council?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: So it will come before us again.
Aanenson: Correct. With a new staff report.
Kind: And is there a public hearing for such a thing? So it's not entirely true that they could just
subdivide and go ahead without any public input. Okay.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I guess somebody has to start from up here. I'm really torn with this. I mean my
personal opinion, I really feel for the neighborhood and personally I don't like to subdivide lots. But I
don't feel that our responsibility is where we can, our control is not the density of the people living in
this city. Our task, the way I understand is to see how does this fit with the ordinances and the zoning.
And we as a commission work based on the research and the effort that city staff puts into this. Now
granted, everybody makes mistakes and we leam from them. Looking at the facts here, it appears to me
on that basis what's I front of us is the request to approve or deny the variance... In terms of subdividing
the lots, you know personally I really don't like the idea of subdividing it. If! look at the mathematics of
how this works, we have two tables in our packet. One shows the lot sizes of properties within 500 feet.
The other one shows the lot sizes for the Sunrise Hills I" Addition. In either case, there are lots that is
under consideration to be subdivided is clearly the largest lot in both groups. In the list that we have.
Now I know it's being questioned tonight the accuracy ofthose lists. I have to work with what is in ITont
of me. I have a hard time believing that these lists are so inaccurate that we caimot draw conclusions
from them. Based on those lists, subdividing those two lots, that lot into two, in the Sunrise Hills I"
Addition, the resulting lots are the 4th largest and 6th largest out of28 lots. Ifwe look at the properties
within 500 feet, we have 35 lots. The resulting lots is the 7th largest and 14th largest. ,On that basis,
mathematically, and I would think ultimately legally, I feel very hard pressed opposing that on the basis
II
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
that It does meet the zoning in tenns of the size and all the other aspects. You know it's tricky.
Personally I'd like to say this lot cannot be subdivided. But Chanhassen has a reputation as being a city
that's relatively hard to work with because there's a lot of restrictions and all that, and here I find myself
on a hunting expedition trying to find things that can prevent this ITom happening, and I don't think that's
quite fair. I'll stop at this point. I want to hear ITom some other people but at least trying to break the ice
here a little bit.
Peterson: Sure. Consider it broken, please;
Sidney: Mr. Chair. I didn't attend and I wasn't present at, well I wasn't present at the June 6th meeting
and so this is the first time I've seen this packet of infonnation and I believe a lot of the comments
probably that came up in the first meeting tonight. And I think I'd like to restate what Vii stated, and if
you look at the staff report, it says the city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is
limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations
and zoning ordinance and that's what we're looking at. And we have two choices here in temis of a
subdivision. We have the first one which requires a variance, and we have a second which does not. It
meets ordinance as it stands. And unfortunately that one is not the most desirable of these subdivisions.
And with that I do agree with stairs analysis, especially on page 13 when it's stated that granting a
variance is more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. And I also agree with stairs condition 13, and that a conservation easement be placed over
the property to the west of the access easement in the report, so I'll leave it at that.
Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll continue down the line here. The first time this project came before the
Planning Commission, Ladd I believe made the comment toward the end of the meeting that
unfortunately there's nothing we can do because the subdivision meets code. And as we all know that it
turned out that it didn't. And so now there is something we can do to stop the two lakeshore lots, which I
guess I'm inclined to do. I'm not convinced that two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the
alternate plat. The alternate plat has drawbacks as well, but I think there's some positive aspects about it
and one being that the building heights would be lower because the setbacks allow for a larger footprints
and the possibility for walkout ramblers instead of two stories on the lakeshore. And I think as far as
lake quality, aesthetics has a lot to do with that and having three stories on the lake side is a lot to look at
and a walkout rambler is a nicer lake home. I think that's a positive of the alternate plat. I think the
alternate plat allows for the lakeshore lot to be more in keeping with the neighboring lots as far as the
length of the lakeshore, or yeah. Of the lakeshore. There's only one other lot that's less than 75 feet.
All the others have quite a bit more than 75 feet oflakeshore, and when you're measuring lakeshore it's
the amount of beach that counts. I think that it protects the lake by limiting dock and boat àccess. And
also protects the lake by limiting the opening up of views for one home rather than two homes. Lake
owners have the right to clear trees so that they can create a view for themselves and one home which
would lessen that amount that would be taken away ITom the shoreline itself. So I gÙess I'm not
convinced that the two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the alternate plat and I'll be
interested to hear what Alison and Ladd have to say. Convince me otherwise.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well the question before us tonight is does this plan, this proposal, meet the
requirements or not? And as I look at it, the code states 90 feet. Cities have the right to require more
strict standards, but cannot depart downward from State law. State law says 75 feet, but Chanhassen has
chosen 90 foot for their lakeshore ITontage. So the city has every right to do that. I don't see a problem
with that at all and that in and of itself is not a reason to grant a variance, just because a state has chosen
]2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
a lower number. We have a deck variance ahead of us, coming up this evening and I'd like to rephrase,
staff has recommended denial of that variance because it doesn't meet requirements and I wanted to sort
of rephrase some of the possible responses to the Igel variance request using what, the verbiage that's
used on the deck response. For example. Literal enforcement would cause undue hardship. The deck
response is, a single family home exists on the site so the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
Applies here. B. Conditions upon which petition for a variance are based are not applicable generally to
other properties within the same zoning classification. The deck response is, there are many properties
located, and I'll paraphrase here, on lakes that are required to meet required setbacks. It applies here.
The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The response to the deck people is well
the fact that the applicant is proposing a design that does not meet ordinance requirements is creating the
hardship. I think that applies here too. They're proposing a design that does not meet the requirements
and that is not something that the city is asking to do or the neighbors are asking to do or anything. It's
their choice. Therefore self created. Granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The
response to the deck variance is, it will pennit a, and I'll say lakeshore width here, that is less than those
within 500 feet. I mean as I look at the response that we're giving to a deck request, I can easily apply to
this. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property. There's a home on the property right now.
I think that there are other properties in the area that are required to meet the setbacks. I feel that it is the
design that is driving the variance, nothing else. And finally I think that others in the neighborhood,
lakeshore widths specifically are equal to or greater than the 90 foot requirement by the city, therefore I
don't really feel that the applicant has met the burden and I don't find any of those facts. Finally I can't
comment as to whether or not any other proposal mayor may not meet our variance requirements, but I
can say that I do not believe that the proposal before us tonight does.
Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd?
Conrad: Sure. Joel, I was around when that subdivision came in. That's really sad. I really think it's
pretty clear. It's not, I'm not waivering here and maybe it's too much history. It's probably too much
history. The reason we have 90 feet shoreline ordinance is for a couple reasons. One, we set the, we are
sort ofa leader in the State of Minnesota in tenns of wetland preservation, water quality, caring about the
environment. We really are. Whether that's sort of hype in our literature that we put out in newsletters
but we've set the way. The committees that we fonned 20 years ago sort of put the movement in. The 90
foot lot lines are not a mistake. They're not. They were there for a reason so, because and I've got to tell
you because some of you haven't been here that long. It affects water quality. It affects intensity of use
on the lake. Now 15 feet doesn't matter much. You know it's not really going to, and if you were on
Lotus Lake last weekend you would say well, it's packed anyway so who cares? Another couple boats
doesn't matter, but that's the intent and that's what we're kind of doing here. We're playing with the
intent of the ordinance. And you can probably doubt me because my memory's going a little bit but I do
remember Joel back a few years ago. It is for water quality and water intensification. You just have to
stop it. And this is one reason that you, one leverage tool that you have. So to overcome this one thing
tonight we have to say there's a reason to allow that. There's a better purpose there, and that's what I
was kind of waiting. And neighbors, I think they probably have rights to put two homes there. I think
based on what we've seen in the past, there's a good chance they're going to be able to put a second lot
there. I'd be hard pressed, and again we haven't looked at it very seriously but you've got to know,
we've allowed things like that in the past. They have enough square footage. We allow private drives.
They're probably going to be able to do it. That's a different issue however. Totally different issue. The
issue we're looking at right now is do we allow a variance? Well yeah, I could make a case for it. Well
one lot has to be the right size but then, because they've got enough feet for one. You've got to make one
the right footage. You've got to. Split the difference. Anyway, so you look at the code and the code
\3
Planning Commission Meeting-Ju]y ]8,2000
says something and specifically you look at the plat. You look at Sunrise Hills. The subdivision doesn't
fit It just visually doesn't fit. So you look at that. You look at the covenants. Their intent, which
shame on you to let them expire. Well whatever happened, again much better if you have control over it
than Jetting us have control. The covenants said something. Look at that. Look at the 34 foot elevation
drop on the property. That's what lakeshore footage is trying to do. This is not a 2% grade. This is a
different deal. This is what the ordinance was set up to really monitor. Look at the community .
involvement. Look at the two variances when really they should only be applying for one~ One can meet
the 90 foot. The rest, we should be looking at one variance. A lot that's 30 foot short. So I looked at the
positives. The positives are, they're probably going to get. The positive's allowing the variance.
They'll probably get the second house. They're probably going to impact the Paulsen's a lot more with
that second house. They'll be right in your &ont yard. The tree coverage, they're going to reduce the .
tree coverage but even at the tree coveragè elimination, and I looked at it, it's not that bad. I can't find, if
Mr. Paulsen came up,here, you know he's the one that's going to be impacted when the second house
goes in. Ifhe was, he's the one that's going to be impacted and he would have been the chip that I would
have played one way or another on this. And even iftliat was the chip, I don't think I could do it because
I know what the purpose of the 90 foot frontage was. That's all.
Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. My comments are not dissimilar to the last few that you've heard.
Every time I do a variance I look for a compelling reason to do the variance and tonight I don't see that I
have a compelling reason for the variance. My only caveat to that is, I believe if I had a choice I would
prefer to grant this variance versus the one that will probably be here in a few weeks, and that is the only
thing that doesn't set well with me tonight if I vote to deny this variance. The one I get in a few weeks as
far as a subdivision where I don't have a choice, will not be as good of a communitY integration. So
that's my concern but based upon what I have tonight, and that really is the only reason that I would vote
against it is I don 'tsee a compelling reason to grant the variance. The other issues brought up tonight I
don't see as being that relevant in it's interpretation of the facts and I think that facts present themselves I
think pretty clearly tonight that this is the only variance that is required. So with those final comments]
would entertain a motion. .
Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat and the
variance to the shoreland width requirement of the subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition as
shown on the plans in the staff report dated February I I Ih per the staff report. .
Peterson: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. My other concern about what was presented at the last meeting as the
alternate plat. And personally I believe that alternate plat is far less desirable than the plat that requires
the variance. I'm looking quite a bit at tree impact and looking at the plat, and having looked at the
property out there, I'm quite convinced that it will have a great impact on the neighborhood, the look of
the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood with another house being stacked above the lower
one. Personally I think that it will be more detrimental to the neighborhood than splitting it into two
]akeshore homes. So I'm tom. So at this point I'm really hard pressed to make a decision personally one
or the other on that basis.
Peterson: Understand. That was the issue I brought earlier so any further discussion?
]4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Sidney: I guess one comment. Thanks Ladd for the history on lakeshore and I guess when I'm thinking
about it here that really I ani torn, like UIi, and I had a chance to look over some of the materials but not
all of them necessarily. But I do think that we should go through the process in this case and I guess I'm
changing my views as I'm sitting here with having listened to the other commissioners and would not
support the variance at this point and· continue the process.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Just a quick comment. It could end up worse. Could. We're only look at one
thing tonight. So that's what you've got to review. We're not playing a game of cards where we can, .
you know as we're looking at one thing in the site plan. You're looking at it the right way. It could be
worse. But, and not I'm making, not for the lake. Maybe for the neighbors but not for the lake and that
was the intent of the ordinance that is really managing our discussion.
Kind: Mr. Chair? Also on the alternate plat what we've been shown to date I believe is a worst case
scenario. I think there probably are other ways to position the buildings on the site and ifI was the
applicant I would have presented the worst case scenario also so, I guess I agree with LuAnn. I'd like to
have the process continue and just look at the variance tonight. "
Peterson: With that in mind, all those in favor ofthe motion signify by saying aye.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreIand width requirement, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas
Igel Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11,
2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000 and revised April 20,2000. All voted in favor,
except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried.
Peterson: This goes onto the City Council on the 19'h of August, is that right?
Generous: No, that was mistaken. It's the 14th.
Peterson: Of August?
Generous: Yes.
Peterson: Thank everybody for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW REOUEST FOR A 100.000 SO. Fr. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING
IDA TA LINK CORPORATION) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 5. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP. OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF UPLAND DRIVE AND NORTH OF LAKE
DRIVE WEST. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff?
J
15
/
j
~\Js,;(
0\:>' .
(þv<'eJ1 rf""
f'Þy/"'
'p¡.Jf' \I~(:iJ-S A
\>(e; . d..f{lÚ'
¡pc,((.7J
SUNRISE HILLS /'6
ESTABUSHED 1957
SSOCIATION LOT SIZE
[HOuse Numbel '"
. GJ.S.Area 1st Addmon
'0' Frontier Trail Lot and Add- (rou":~ 1.t Addition Lakel=
lois lsouth_lde' BlOCk nlon down LoI_ Frontl
1 7194 LoI&8Io<:k3 2 17942
2 7196 LoIð8lodc3 2 20458
3 7198 LoI781Dck3 2 22670
. 7200 LoI8E\t)C113 2 24074
5 7206 LoIGBlocU 2 23390
6 7206 lot108lock3 2 23441
7 7210 1OI1181ock3 2 22193
6 7212 LoI1281oCk3 2 20117
. 7214 LoI 13 BloCk 3 2 20307
10 7216 LoI 14 BIoek3 2 31135
11 7218 lOt 1S 8\OCk3 2 36734
12 7320 LoI3 BloCk 1 . 31807
13 7226 LoI 19 BloCk 3 2 18024
14 7226 LoI.20BIock3 2 '6442
15 7230 Lot2181oek3 2 15433
16 7332 LOt78k1dl2 1 15509 15509
17 7334 LoI8BIoek2 1 15446 15446
18 7336 Louelodl2 1 15399 15399
,. 7336 LoI 10 BIoek2 , 13784 13184
20 7340 LoI1181ock2 1 15096 15096
Frontier Trail- Northslde
21 7201 LoI1B1oçk1 , 67964
22 7203 LoI2 Block 1 , 44021
23 7207 LoI1BIoek2 , 23430
2. 720. LoUBIoC:k2 , 21409
25 7211 lOI3BIoCk2 , 23763
26 7213 LoI1eloCk1 , 26244
27 72'5 LoI2BIoek2 , .....
28 7301 Lot 3 BIoek 2 , 20313
2. 7303 loUBIOek2 , 19631
30 7305 ilol 5 BIoCk2 , 21099
31 7307 LoI17B1OCk1 , 15363 16363
32 7329 loIBBJock1 , I 14118 14118
33 7331 loI781oek1 1 13995 13995
34 7333 LoIBBIOCk1 1 13950 13950
~7335 'Lot & Block 1 , 14037 14037
36 T 7337 LoI4Block1 1 .0233 40233 120
37 7339 LoI3BIodI1 1 1935. 19359 110
38 \ (17Q57~~4291) ,Lo\ 1,281oCk 1 1 21348 21348 70
I Kiowa
3. , 7200 LoI1,BIock3 , 22658
40 I 7202 ILot2,81ock3 , 23200
41 720' lot3.B1oek3 , 67.90
42 7203 Lot4,B1oC\t3 , 21463
La,edO
.3 7300 lot 1381oC\t 1 1 36370 36370
44 730' 1oI1281ock1 , 24402 24402 112
.5 7302 lot 14810ck 1 1 '3646 '3646 '53
46 7303 loI1181ock1 , 47127 47127
'7 730' lot 15810ek 1 , '6399 '6399 150
48 7305 laI1081ock1 , 32331 32331
.. 7306 lot 16810ck 1 , 15893 15893
50 7307 lot 8 Block 1 , 17562 17562
H; land
51 400 lot1BIOek2 1 17341 17341
52 402 lot281Oek2 1 13932 13932
53 40' laI3BIock2 1 14047 14047
64 406 Lot481oC\t2 1 ,4005 14005
55 406 laI5BIock2 1 14030 14030
56 410 loI.681ock2 1 15310 15310
57 401 lot1Bk:K*3 1 17070 17070
Lon ow
56 7340 lotli,BIock1 · 19547
5. 7320 lot4,8Iock1 · '9962
60 7321 Lot2,BIoc:k1 · 19527
6' 7361 1oI1,B1oc:k1 · '4246
7343·Frontler Trait
Total 1366435 536302 7'5
Averaoe 22432.21 19153.64 119.1666667
SUNRISE KILLS 22,432FT 19.153 FT 119FTAVG
NEIGHBORHOOD AVO AVa LOT LAKESHORE
STANDARDS LOT AREA AREA OF LOTS IN
ALL LOTS ADDmON 1 ADDmON 1
"7343 FromierTrBills within 500 ftcf n"^"",rN, but not Sunrise Hills
all lots wIth 1 51 add 1
Uo~J
7 {n
SSOCIATlON LOT SIZE
¡¡rouserruñi6ii
.
/
I
. of Frontlet' TI1I.11 Lot .nd
Loti 'southslde} Block
1 7194 LoI581OCk3
2 7196 LotIl5k1c:U
3 7198 lOI7 BlOCk 3
4 7200 lolli BÐCk 3
5 7206 lO\UIoCk3
6 7208 LoI10BloCk3
7 7210 LoI11B1ock3
8 7212 LOI12B1OCk3
9 7214 LoI 13 BIoCk3
10 7216 LOI1A51oCk3
11 7218 LOI15S1oCk3
12 7320 LOI3B1oCk1
13 7226 LoI19B1oCk3
14 7228 LoI20BIoCk3
15 7230 LoI21B1oc:k3
16 7332 LoI7B1Dck2
17 7334 LoIlIBloc:k2
18 7336 LoI9B1oCk2
19 7338 LOI 10 BIoc:k2
20 7340 LoI11B1oCk2
FrontlefTraU - Northslde
21 7201 LoI181OCk1
22 7203 LoI2B1OCk 1
23 7207 LoItslOCk 2
24 7209 LoI 2510Ck 2
25 7211 LoI3BIoCk2
26 7213 LoI1 Block 1
27 7215 LoI2BIOCk2
28 7301 1.oI3BIOCk2
29 7303 lolA BIoCk2
30 7305 LoIsBIOCk2
31 7307 LoI 17 BloCk 1
32 7329 LoI8 BlOCk 1
33 7331 LoI7BIoCk1
34 7333 lolli BloCk 1
35 7335 LoI5S1OCk 1
36 7337 LoIABIock 1
37 7339 lLol3 BlOCk 1
38 I (1705~~4291J iLol 1,2 Block 1 ! 1 I
--·-·-KiOwa I I
7200 11.oI1.BIock3 I 2 i
7202 LoI2.B1oCk3 2
7204 LoI3. Block 3 2
7203 LoIA.BIOCk3 2
Laredo
7300
7301
7302
7303
730'
7305
7306
7307
Hklhland
400
402
404
405
408
410
401
Lon ow
7340 LoI S. Block 1
7320 LoI A. BlOCk 1
7321 LoI2. Block 1
7361 LoI 1. BlOCk 1
7343"Frontier Trail
Total
-:~-
41
.2
43
44
45
.8
.7
.8
.9
50
LoI13B1oCk1
10I 12 Block 1
lO\ 1A BloCk 1
1oI11 Block 1
LoI 1S BlOCk 1
LoI 10 Block 1
lO\ 111 BIoek 1
Lot 9 BloCk 1
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
LoI1BIock2
lO\2 BloCk 2
LoI381OCk2
lolA BIodI 2
lO\5B1oCk2
lO\lI BloCk 2
1.,,,,-
58
59
50
61
Averaae
SUNRISE HILLS
NEIGHBORHOOD
STANDARDS
SUNRISE HILLS
ESTABLISHED 1957
Add-
ItIOn
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Q.I.S.Arø
(rounded
down1
17942
20458
22870
24074
23390
23441
22193
20117
20307
31135
36734
31807
18024
15442
15433
15509
15446
15399
13784
15096
LakeShore
Frontaae
150
145
120
110
70
126 FT AVO
LAKESHORE
.7343 Frontier Trail Is within 500 ft of nrnnertv but not SunriSe Hills
ÙQ.\ob,'e L\0"lJ
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
,
,
1
,
,
1
67964
44021
23430
21409
23763
28244
22999
20313
19631
21099
15363
14118
13995
13950
14037
40233
19359
?'348
22658
23200
67490
21463
1
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
36370
24402
13846
47127
15399
32331
15893
17562
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17341
13932
14047
14005
14030
15310
17070
4
.
.
4
19547
19982
19527
14246
1368435
22432.21
22,432FT
Ava
LOT AREA
ALL LOTS
LakeShore
LotlO.I.S.
....
Loti Within
600 FT G.I.S.
A...
Lake$hore
FronUige loti
within 600 FT
23390
23441
22193
15433
15509
15446
15399
13784
15096
57964
44021
150
145
44021
23430
21409
23763
28244
22999
20313
19631
21099
15363
14118
13995
13950
14037
40233
19359
21348
120
110
70
40233
19359
21348
112
153
36370
24402
36370
24402
13846
47127
15399
32331
15893
17582
150
112
153
47127
150
17341
13932
14047
14005
14030
15310
17070
1010
290824
57594
901262
320
1330
126.25
36353
21458.62
147.78
31,363 FT 21.459 FT 147 FT AVG
AVO LOT AVG LOT LAKESHORE
AREA AREA OF OF LOTS
LAKESHORE LOTS WITHIN' WITHIN 500 FT
LOTS 500 FT
I
I
all lots with 1st add1
From: Jerry/Jan Paulsen
Date: September 19, 2000
To: Chanhassen City Council
,Subject: Proposed Igel Addition (please attach to Staff Report)
These are the reasons for denying approval of variances for the Proposed Igel Addition:
#1. All 6 conditions for rantin a variance in Cha ter 20 are not mel
Chapter 20 Zoning Division 3. Variances
Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting.
A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the
following criteria are met
(1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship"
means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property
within 500 feel The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to
recognize that in develOPed neiahborhoods pre-existina standards exist. Variances that blend with
these pre-existing standards without deDartina downward from them meet this criteria.
(2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
(3) That the purpose of the variation is not based uoon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the Darcel of land.
(4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
(5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pUblic welfare or iniurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
(6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the pUblic streets, or increases the danger of fire,
or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
nei hborhood.
a. Sec. 20~8. criteria (1) (undue hardship; pre-existing standards):
The developer will not be caused "undue hardship' if not permitted to split the lot. The lot can
be put to reasonable use for a single home the same as it has been used for over 40 years.
The removal of many mature trees, or the construction of an additional house that impairs the
view of neighbors would detrimentally change the character of the neighborhood.
Sunrise Hills was developed under covenants that prescribed a 40-ft front lot setback and a 12-
ft side lot set back. These are pre-existina standards for a developed neighborhood. Code
states there should not be a downwarrJ depaffufe from pre-existing standarrJs. The developer
should not be permitted to depart downward from these setbacks.
Conclusion: Denial of a variance would not cause "undue hardship". The developer should be
held to the more restrictive pre-existing standards in Sunrise Hills.
The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (1).
b. Sec. 20-58, criteria (3) (increased value; income potential):
The developer stated (Staff Report, June 6, p. 14) the request is not based upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the lot. Rather, he states that the neighborhood would
be improved. Staff concedes that "the creation of (multiple) lake shore lots would increase the
value of the property".
(i~
Creating two lots from one must be viewed as increasing the property value. The Staff Report
states "staff does not believe that [the desire to increase the value of the property) is the sole
reason for the requesf. Staff concludes that if there is more than one reason for the developer
to split the lot, then it is irrelevant that the developer wants to increase the property value. This
is specious reasoning.
Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (3),
c. Sec. 20-58, criteria (4) (not a self-created hardship):
The developer purchased the property on the speculation that the lot could be split. The seller
was told by the realtor that they could apply to the city for a variance in order to split the lot.
Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (4).
d. Sec. 20-58, criteria (5) (not detrimental to the neighborhood):
Both proposed plats (2 lakeshore, and 1 lakeshore + 1 non-Iakeshore) would result in a
substantial loss of trees, including mature trees 160+ years old (predating the Civil War!).
Water runoff would be significantly increased because of impervious surface, and steep slope.
The proposal would adversely impact the views and property values of neighboring homes.
Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (5).
e. Sec. 20-58 criteria (6) (safety; diminished property values):
Adding a house would increase congestion on Laredo Drive. The cul-de-sac has a smaller
diameter than normal cul-de-sacs. A school bus cannot navigate the cul-de-sac without backing
up. Snow plows and emergency vehicles cannot use the cul-de-sac without backing several
times. Splitting the lot would create a private street. Since ordinance prohibits parking on a
private street, the increase in vehicular traffic would have to be accommodated by parking on
the cul-de-sac. Laredo Drive is too narrow to accommodate parking on both sides. The length
of a private street and driveway would impair entrance of emergency vehicles. The removal of
trees would diminish the value of adjacent properties,
Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (6).
#2. All 4 conditions for grantin a variance in Chapter 18 are not met.
Chapter 18 Subdivisions. Article II. Administration and Enforcement. Division 1. Generally.
Sec. 18-22. Variances.
The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat
approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
(1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
(2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land;
(3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property;
(4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in
accord with the u ose and intent of this cha ter, the zonin ordinance and com rehensive Ian.
Conclusion: All 4 conditions are not met for the same reasons pertaining to Sec. 20-58, above.
#3. The developer does not meet all the conditions of a hardship as defined in MN Statute.
Sec.20-1. Definitions.
Hardshi - the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Cha ter 462.
~
. " ~. .,
MN Statute 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning.
(2) "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in
question cannot be Dut to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls,
the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localitv.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the
property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as
a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose
conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties.
The property can be put to reasonable use without splitting the lot. Even a new house on the lot
might not change the character of the subdivision. Subdividing the lot would alter the essential
character of the neighborhood as described above.
Conclusion: The developer does not meet all requirements of a hardship.
#4. The developer's roposed subdivision is not consistent with ordinances.
CHAPTER 18. Subdivisions
Sec. 18-39. Preliminary plat-Generally.
(f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat shall be
as follows:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zonina ordinance;
(2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
includin but not limited to the cit s com rehensive Ian'
Conclusion: The developer's proposed subdivision is not consistent with zoning
ordinance, and requires multiple variances.
Final Comments:
A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission in March. However:
Staff erroneously said the plat met code.
The lot width was not measured at the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line as required by code.
The lot width was not measured at the setback line.
The lot width did not meet the 90-ft width required by Chanhassen code.
The lot width did not even meet the 75-ft DNR minimum until a subsequent plat miraculously
elongated the OHW line (reference our May 8 letter; affectionately called "Battle of the Bulge").
It is particularly important for the city to require that shoreland regulations be followed, and that
our lakes be protected. Chanhassen should not have a reputation as being an easy mark for
approval of deviation from code. The city has an obligation to protect the quality of our lakes,
and maintain the character of existing subdivisions.
Conclusion: The developer does not meet the criteria for approval of variances for the
proposed development. The application should not be approved.
Thank you.
þv-.P I-J).,J,,,-
~~ -P~t-t"-'
J
4b-;-
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 9/5/00
CC DATE: 9I2S/QQ 11/13/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 1Ø/3ÆQ
Applicant has waived review deadline
CASE #: 00-2 SUB
-r 11,1"
STAFF REPORT
-
~
t
)
j
...
t
(
-
't
:1
J
-
-
)
PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lake shore parcel into 2
single family lots (one lake shore and on non-lake shore) on property zoned RSF
Lucas Igel Addition
LOCATION:
Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive
APPLICANT:
David & Rachellgel
6195 Strawberry Ln.
Shorewood, MN 55331
(952) 920-8300
,
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre) .
ACREAGE:
1. 09 acres
DENSITY:
1.83 units per acre, gross and net
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval to create two lots, one 21,752 square feet
and the other 25,749 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing
house on the site will be razed to accommodate one of the two new houses."
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet..
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quaSi judicial decision.
. ~
~O~
~ ~-
~~
/ ~
~
~
~ [bury ~
C:ÿ \ \ \
~ I l-- "-~-
} ?\ ~ ~rr~
« ' -ì\~ '--
\\C 76J..
x ~~µ ~v
~ 'I'f ~
~ . ~ ~~v
.,~ vr-~ I
~ . k1)~/ '"
S \ I W;J......I \
- ~t!i: I~v~ 1
tç~ j{- p _ ~~ tin aj~ "
ø ? ~~) ~V~ 1\: ~ ~~
- 0 ~ } \ brl V" pr / \
t~ r~ -~ ~ .
~ /1Y)/-lJ ~L ¡,'~' i £ ' :? 1\ (( ~Ì\ì
31/3 Dr rj~ f .¥ 'Jf Ç( f!- - ~ ~ : "'" r )-~ \.\ 1
- ;. (, let) cì)/ ¡¡r- ¡... -- ~ - 'C.. Y
- "". ,,5~~ v ~ '~~i;'
~ I c::J:] CD CD I ~.o~ / -m fi
.
~
\
\..
~
I~
~~&~
LZ '
-~
. ~~
~~if[Ø""'
~. ~
'Ui)' .
Lotus Lake '
~",.
\
X
Á
(
"~
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 2
PROPOSALlSUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create two lots ITom a 47,501 square foot
property. One of the lots would be a lake shore lot. The other lot would be a non-lake shore lot.
The applicant has shown a 60' by 60' building pad as well as an estimate of the eventual building to
be included on the property. It should be noted that the buildable area for Lot 1 is constrained on
the west by the line where the lot width meets the 90 foot width.
Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes,
W _ RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property
and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes ITom west to east with a high point at
Laredo Drive of 940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the
Lake). The two lots will be accessed via a common driveway which will enter onto Laredo at the
existing driveway, paralleling the north property line. 111e site has approximately 77 percent
canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 55 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy
coverage of 46 percent.
The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of914.4. The proposed houses have lowest
floor elevations of929 and 912 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot I is the proposed westerly lot
and Lot 2 is the proposed easterly, lake shore, lot.) The proposed lots are 21,752 and 25,749 square
feet, Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Minimum lot size for shore land property is 20,000 square feet and
non-shore land property is 15,000 square feet.
The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose
using the existing blacktop driveway to service both lots.
Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the proposed development
complies with City Ordinance and is therefore being recommended for approval.
APPLICABLE REGULA nONS
Sections 18-56 through 18-63, Subdivision Design Standards
Sections 20-476 through 20-486 Shoreline Management District
Sections 20-61 I through 20-616 RSF, Single Family Residential District
Section 20-905, Single Family Dwellings
Section 20-908, Yard Regulatiom,
BACKGROUND
In 1956, the Town Board ofChanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1st Addition. On
December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board
of Carver County.
A separate plat for the parcel is also proceeding through the review process. This other plat
requests a variance ITom the lake shore lot width requirement and proposes the creation of two lake
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 3
shore lots. Both plats will be presented to City Council for ultimate determination of which will be
approved.
LANDSCAPINGrrREE PRESERVATION
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the 1ge1 Addition development are as
follows:
Total upland area (including outlots) 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage 77% or 36,576 SF
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 46% or 2 I ,850 SF
Proposed tree preservation 55% or 26,126 SF
The developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore no replacement plantings are
required.
Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development.
However, staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed
home on Lot 2. This area is currently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed
home. Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2
understory trees and three shrubs.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will
be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the
first building permit for a home in this development.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP)
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium
density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of I .09 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project would be $872.00.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Single-family/low density developments have a connection charge of$I,980 per developable acre.
Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $2,158.20 fee.
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 4
These fees are due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
GRADlNGIDRAINAGEIEROSION CONTROL
There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed prior to redevelopment. The submitted
plan shows garage floor and basement elevations for each of the proposed homes. Since the
homes are proposed to be custom graded at time of building and a detailed grading and drainage
plan was not provided, staff is unable to determine the full grading impacts. Minimal tree loss is
anticipated on Lot 2 since the proposed home is in close proximity to the existing dwelling.
Grading activity for Lot I will impact approximately 1/3 ofthe trees on the lot. This would be
difficult to avoid because of the number of trees on the lot. Prior to final plat approval, a detailed
grading, drainage, and erosion control plan prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer will
be required for staff review and approval.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site, The existing house is connected to
City sewer and water. In conjunction with the razing of the existing dwel1ing, the appropriate
demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and
water unit; therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible for one sewer and water hook-up
and connection charge afthe time of building pelmit issuance. The 2000 sanitary sewer and
water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk hook-up charges are $1,300 for sanitary
and $1,694 for water. These fees are due at time of building permit issuance and may be
specially assessed against the property. The cost ofthe water service from Laredo Lane to the
property line will be deducted from the applicant's water connection charges on Lot I. The
applicant shall notify the City 30 days in advance to request the water service extension from
Laredo Lane.
The plan shows two proposed sanitary services to the new house on Lot 2. Staff recommends
deleting both proposed lines and utilizing the existing sanitary service for Lot 2. Extension of
sanitary sewer service to Lot I will involve encroaching upon Lot 2. The submitted plan does
not address the issue of water services for the two lots. Currently, one water service exists for
the existing building. It may not be possible to utilize this service for the proposed house on Lot
2. If the existing water line lies under the proposed house pad for Lot 1, then a new water service
would have to be installed. Either way, a new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane
to the property line to service one ofthe two lots. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane
to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend the water service
to the property line of Lot I from Laredo Lane. The applicant shall escrow with the City, $2,500
for the water service extension from Laredo Lane. Prior to final plat approval, a utility plan
signed by a registered civil engineer will be required. The applicant and staff will work together
in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption
to existing vegetation. Staff recommends that the applicant escrow $2000 with the City to
guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service form Lot 2 to Lot 1. Further, the applicant will
need to prepare private cross-access easements to be recorded against both parcels for the
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 5
extension of sewer and water lines through Lots I and 2, respectively. Typical ITont, rear, and
side yard drainage and utility easements will also be required for each lot.
STREETS
The site is accessible ITom Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. The plan
proposes using the driveway to service both lots while widening the common portion of the drive
to meet the 20-foot wide, 7-ton per axle design requirement. Staff believes that this driveway
meets the private driveway/street ordinance. The driveway grades for the proposed house on Lot
I appear to be greater than 10%. This may necessitate lowering the proposed garage floor
elevation one foot. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement for both lots will need
to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot I.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Code Requirements
AREA (sgJU
20,000 lake
shore; 15,000
non-lake shore
21,752
25,749
47,501
FRONTAGE (ft.)
90
DEPTH
125
Lake Frontage (ft.)
90
LotI
Lot 2
Total
64.29#
187.4*
219
142
NA
m
#
.
Lots on cul-de-sac must meet the minimum 90 feet lot width at the building setback line.
Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the ITont
building setback.
There has been considerable discussion whether Lot I must meet a 90 foot or a 100 foot lot width at
the building setback line. The City Attorney has stated, "the only reasonable interpretation of the
requirement is that it only applies to lots that don't have direct frontage on a street." However, the
plat, as proposed could comply with both the 90 and 100 foot width requirement. The ITont setback
line would just shift back on the property. The buildable area would be compressed, but there is
still a considerable area for building within the setbacks.
There has been additional discussion whether the area of a driveway easement is included or
excluded ITom the lot area calculations. Staff contends that unless the driveway is located on a
separate parcel ofland, such as an outlot or another property, the area under the easement is
included in the lot area for that lot. The City Attomey concurs with this interpretation and states,
"Shared private driveways are not excluded ITom lot area requirements." The ordinance states that
the area included within a neck or flag of a lot is excluded ITom lot area calculations (section 20-
615 (I) For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained with the
"neck" has been excluded ITom consideration) in order to determine that minimum lot area is being
met. No neck or flag is being proposed and, therefore, this provision of the ordinance does not
apply to the proposed plat. Further, the area contained within a driveway easement does not divide
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 6
a lot in to separate parcels. The City Attorney concurs and states, "Shared driveways are not
excluded in calculating lot area. A shared driveway does not 'divide' a lot into two lots."
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District and the Shoreline District regulations.
2. 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.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, incJuding 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 rep0l1.
4. 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 inITastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage.
6. 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 required easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate stO!ITl water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 7
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban inITastructure.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
(I) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination, the city rnay 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. The proposed private street serving the development is not
necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street installed, even more
trees would be impacted than proposed under this plan. The private street will minimize the
impervious surface on the property. The use ofa public street is impractical.
PLANNING COMMISSION l'PDA TE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5, 2000, to review the proposed
subdivision. The Planning Comnission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
preliminary plat with modification to condition I and the addition of conditions 15 through 18.
I. The ITont setback for Lot I, Block I, shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. The
applicant shall also show the front setback line where the lot width meets the 100 feet.
15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff
into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveway.
16. Relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it is totally legal and defensible on the
subdivision submitted.
17. Staff will review all the information and documents received at the Planning
Commission meeting and respond appropriately in time for the City Council meeting.
18. The applicant will delete the house foot prints and tree removal information from the
preliminary plat before going to City Council.
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 8
Staffhas requested that the applicant provide a preliminary plat plan showing both the 90 and
100 foot lot width lines and deleting the estimated house pads and tree removal area. The
Council can then decide if it wants a 90 or 100 foot lot width as the front setback line and modify
condition number 1, accordingly. The proposed conditions 16 and 18 should be shown for City
Council review and approval as part of the preliminary plat and are therefore not necessary as
conditions. Staff believes that the City Attorney and staff. as part ofthe update, have addressed
the issues raised as directed by proposed condition 17.
Impervious surface coverage. The applicant has shown a plan that estimates future impervious
coverage ofthe site. This plan states one coverage, an interested neighbor has calculated another
coverage. Either way, the ordinÐ:1ce permits a maximum site coverage of25 percent. Ifthe
house and or driveway are too 1arge, then one or both will have to be reduced. Please note that
when we calculate impervious sutfsce coverage, we excbde the area under a deck unless this
area is compacted or covered in C'oncrete for a patio, since water can and does run through the
boards in a deck to the ground below.
60 x 60 foot pad. Staff believes that the intent of the subdivision ordinance for the 60 x 60 foot
pad was to calculate tree removal area when a specific house plan was not know. The ordinance
specifies a "suitable building site". The applicant has shown more than a suitable site. However,
this is a moot point since they have also shown a 60 x 60 foot area. The applicant's survey is to
provide this on the plans for revi'Õ'w.
90 versus 100 foot lot width at front building setback. While staff believes that the 90 foot width
is appropriate, the applicant can comply with the 100 foot width at the front setback line. The
applicant's survey is to provide this on the plans for review.
Multi-sided lots. This issue is not limited to this propelty. The City of Chanhassen is not a
perfect world with property lin'~s running along all section lines, The existing lot has five sides.
While the proposed plat has additional impacts to the neighborhood, it is within the standards
established as part of the City of Chanhassen ordinance requirements and, therefore, should be
approved.
Private street. See City Attorney's letter. As far as the 20 foot setback is concerned, staff
contends that this setback is from the edge of the paved surface, not the edge of the easement.
However, as outlined by the City Attorney, the private street is only that portion ofthe driveway
that is used in common by both properties.
One of the conditions was for staff to review tbe runoff from the private driveway in comparison
to existing runoff conditions. The Planning Commission specifically requested that no additional
runoff be generated to impact the lake with the additional lot.
Upon review of the drainage patterns for this area, the lot currently sheet drains easterly towards
Lotus Lake from Laredo. Plans proposed to expand a small portion of the driveway to 20 feet in
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 9
width which will add very little additional runoff towards the lake. There is a long distance
between the driveway and the lake whereby vegetative cover will slow the velocity of water and
filter sediments ITom any runoff prior to reaching the lake as it has done in the past. Staff does
not believe that an additional homesite impervious surface will negatively impact the lake over
and above what currently exists on the property due to the fact the house is set back a significant
distance ITom the lake. There is no doubt that an additional homesite on the property will
incrementally increase the amount of runoff through the site due to the increased impervious
surface coverage on the lot. Again, staff does not believe any negative impacts will occur to the
lake with an additional homesite being placed on the property. We are not recommending any
additional storm drainage improvements or mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that th~ City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown
on plans prepared by Carlson & Carl~on, Inc., dated February 11,2000, revised March 8, 2000,
revised March 30, 2000. revised April 20, 2000, and revised August 4, 2000, and subject to the
following conditions:
I. The front setback for Lot I, Block I, shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet.
2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate
department or agency.
3. Final reports must be proIided for any soil correction work before building permits will
be issued.
4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State
Plumbing Code.
5. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements
including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard
plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2.
6. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the
fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be
payable with the first building permit for a home in this development.
7. The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of$872.00. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding
provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be
waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of$2,158.20. These fees
are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording.
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page IO
8. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The
existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat.
9. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building
Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the
Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility
specifications.
10. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility
plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staff to review and approve.
Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading.
II. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary
sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City,
at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot I from Laredo Lane to the
property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and
sanitary sewer services to Lot I, The applicant shall escrow with the City, $4,500 to
guarantee the water and sanitary ~ewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water
hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on
Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot I from Laredo Lane shall be
deducted ITom the watermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare
and record a cross-access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that
encroach upon the lots.
12. The typical 5-foot and I a·foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility
easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and
drainage easement shalt be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs
through Lot 2.
13. The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review
and recording ofthe final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water
Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of
final plat recording.
14. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete.
Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location
of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal.
The common portion ofthe driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle
weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by
the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30
feet wide.
15. The engineering departm~nt willl'eview to make sure that there is no increased
runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveway.
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page II
16. As part of any building permit submittal, impervious surface calculations shall be
prepared and included on the certificate of survey."
AITACHMENTS:
I. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Letter ITom Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen to Scott Botcher dated 8/21100
5. Letter ITom Debbie LJoyd to Kathryn Aanenson dated August 28, 2000
6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
7. Letter ITom Gerald W. Paulsen to Kathryn Aanenson dated 8/30/00
8. Letter ITom Debbie LJoyd to Planning Commission dated 8/30/00
9. Letter ITom Roger Knutson to Robert Generous dated 8/31/00
10. Planning Commission Minutes 0£9/5/00
I I. Impervious Surface Calculation. Gerald Paulsen
12. Letter ITom Gel<'ld W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated 9/17/00
13. Letter ITom Rachel A Igel to Kate Aanenson and Rohert Generous dated 8/2/00
14. Memo ITom David Hempel, Asst. City Engineer dated 9/20/00
15. Letter ITom Roger K'1utson to Robert Generous dated 9/19/00
16. Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen to Kathryn Aanenson dated 9/19/00
17. Memo from Jerry/Jan Paulsen to Chanhassen City Council dated 9/19/00
18. Letter ITom Deborah LJoyd to City Council and Mayor dated 9/19/00
19. Letter ITom Rachel A Igel to Kate Aanenson and Robert Generous dated 10/3/00
20. Letter ITom Roger KlJutson to Bob Generous dated 10/6/00
21. Letter ITom Gerald W. Paulsen to Scott Botcher dated 10/12/00
22. Letter ITom Scott Botcher to Gerald W. Paulsen dated ] 0/3 1100
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 12
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES. MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDA nON
INRE:
Application of Lucas Igel Addition
Subdivision
On September 5, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval of property. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by
published and mailed notice. Tht' Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned RSF. Single Family Residential.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot II, B]ock I, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven
possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our
findings regarding them are:
I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
2. The pwposed subdivision is consistent w;th all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
3. The phy~:ical 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;
Lucas Igel Addition
September 5, 2000
Page 13
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other
improvements required by this chapter;
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if
any of the following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
5. The planr.ing repol1 #00-2 dated September 5. 2000, prepared by Robert
Generous, et at is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TlON
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of September, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\bg\development review\lucr.~ igel addilinn2.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
. . 690 caUL TER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
bpLlCANT: Thvld {)JV\L~ ~\
')DRESS: /.Q( q 5 $-ro..uJV:ø-'j \...-o..M.
~(.ìLJ.£. J Mi0 6$'33\
:LEPHONE(Daytime)-9tS2.. 4(91- .?'3-:r--=1-
C G~. q1-0 - '8'300
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
SoJY\e....
\
'-G
TELEPHONE:
i_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Perm~ - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Perm~ - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Un~ Development" _ Zoning Appeal
,
,..
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
Site Plan Review" -1L Escrow for Filing Fees! Attorney Cost"" ..
- ($50 CUP/SPRlVACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
~ Subdivision" TOTALFEE$ l~~)
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 8'h" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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.
/z...-ì
. /
,
PROJECT NAME L-Ll.c.a...5 ~d ~\.-\'U;f)
LOCATION '".:\3C,3 LC1.\P¿ð fu\(e.,.
LEGALDESCRIPTJON Lc\ \\) Iß\Oc.~ '\ S~r\~ \+t\~:ç:\'(''.',\- ~M\\-t6Î\
TOTAl ACREAGE \- \
WETI.ANDS PRESENT YES -Ã- NO
PRESENT ~ê)NING \;> U,,7- ~ R<; F
REQUESTED ZONING ~'CU
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION L.-" I' \'ol;\~\\u 'fu\.ó..~~~
\
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 'So.-.'0<'\...SL
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Lo\ ~\\. \-
This appfication must be completed in full and be typèwritten or clearly printed and most 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.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the ápplicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the 'city and that I am responsible for complying with \
all City requirements with regard to this r~uest. This application shouid 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 signeä this application.
J Will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility stuqies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge. .
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
~~G.&¥h
. nalÙteff Applicant
~.
~-.q-oC?
Date
9-«\-00
Date
Application Received on
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
The appficant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on FrIday prior to the meeting.
It not contacted, a copy of the rep?rt will be mailed to the applicant's address.
~
'" y
-,
It~~ \ I ~
q
HU
'I J " i
un ~z '
~
i
.
N 1111 i'~
<nllt'H ~~ ~
s!~1 }I il J ~ ! ¡; II ;; n
;ee (I 1111111& U:: 51
-t I", It.. ~ ~ i
· , t a f- ¡¡¡¡ ¡;~
"qu J ' ll;; u
f il & _I t. h
i \1 I · !~ ;t
fI) j t.. '~i
n !. II f
t i 11
..
..
~¡
H
..
tï
d
~il H
~h lJ
, ~ "
I ~ ~ì
I~
'!t I.c
n."H
H~t
h.J
¡ .. ~f
~~ If, t
t \&1
.h
r
o
:I:
?Z '>
~ c::
f Ci")
ëO
.....
1'0.)
=
=
=
,
t,
o
:;¡
.,,0
,'"
,()
J:
1>
Z
J:
1>
"'
(/)
m
Z
r 0
'" df
i ~1
~
~
S
~
----
j
t
"
/
/
/
/
.-'
¡
i
-Q
~·z
'Z-.
",
01 \.'\.~
I \\
/ ~ '\.
/ IT1
/ 8
~,
~ /
IT1 /"
o.
fill
'If!
&~t
r
(I
II
((
I[
....
//
/
'tI
~
~
c
~
¡;;
!!
~
c
3
o
z
,
1
f~i:
~fj
,
,
~
'/
,
/
"-
c
~
~
~
~
ß
W
^
"
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 553 I 7
August 21,2000
Scott Botcher, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Dr., request for City Attorney ruling.
Manager Botcher:
Following is a list of three items pertinent to the subdivision of property on Lotus Lake. We
differ with the interpretation made by staff, and wish to request that the City Attorney make a
ruling on these items prior to the September 5 Planning Commission meeting..
#1. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. Refer to
Attachment A (developer's plat #8). The following code applies:
Chap 20 Zoning Article VII. Shore land Management District
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be I 00 feet as
measured at the ITont building setback line.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions
Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback
beyond which a structure may not extend.
Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or
roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum
horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark.
Staff view: Since Lot I could access directly to the street, it is not necessary that it meet the
100-foot lot width requirement.
Our view: Both proposed lots are accessed by the same private driveway/street. Both lots
must meet the 100-foot requirement. Lot I (west, non-lake shore lot), ITonts on the cul-de-sac,
and must have a width of 100 ft. On the plat, Lot I does not meet the lot width requirement for a
ITont building setback line. It measures only about 80 ft, and therefore does not meet code.
Iy.,)
"-..-/
(c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any water course or drainage
channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to provide for
storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of 24 hours' duration. Where necessary,
drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Such easements for drainage
purposes shall not be less than 20 feet in width.
Staff view: Staff has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not
divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the
property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one
or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a
drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be
creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case.
,
Our view: The question is not whether an easement divides a lot. The question is whether a
private street/driveway can divide a lot. The private street/driveway shown on the plat
Attachment B) does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the case of other
private streets which the city has approved. The private street for Lot 2 (south lot)
divides/crosses through the middle of Lot I (north lot) which code says cannot be done.
Cordially,
ß n ~Jj ~~.~
. t #.£12 f¡;1~*,--
erald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen
(952) 934-3032 (home)
(651) 456-7784 (work)
Attachments: A: 8/4/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #8 (stacked lots)
B: 4/20/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #7 (2 lake shore)
Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Robert Generous, Senior planner
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Councilman
Linda Jansen, Councilwoman
Steve Labatt, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission
Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
UJrico Sacchet, Planning Commission
3
-""
((
tit
II
....
..
~ If I
¡ II .
_ f j
!~ (( J! P
!j ~;. fIll;
:.. =~ II J _f' IjI
,t !! I' I ¡
t (( .. ~¡ ~ . t t) J
I! ii If !HI' qp;
II =~ H !! f· I fll fl .'
if!! 11 -- . f J f R'~
~ d jj H ;1 If f II !.IJå¡
,4TTAO-/MEtvT@ .
!
é
l·d~
i I"
. !!~f¡
--
i
..
---
,-
I
I
/-~--
I i. ¡
J ........... I
/-L~ ~
)¡l' '" ,t
. >-
: .. . I .
. --. -~
w \
'"',
- - -1~ '
-~
n
.' I
- '
,
/
"
---
/
"
/
I
I
,
/
/
/
, ,
I /
, j
I
I
/ ,
n
I
,/
I
--' ,
, ,
---
,
,
---....
l
"
- -'
--
,
....-----
~
~
i
I
-----
-
.:
i LLt JI
~ J
JJ
0 i ,I!;
c I!
\ ~ , ,
5,/ ,/ II; H
, i .td
, . .
.\//
ò
'"
J
-
!
i
I
~
~
't ~:
.. -
,J ~.
¡''''
I!'~
~ ~
~.!f
HI
HI
; t 11
k: ¡ \:Ie":>
& ~j '\ "
· 0
·
Ä · '"
·
f !
~
'"
.~.;:;.,;:.
..;,........> .'
."",,,,,,~\..~ .-;,.,
.","'" to"""" i'!!"':- .l\:'
.'~ ,;' ....,~ . \
'//" ...,;,;"
,>~ ,,,¡r
-:r-
.,
'f.~
",'"
.-
N
.'"
....
~,\:'
I-
~
,
--
-- .
,
~
g
;
,
\ \ ..
\ \ .
,
\\
,
..... ,
,i
,-,
...
N"'.lODO 5 -';/
,/-
..---::;
.>
.,,:.¡
: -~W:-:
,
- - OO~
';,.:;;,'¡
~ . . 'pi'}
'?J ....
&
\);:..'~
)or" -,"I'" .
10.>. t"II~. I
I~ .. ~
- ,.
oW. I"""l
g (,¡,y
!"r' =~~
-- , ""-
j I- .
--
..
z
o
ï=
Õ
o
<.
~
w
Q
(/)
ð
:::>
~
a
w
(/)
o
a..
o
a::
a..
....i.!
..c.
.
g
É
.
,
vi
~
..
,
,
',.
.'
.'
n
/.
,-
,
...
>::
,I
.... 01
J. _.
.....
h
JJ
II
i f --z..
\
w
z
:5.
o
q
i
'!"
¡Jli
¡;¡,,'
."
Q-
....--
..,...
.
· -
. .
~ e,."J:: ....'l¡..
':.r:.
·
~
~
o
t
~
·
~
õ~
"..:
,0
· 0
."..
· .
~ .2
-i
:~
- .
~-
,~
::
~~
2ii
'x
.0
.~ £
II
· .
".;..;.
..
$$ ~ ~
~ ~ \ '§
...... ....
":.ri
...... & i
:~n
õ õ .L~
..J oJ ~ 'I
'õ 'õ i i
i 2 E e
~.c I:L a.
:: f
~ .
g ~š
z = ~
¡:,:
· .
~~
."
""
· .
.ri~'
· .
tg.
f ì
· .
· .
¡~
· .
· .
H
~... 1
.
:
.
· .
~~
o.
~ g :¡
orion
.!!.!!
_N
õõ
~~
'õ'õ
&
tI
...
-
"t
ò.ì
e
V'
S
ur
O!
co
: I
l-
ot
..¡
0..
·
~
~
·
·
~
·
ì
o
·
~
o
·
o
·
·
:
o
:
It. ~ Õ
I ~ '"
M "" Ü
~ t £
~~
t ~
~ ~ 1
... ¡ i
. 1
&! ¿
¡ "" .1
¡ ~ S ~ j
.'
H
0'
.,
"'
<;
1=
õ~
o·
..
00
~ ~
~;
..
!!
H
o 0
U N
J
~
r!
.!
c ô· 'õ
: ~; ~
I: ¡ .
I .0 .c.'
V ;;;1
j; 5
õi ~
i3 ::::
... .JI:,..
&.1 joel
~¡ ';.!!
o '.
¡ 0. .r:
."'06
~;;; ]oC
U rf
. ~ ~.I:
... 'I U DO!'
ü:V .c:
5 ð~ ~2
-
-~
1<,.'
_-Ji
1je;;~
.8Io.UlO
õ
~
fïïAc.IJMt;tJT ®
~
c
.
o
N
~þ
~
0-
~ :;=
¡:: i ~~
c .~
A ~"~il
~ 1l'~..:
f lS11~c..
HI!
~::;.~~
ï 1 ï 1
i .¡ °F'¡
Debbie Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
August 28, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, Staff Report Attachment
Attached is a copy of a petition circulated in Sunrise Hills. It is signed by 89 individuals
representing 55 residences in the Sunrise Hills Civic Association expressing
opposition to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. This supersedes the
letter and petition of May 9, 2000.
Also attached is a petition signed by 25 property owners on Lotus Lake expressing
opposition to the subdivision of this lot into two lakeshore lots
Also attached is a map of the Sunrise Hills subdivision, and a recent newsletter from our
Presiden~ Therese Berquist. This is to illustrate that our Association consists of 61
homes, and represents a social organization that is an important part of the city.
Please include these items in the next Staff Report.
Respectfully submitted,
~¥
Debbie Lloyd
Attachment:
Petition, Sunrise Hills Homeowners, 5 pages,
Petition, Lotus Lake property owners, 2 pages,
Sunrise Hills Civic Association information, 2 pages.
,_.. \
'. ,.I
-----
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1 ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Jlddition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME
s~i-
ADDRESS
7 )..C' lc· ·n,.n Ì"1E. f ìv \
PHONE
Q7'S"- l..R("Ž)C
qccv ûC,3 c.;
f 31,' C' ;)-v 4
7~C¡ fRovdlU( ìRL
Î J 1{¡ Ll',v'i,J/M/
.
'-IN í-ki,la"J Dr 'n'-l- n'l7
~ '2.-01.- K, 0"";0.. C:..... 90& . 007;"
;1 .
Î03G,( l..-or-tf¡':¿cU v<>-- 957 - SVJ.(
1::Jo'Ç f(l.ðÁÍÌ'll!ft.1i 1J,L/ -~(,,¿
7Zo'Z- 1<'0.04 (( J¿ì6 -(jð 77
?JJJ fl^~JI1t" ¡;,.;; 9J'I- Ytf'/
1333 h1TYYiuz. TrLJ 13L(~{¿,Cz 7
Î:¡;3S-~--IJ\~e 134~ VS-S-6
r¡ 33lf' ;-~ 1MZT 93 '(- »11~
7.35,2 ¡:~ ~ 4..5 <-¡ ¿¡ '1o::L
130d.. ~~JJ>r- A. Q3t.f-S696
73D.2 ){~.ld<ìr:IJz 93LJ-SÞCJ ~
Î33~ :(ír)ý\- +'cVí'~ q 3 V' J?9 ¡;(
/lijc/~~~ ~?~X7P
Z,,;y6.J./U7:{u, ~. 93<1',3 .339
7 jð-f! 6ø.J77tne.""--r7eIt7(... 9& G-tJ(,:lté
P I of;
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Rills, Chanhassen Minnesots,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which ststes that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
_~d
LjID
'-I/eJ Il<1JJft-d 12
73 <f/ pt/)'lir'tA.?Z
73'1¡ ~gjJ
:7~"Jý~~ð¿.f).
,
"7337 ~~~
7ðJ¡j ./Àhdu~~
7..2.:10 ~.tRieRr~.L-_
t'#~ 7 ;¡.,;¡,ohtm!"'u 7.:(,
Aat'.6 01 tJ J 13&1 Fñ)fJ jÙr -¡;.,.
7ðl&/ ~-ziæ/
7~/8 r;ð"'-'f'.~/ 7;,1(,('
701 I B -:j~~-tM T4I
,
7 2..::,~ ~e>- T£L
7~ð9 d-~í.A-
,7..~ 7/ J /?.hnJ.. '0 ~ j IA.
73o~ ~ Or
13DS ¿f~() Dr'
(20D Klci.VC',- eil"tt
.:~
PHONE
93i../ -'}3 é- /
9<¡q- J11~
937-71,7'/
9$7- 9'7 Y
rv9- :;2'111
'1 </9 -;)c¡¡ 7
9.3'-r-.?~9¿
9'.5.? ..wý ..r-
'1 t1 (, -:13/:2.
N~" f(p '3~
9~9 - ?t:.3 In
f¿L./ -{¡7R:J
9'.11- ø7cf7r
r.J''í'''- 1'/1'0
9:} ¥ -71'i?ð
q/S - 6.:::J~Ð
CJ 3~- "¡C/R
'1.:3J.J -,¿ /.).;2 ¿)
Q31./-7032..
931{-703-¿
(t?>~ - 41/5
P1.I?~5
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1 ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Bills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, inclucüng one which..states that the size
of an existing lot Cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July'15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
/7/¿l
.:')
f
ADDRESS
¥Co 10.(,*-1';1-"'.1> 7:ì2.
5I'#g~d'~;
, ~
? a 1 If ¡:'Ý"ð..sTl~ T"...
7Z/$~ f-7Z.."'lfrJ....~ IK..
"1-2-01 Klù...<..'ë¡, CUl:.le,
ìl.i:)~ 1/ ~ L
,,~o_.... ....t,..r C
):;.,.,/ FfJ..jwn~1l TR.tftl
7,;7,00 F/7~~/), '4ad
7(7,f ~/E.IZ ~,f'L
72 if H<CtÛ õí e: 12 (TC~1 L..
7ril ( fY/, M/t'y ìið; I
.
77../10 F,,<M1',,: 7i--~/
7..7 3D RO/'/Î,,,,ç/;è;. (
~~~z~;i'
71~i P~.17.tl;¿
7~07 1.M...!-n" LÎiLli/¿
J.'7e:FJ I~"""'~ þr
401 1Iry6/a..l Drive..
PHONE
93'1-1/1'"5
9037"- 3/)'3
9 ~ If. -1 6, I";
'13'¡' .. 0 z.,..¡
9:n--¿3õ!
ttn-i?Ç)'f
'7:7;t¡-7S"JO
9'3.r,{-7,'850
93L/- .;2j173
'1--11/-~(d Þ
93i.f-M,í.t
1.7V-/.7"j/
7c/¿' '/3/2,
9...=3'/'-"936/
;ì 3 r-S"t /f
1134-Si'It/-
917-,)33 ~
134- ÎrJ'?2-
f'1 if- J7tfy
P 3 of 5
J
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
.:Restrictive covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
130'Î G\..:¡-t'lló'Dr
7.5'0/ /fvz/,rrJ,f)1'
7-$ 0 / lÓ,&(J Or-
¡,. .
'-10 Z. J-I/6AJ..Æ4-'P /JR.
11~£1 ~,~f,~- ì....
h I,
7 ;(O fiz'11hv -;J cry 7 - »~
t7 J-ftJ ~L..t 1: Cf3> 1 -f'7-LJ(
7301 /~íJr 9t¡1~J{P103
,
~ l ('11 Þdè.Ù
~¿ (f;Jlaw//À/
t¡ð{ JlJfø LMr./ ,¿') r¡
7"X ð ':! 73....../"';' -¡;;: L{
73J¿' ;:¡:"pTlêL 7£
. .
~
t: /I 'J() '1~(L/LI-r ÁAI1'i'.J
~~
ADDRESS
'd~ HI61AL..A~.D O~.
7'3 Z-O L.."'..." v' "'-~ G'r, ~
J(
7,)..)6 f;c.-.h'er- ì ftl.ìl
, (
7.;1..ð 7,;;i~ ~Il.
PHONE
c:ìlfr. '2 ,Q3
q34- -ozs<¡.
If
qù6 33~.2
If
13 7~;)..'f/b
l~:,'l_ ~:, '::>'~
9../;9- .J?y$
CJW-./7/J
13";- 5J<i-'1
c¡ 3<i'?J.:H-
1/ 't
.9!:A -11',(1' ~
i{151. %../,j ()
9J'f 8/7(/
CiJ 'I - S" .? ry
,
917 {' - 06:>5 f
p. 4 of t;
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADÒ'ITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are Opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
--
NAME
~1':.c...ø
.. . ~..4 '::\
ADDRESS
-7 :2/ë:,. T .,¿-c>.Jr;ë.t ,....,...
@~~.vQ'-A-"SC"~. It(,)
7J.e>7 /~"L;'....¿.. ?ê..c-<-..
.e,t'~?t_/.'J....."....C'~ ./
~ ---
7ól08 /7b"'¡'~r IF,
71ft¡ .¡;'" (-úA -/ r7td
73:1../ ~,........:'I ~
73-Z~~>:rrm///"Æd)
13", l.M!F-\:>ö 1'ð)2WE-
'1'ðolf L/J.t2Ef1.1 00
--
7':¿lg /R04li'l(
PHONE
?/ë.- '1~4-...8Óo~
J$7- ~.3ÿ'- //9.r
93~- ~-86b
9'1r;--o ý'()6
9.37-!9?2
9.57-P97?
C\.'3.4-~~ lb
èf31-J67£
c¡ .?<-¡ ~ / f} 7'2..-
p. '5 "P;
pETITION: SUNRISE HIlLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota.
are opposed to pennitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (lot 11, Block 1, 1 st addition)
into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each.
Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised.
Chapter 20: Zoning Article VII.. ,shOl'el8nd Management District reads:
(a) Lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes.. Recreational Development
Riparian Lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 feet 90 feet
ADDRESS PHONE
III 7 ~ / f?y{V{.)¿ &rcJ.f- 9(;[,' rf:j /7f ...
" 7'7/ jj/~.4 (~ ~¡/p 7; 7- 5 fOCc
.~ íJ ¡ê '--'b('
_'~£u~ 67::;:; ( '¿k¡¿ ;)'7/f-7Þ¡ J-
~f! tv! ,'f¿ (,'770 a... / f C. .-cf<.,- ~9
. {t
, 01'lO ßYu-Íø... 1',3 7 - Z~)')· L(
J).N~..{ t
f;¡ t77SMtUΡ' ? " ' ~~(-t1¿; b
f'-;i/II1 It
r , 34-t-1fft
~~
' 7~') U'\l/,*(u.~ r ¿{dé.-
.9~4·-<673L(
~~ 11 C: QL~~~ \'~ (1[L - 3022
{{t~ 4( é. /;. -:>~ -r èÆ'-" C.d~ ·/fJ'73..,-~{¿J
5/ c t.o~· t;.¡~ C {'-ere 90<,:,'Q:.téL.:
-o..\1\..\+-' ' ~\ 'IQ..J'ì '-'''--. -\. c.. { : C \ ,.' C{ ì ç(. 2.. \.-u
"'7
A.le \cÞ.vt It.¡ .,.- ( IT lX.. h:t-0 ú--: Q06' '(1-7°
:1);.. ~ ~" ..;:; J'2,o tÌ\.",,-ri\....- ('..Iv,,., Q, ~
!~ J J. c f.ha-J¡¡j;J /ì¡(fl/ p ) q::¡t./- lr(j;, (
I
;~ I,) / tJlodÆMJ fh/v t!51·t,1£'Ý
1/5 Ckc-ta-J C ¡I e....- '13ý -63 r;µ
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota,
are opposed to pennitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot ", Block " 1 st addition)
into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each.
Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised.
Chapter 20: Zoning Article VI/. Shore/and Management District reads:
(a) lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes - Recreational Development
Riparian lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 feet 90 feet
. NAME
ADDRESS () ."
Jll cM.~ LfYIL
Irh C"'('zi,«l(.> Gh...!e
7% l ~+iCf "\ (AI!
,1\..,;-"""
~ /:")1 v A./">
I '-f[ v¡
I.
Ii
'-
/1' .
"'7t)/) ,é'j"',;-r "I-~¡"~ L'
//.JcA"<7HÞ ()T
'/ t-€ (7 T
,;¿:..;z./ l7.¿tC7/é..e Ci"7
..- -.
PHONE
Lt3ì -cY1Îè7-
9?{f-9LI-j-¡
q~ (\ -\2ll
6/:...- c/ ~4-.~(, 371
-..
'i)?- 512';'
ç¿,/. YJ:\c:~
;Jßý - YJ'Sc;,
C;Vf- z ?ý ç---
it!:! {- t':~"""';'''..ß*,/. & . ;;.;:.....
}~\' _, ~~T ~~
..... /
.,. ~
-J~p"'-""
-'~~~J"1iJ ~
,........'!
-. ......."..
...."ra-~ .. .. ~'j
! 1/1
1701 ~ Ü
-END
.;" -
'.
N,m«~ ~,nt
cÐ ¡;....; 6Wot. s..u-....L&...o..
~ ~".-.. ._c __ nfS
a> II.. 'Ø"UI·m., ~,r &_MØ;')
@ N<"'N. ........~ OF _tw'.Y
~ s.,,'''''Y'F "'''' SfV' II...
1> 2' .....f7( ..S" $lJIIII!/C "'17
iJ r.rCI frlttCr ("&';.a "fT'( "a..
~ f'..;tll r.:s". ,. kg Asr~ ~1~r;"1
l' t,:n:.. t'.......~~ ú.'r
!~ n....,TiC"... rr .n~~/'
.,,'
.!.. fl.,.,....".. S'r''f' "t..
'JI f'L..n. .....·r··- ~1'·"'i
W '1'1' DC"CK ..
1-(
~
I'
,...
qs,
,'"'-
0:::"
~
,..,
....:JAc..
WfU"
-
.--
../
-'
~....J(..
~""~
..........
~
--
--
LøT...
J:.a~ -..~
.....-
-
...-..
, ~ ' e...-
/.~~::r""r s-rife A..!t :,' 0
Jír4'Ic.~:,--!'l" ~ ¡( ~~__.04 ~
--. no7 e .~~ ~
.í'\.5T'" :- ~
8c.Ou~r.ls( ~~
«t -"""~
-
~/ .~.o
l' 1......'201'
c; jO( S 'lO~
I k........
,'" ",..,. 0,111) ðh c. "hr.,
~J orCtoo'c.s '8
. Sot I -:ï1l~a...
o· ~ .... \.
I -'u~v. .~...,
co, Ic_. 11,7
.~ .
I 1000, 'll't;)¿
J 'ta"~ll" t('*'rT "".:;..
1brlF
0_-
......
............,
'm
~~'
~-_._-
,..., ..
0.,;
IC...... .~
111'...
~
......
~......,..-
-'" Un'¡ ~.......
...............-,.c.-/LftiÞ'f At.... 610\0."" '30' 'VLlcw",
" - ,r..t:....."'~-., __ · 0';" ,.........0
.... rI- ............ ::;"'0'110 '
_ .r::;-'I:. f #" \ · _.
.-.:S;~..'i;.....~ ,r ~
:..:. : -:'; ":.,¿o--, ~~i: 0
-:"" ~;.~.~.:-:;;_.":'~\ 'TIIorJool'u
. ··)(....'·1 :i-i ,}~. . ;-::,..p
f" ~ . ~~ ,)"0
. .. /..-F ao..
< ..'?'J Þ"/,
~ ),.,-: -..!
~~·~·..I:
~ ..=..:....1t:· :J/
~·~..7 ->,;,
"- ~_.~ ..--/
,
/
,\INDy 1f,IL
o~
~..~"
fl
~
~
~'þ
@:
o~, r:J:=
:....." ........
11115 ,.
11tl 1110
~..O-·
þIf'!...... --
CIVIC ASSOCIATION
A~
'JDI VifM..
'1._
':.·:uoO
- ..
']GO\)..
.... ....
~
-:II . -
._-,,--
.--
--
-
11110", ':
. . f .{í.... ",.,.0
--"" .....
klhc...
~lI-'1
.p:" P..~~
í1Í~ 1'" 111S '9!Þ ~..s
:133Z 'DI '80 'Wr _ Q
rO=,...01::. a.&:, O~ O~'" 7so;.4
.: ..~. ....,... WI-. ..'.,. PI,,:-"-;-J ·
. ,
j¡.
II
SunriseJ:UUs CÑiC.Asso-.Ciation
II
Hello neighbors. Spring has arrived and the first thing we do is
collect association dues of $65. Please send your check to our
treasurer by April 15.
Sunrise Hills Association clo Donald Huseth7332 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, MN
55317
We have all the traditional activities planned for the coming year beginning with
the Easter egg hunt on April 22. Katie Trent sends you a flyer With details. Please
show up for the beach lot cleanup the Saturday before, April 15 at 9 AM. Bids for
summer moWing of the beach lot will be accepted by Ed Nye up until Apri/10.
Please contact Ed if you are interested in making a bid. Also contact Ed to
reserve the beach lot for large events. The other event we'd like you to think
about is the Annual Spring Meeting and Progressive Dinner. Rita and Jim Waletski
will host the meeting and hordeurve course. If neighbors volunteer soon to host
the salad (. homes), main course (. homes) or dessert close (1 home) planning
time will be saved as we all become busier in the spring. You may call Therese
Berquist or Dwight/Rose Koning.
We are lucky to have such a close neighborhood-and to have a wondeñuJ
beach lot to enjoy our Minnesota summer. Help keep the association going
strong by volunteering and taking part in activities whenever you can! Let's
encourage those we haven't seen in a while to join us in the fun.
The current board members on behalf of the association members thank the
outgoing board members.
Clllnll., or Evelll
Beach lot cleanup .........................., April 15
Easter egg hunt............................... April 22
Spring mtgIProgressive dinner ........ May 20
Summer picnic ............,..................... July 15
Fall beach lot cleanup....".................... Sept 30
Fall meeting......................,................. Oct 14
Winterfest........................................... Dec IO
Therese Berquist, president
Charlie Robbins, vice president
Donald Huseth, treasurer
Ed Nye, beach lot chair
Katie Trent, secretary
Konings, social directors
^'1· ~)
())) /6)\
Ç'II)~\ v
o ~~h
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5,2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
890 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of
Lake Shore Lot
APPUCANT: David Ige'
LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant.
of David 1ge1 for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel Into 2 single family ,
lots on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise HUls 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive.
Lucas IgeI Addition.
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 Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments. It Is helpful
to have one copy to the department In advanca of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published In the Chanhassen Villager on August 24,2000.
i(P
@O~t!i
JaSel
IERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN
J FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
¡RISE HILLS
CHARLES ROBBINS
) LONG VIEW CIR
\NHASSEN MN 55317
JERT H GREELEY
I FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
JERT H GREELEY
I FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
.IS A BOVY
¡ FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
RLEY ANN NAVRATIL
I FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
D L CUNEO JR
; FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
L M & WENDY M WIENS
3 FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
;AN LJOHNSON
1 FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
-INIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN
:¡ FRONTIER TRL
\NHASSEN MN 55317
.'
:Ç Je.-I
RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE
7307 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN
7305 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DA VID 0 & RACHEL IGEL
7303 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS
7301 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALAN & ANNABEL FOX
7300 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD
7302 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOK
7304 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FELIX & LOIS WHITE
PO BOX 96
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARS
7307 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WAYNE L& KATHLEEN J MADER
400 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
s)aqel SSaJpp\f
®AlI:I^"ii
JOHN H HARMER &
CAROL WALTER
402 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER
404 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISS
406 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT SA VITT &
JEANNE BORGSTROM
408 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN
410 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH
7332 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI
7334 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON
7336 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES & LINDA MADY
7338 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI
7340 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICKF & KATHRYN APAVELK
7203 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST
7207 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HELEN BIELSKI
7209 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY
7211 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JON H & JANET B HOLLER
7206 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J THIELGES &
TERESE WEST
7208 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSEPH & KA THELEEN WITKEWICS
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
7210 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL & ELLEN DlFFERDING
7228 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R& DORTHEA F SHAY
7230 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT
7213 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE K & SUSAN C SA VIK
7215 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO
7301 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID J WOLLAN &
SUSAN K LlPPKA
7303 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS
7305 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
imooth Fl'l'tI c;h....tc TM
Mr. Bill Kirkvold
Colonial Point Homeowner's
Association
20] Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
___h____., _ __
Mr. Herb LaPlatt
Lotus Lake Bètterment Association
at Colonial Grove
7012 Cheyenne Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504
¡hassen, MN 55317
-
Use template for 5160(5)
Á
Mrs. Peg Kirkvold
Frontier Trail Homeowner's
Association
20] Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kurvers Point Homeowner's
Association
7241 Kurvers Pt. Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
<
¿
/
Mr. Steven Bloom
Lotus Lake Estates HOA
Association
6781 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
"
VIler's
Mr. Steven Erickson
Pleasant Acres Homeowner's
Association
3850 Leslee Curve
Exclesior, MN 55331
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
August 30, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, Plat Discrepancies (I lakeshore, 1 non-Iakeshore)
This is to call attention to erroneous data and other discrepancies by the developer and staff for the
proposed subdivision of this lakeshore lot. The developer has submitted two preliminary plats for his
alternative to the 21akeshore lats. Followin is a list of the lats submitted to date:
No. Date
I 2/11100
2 3/8/00
3 3/30/00
4 4/20/00
5 4/20/00
6 7113/00
7 8/4/00
2lakeshore 3/15/00 Plannin Commission Mt
2 lakeshore ot I: 5 sided; Lot 2: 6 sided .
2 lakeshore.
2 lakeshore
llakeshore
2lakeshore ot I: 6-7? sided; Lot 2: 5-6? sided 7/18/00 PC Mt .
llakeshore (7-sided), 1 non-Iakeshore (6-sided) [9/5/00 PC Mtg.]
Added 60x60 ad.
DESCREPANCIES ON LATEST PLAT (Plat #7 (8/4/00), llakeshore, 1 non-Iakeshore).
#1. 100-ft lot width required at front buildinl! line. The location of a proposed building on Lot 1
(non-lakeshore) violates code. There must be a lot width of 100 ft before a ITont building setback line
can exist (Sec. 20-615). Both lots are accessed by a private street, and require a 100-ft lot width at the
ITont building setback line (a line parallel to the road right-of-way). The building window (buildable
area) is inaccurately depicted on both plats.
The proposed building is located too close to the cul-de-sac, and deceptively exaggerates the impact on
adjacent properties (loss of trees, proximity to adjacent property, etc.). The intent was to make a 2
lakeshore plat the lesser of two evils. The developer did not alter the location of the house ITom the
4/20/00 plat even though it was called to his attention at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting,
We are waiting on a ruling ITom the city attomey on the 100-ft requirement.
#2. 20..ft setback from the private street (Shoreland Ordinance). Both lots fall in the categoìy of
shoreland. The building window requires a 2o.ft setback from the private street ("streets not
classified". Refer to Sec. 20.1 for definition of shoreland and Sec. 20-481 .
Sec.20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of
the classification of the waterbody:
Setback From: Setback (in feet)
4 Ri ht-of-wa line of town road, ublic streets, or other roads or streets not classified. 20
For Lot 1 (non-Iakeshore), staff says the private street traversing the north side of the lot (providing
access to Lot 2 (lake shore) requires a 10-ft setback on each side of the private street. This results in
1 ,,---...
,,-7/
a 30-ft width along the north side that is unbuildable. Sec. 20-481 states that an additional 20-ft
setback is required on the south side of this private street resulting in a total of 50 ft along the north
side of the lot which cannot be included in the building window. The DNR has stated that "streets-not
classified" are included in the definition of a private street. The city has not responded to this item on
our Deficiency List of July 8.
#3. Lot area excludes area occuDied bv street ril!hts-of-wav. The lot area for Lot I (non-lakeshore)
must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface
requirement (Sec. 20-485) for Lot 1.
The City Attorney in his letter of Apr 17 to Bob Generous (see Staff Report) references the definition
oflot area:
Chapter 20 Zoning
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot area means the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the ITont, side or rear lot lines, but not
including any area occupied by the waters oflakes or rivers or by street rilZhts-of-way.
Street - a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements
of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting
property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector,
avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying with the
recedin re uirements.
Lot 1 is traversed by a private street. The area included in the right of way (IO-ft driveway/street plus
10ft on each side) must be excluded ITom the lot area. The impacts the impervious surface for Lot 1
because the impervious surface area remains the same, while the total lot area is reduced by about 5 100
ft2 (170 x 30).
The staff response (June 6) stated that the city only excludes public right-of-way ITom lot area
calculations (but not private right-of-way). We disagree with that interpretation. The definition for a
street includes public and private right-of-way~ We have asked the city for a ruling from the city
attorney.
#4. Lenl!th oflot line incorrect. The length of the south lot line for Lot 1 (non-lakeshore) is shown
as 266.23 ft. The actual length is 262.23 ft.
Cordially,
;ldÞAL~
'Gerald W. Paulsen
,
Debbie Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
August 30, 2000
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Please review the document Sunrise Hills Association Established 1957 attached. Information was provided
by the City of Chanhassen , and all numbers have been rounded down. This is the most accurate information on
lot size and lakeshore frontage compiled to illustrate lot size, and lakeshore frontage for all additions in Sunrise
Hills and lots within 500 ft of the Igel property.
We consider all additions of Sunrise Hills our neighborhood. Sunrise Hills is registered with the State of
Minnesota, we hold regular annual meetings, planned social functions and maintain a beach outlot which area
and lakeshore frontage was not included in this analysis.
I have separately provided a petition from Sunrise Hills residents who are opposed to the Igel subdivision.
Respectfully submitted.
~~
Debbie Lloyd
~/~
SSOCIAnON LOT SIZE
Mouse NumÞer
.
/
·-39
40 I
'-41 -t
42--]
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Lot 13 BIoeI< 1
Lot 12 BJock 1
Lot 1.4 Block 1
1.oI11B1Dçk1
Lot1SBlcek1
LoI 10 Block 1
Lot 16 Block 1
Lo19 Block 1
51
52 I
53
54
55
56
57
Lo11BIoek2
Lot2BIock2
Lo13BIock2
Lot.4BIock2
LoI 5 Block 2
Lo18BJock2
LoI1BIod<3
58
59
50
61
Avera
SUNRISE HILlS
NEIGHBORHOOD
STANDARDS
SUNRISE HILLS
ESTABLISHED 1957
i O.l.'.A...
Add- (rounded
Itlon down}
2 17942
2 20458
2 22670
2 24074
2 23390
2 23441
2 22193
2 20117
2 20307
2 31135
2 36734
4 31807
2 18024
2 15442
2 15433
1 15509
1 15446
1 15399
1 13784
1 15098
,
1
,
1
,
1
, I
1
36370
24402
13846
47127
15399
32331
15893
17562
Lake.hore
Frontage
150
145
120
110
70
112
153
150
1010
12£.25
·7343 Frontier Trail is within 500 ft 01 property, bul nol Sunrise Hills
1# of Frontier Trell Lot 8nd
Lots {southslde} Block
1 7194 LotSBkx:Il3
2 7196 Lollll8lock3
3 7198 Lot 7 Bkx:Il 3
4 7200 Lot 8 BIoek 3
5 7206 Lot981ock3
8 7208 LoI10BIoeIo:3
7 7210 Lot 1181oc:k 3
8 7212 Lo112B1oe1o:3
9 7214 Lo113BIock3
10 1216 Lot 1.4 Block 3
11 7218 Lot1SIS1oc:k3
12 7320 Lol3 Block 1
13 I 7228 Lo1I 8Iock3
14 7228 Lot 20 Block 3
15 7230 Lot21BIock3
16 7332 LoI 7BIock 2
17 7334 Lot 8 BJod¡2
18 7336 Lot 9810ek 2
19 7338 Lot 10 Block 2
20 7340 Lol11 Block 2
Frontier Trall- Northslde
21 7201 Lot 1B1ock 1 i 2 57964
22 I 7203 -+Lot2BIock1 2 44021
23 I 7207 I~ 2 I 2 23430
24 72õ9--t~~2 2 I 21409
- 25:-" 7211 ILot3 Block 2 I 2 ~ 23763
r---36 T 7213 ILot181ock1 T 2 26244
27 7215 Lol2BIock2 2! 22999
~_ í 7301 ILot3BkJck2 2 20313 I
291' 7303 'Lot.4BIock2 2 _.~ 196311
?O~ !Lot 5 Block 2 2' 21099
3~ LoI 17810ck 1 1 15363
32--1 7329 ILot 8 Block 1 1! 14118
33 7331 Lot 7 Block 1 '~3995
34 I 7333 I Lot 6 Bloçk1 1 I 13950
35 ~ 7335 LoI S Block 1 I 1 í14õ37
36 I - 7337 ILot.4BIoek 1 I 1 40233
3f.~ .7339 ,Lof3 Block 1 W 19359
38 I 7341 ¡ 1 I
: (1!057prUS~_1) ILot1281ock~_1 21348
Kiowa I i I
7200 ¡Lot 1, B1ock3- 2 22658 I
7202 ¡!Lot2,BIock3 I ~3200
7204 Lo13,B1ock3 2 I 67490
7203 Lot4, Block 3 2 I 21463
LA''''''
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
730.
7307
HI hland
400
402
404
40.
40.
410
401
Lon ow
7340 LoI S. Block 1
7320 Lot... Block 1
7321 Lot 2. 8Iock 1
7361 LotI,BIock1
7343°FrontJer Trail
I Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17341
13932
14047
14005
14030
15310
17070
4
4
4
4
19547
19962
19527
14246
1368435
22432.21
22,432 FT
AVO
LOT AREA
ALL LOTS
I
--1
I
Lakeshore
Lot.OJ.S.
A'..
57964
44021
I
i
i
I
o.
"40233
19359
21348
Lots Within
500 FT G.I.S.
Area
Lakeshore
Frontage Lots
within 500 FT
-
36370
24402
47127
290824
36353
23380
23441
22193
15433
15509
1544.
15399
13784
15096
44021
23430
21409
23763
26244
22999
20313
19631
21099
15363
14118
13995
13950
14037
40233
19359
150
145
--
I
--
r--
,-~
110
70
21348
I
T-
-
"--
36370
24402 112
13848 153
47127
15399 150
32331
15893
17562
17341
13932
14047
14005
14030
15310
17070
57594 320
901262 1330
21458.62
147.78
126 FTAVO 38,353FT 21,459FT I 147FTAVG
LAKESHORE AVO LOT AVO LOT LAKESHORE
AREA AREA OF OF LOTS
LAKESHORE LOTS WfTHIN¡ WITHIN 500 FT
LOTS 500 FT
I
alllOlswilh 1sladd1
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
...
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
John F. Kelly
Matthew J, Foli
Marguerite M. McCarron
Gina M. Brandt
Thomas J, Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J. Jamnik
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215
E-nuûl Address: rknutson@l:k-law.com
·A!soIú:fTW!djnW¡~((Jnsin
August 31 , 2000
FiE.CFiVFO
SEP 0 5 2000
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
en Y ür \jí1A¡~ri"tìSEN
RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDITION
Dear Bob:
You asked me to respond to a series of statements made by the Paulsens. Their statements
and my response to each follows:
STATEMENT:
A lot requires a 60 by 60 foot building pad.
RESPONSE: Section 18-61 of the City Code [the subdivision ordinance] provides that "in
single family detached residential development the applicant must demonstrate that
suitable home site exists on each lot by describing a sixty foot by sixty foot building
pad...." The purpose of this provision is to ensure that every lot has a large enough
area to construct a home. Staff has interpreted this provision as not requiring an exact
60 by 60 foot pad, but rather a reasonably shaped area with the square footage.
Staff's interpretation is reasonable because it satisfies the intent of the requirement. An
ordinance amendment is being processed that would codify staff's interpretation.
STATEMENT:
The 90 foot lot width required by shoreland ordinance must be met at both the
OHW line and at the building line.
RESPONSE: In the Shoreland Overlay District Section 20-480(a){4) requires that lot width
requirements be met at both the ordinary high water level and the building setback
line.
STATEMENT:
Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet.
RESPONSE: Section 20-615 of the City Code provides:
Suite 317 . Eagand'ale Office Center' ·
,~
1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 c:J;
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
August 31, 2000
Page 2
''The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at
the front building setback line, "
The only reasonable interpretation of the requirement is that it only applies to lots that
don't have direct frontage on a street. All. or virtually all. lots have driveways. If it is
interpreted to mean that any lot with a driveway has to meet this requirement then the
provision would apply to all lots and the provision would serve no purpose.
STATEMENT:
On the 2 lake shore plat (see attached plat). Lot 2 (south lot) Is an irregularly
shaped lot with 5 sides. The east-west lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the
private street crosses from Lot 1 Into Lot 2, defines the front lot line for Lot 2. The
rear lot line for Lot 2 is therefore the east-west lot line on the south sIde of the lot
(line terminating at the lake).
RESPONSE: The lot does not have a "front lot line" as that term is defined in Section 20-1
of the City Code: "Lot line,front means the lot line separating a lot from a street right-ol-way. In
the case of a corner lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street." For lots not
abutting a street Section 20-615(6)(0) provides: "The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the
public right-ol-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite
from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines." This provision is not
easily applied to the lot because two lot lines converge in a paint at the location
closest to the nearest public right-of-way. When the interpretation or application of a
zoning ordinance provision is debatable, the interpretation that is the least restrictive
applies. SLS PartnershiD v. Citv of ADDle Vallev. 5I1 NW2d 738 (Minn. 1994). Using this rule of
construction, either the northerly lot line or the south-westerly lot line is the front lot line,
whichever results in the least restrictive setback.
STATEMENT:
The definition for a lot states It Is an area of land undivided by any public street or
approved prIvate road.
RESPONSE: Shared driveways are not excluded in calculating lot area. A shared
driveway does not "divide" a lot into two lots. This interpretation is consistent with
common sense and well established past practice in interpreting the provision. If it
were otherwise, then the area on both sides of a driveway would both have to meet
minimum lot size requirements.
STATEMENT:
For determining Impervious surface area, the area occupied by street rlghts-of-
way must be excluded from total lot area. At the same time, the total impervious
surface must still Include the area covered by building, decks, street rights-of.
way, etc.
~~
RESPONSE: Section 20-1 of the City Code defines lot area as "the area of a horizontal plan
bounded by the front, side, or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
August 31, 2000
Page 3
rivers or by street rights-oI-way." Shared private driveways are not excluded from lot area
requirements. This is consistent with the City's past practice in interpreting the Code.
Since the driveway is an impervious surface it is included in calculating the allowed
impervious surface coverage.
If you have any questions. please call.
RNK:srn
cc: Scott Botcher
R
/On
. nu so
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak,
UIi Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE
LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND
LOCATED ON LOT 11. BLOCK 1. SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION. 7303 LAREDO DRIVE.
LUCAS IGEL ADDITION. DAVID IGEL.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jerry & Jan Paulsen
Fred Cuneo
Arlis Bovy
Shirley Navratil
Don Huseth
Helen Bielski
Eunice Peters
Joel & Wendy Wiers
Ann & Ron Kleve
Norbert Kerber
Bob & Cathy Greeley
Joel S. Jenkins
Mary Ellen Kuhi
7305 Laredo Drive
7335 Frontier Trail
7339 Frontier Trail
7337 Frontier Trail
7332 Frontier Trail
7209 Frontier Trail
730 I Laredo Drive
7333 Frontier Trail
7307 Laredo Drive
7216 Frontier Trail
734 I Frontier Trail
7305 Frontier Trail
2703 Chesmar Fann Road, Excelsior
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Bob?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chainnan, I have a question. The house pad that you discussed that would need to be
shifted, does that need to appear on this plat at all for approval?
Generous: No.
Kind: Yeah so, I think maybe just get rid of any house footprint kind of information for council. And
same with tree preservation or tree removal. That does not need to be identified either.
);"'"
" ,
/i..,/
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Generous: Well it would, if they shift the house pad it would change so we'd have to revise that. Some
of the trees that they proposed removing may not have to be removed. Other ones may be moved.
Kind: Right. But as far as approving this subdivision we do not need to see a tree removal plan. That
would be something that when they're going to actually come in through the approval process for a
particular home plan.
Generous: Correct.
Kind: Okay. That's all for now.
Peterson: VIi.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. Ijust want to confinn, and you made comment in the report that both plats are
going to be forwarded to the council meaning that the two lakeshore option as well as the two stacked
lots, is that correct?
Generous: That is correct.
Sacchet: And then my second question is, there was a list of concerns that were raised that were
submitted to the city attorney and as far as I was able to understand the language from the city attorney,
all these issues have been reasonably settled, correct?
Generous: That's correct. It's the last attachment to the report are his responses to that. He summarized
them rather than doing a point by point detail review ofthis.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: So and then the plat itself stands alone as complying with the ordinance.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah two quick ones, Bob or Dave. Drainage down the road. How do you prevent that from
being, I know we were asking for more erosion. Or looking for erosion control but in tenns of having a
drive that's aimed at the lake. What, how do you prevent severe drainage coming down that incline?
Hempel: Mr. Chainnan, Planning Commissioners. The proposed development will not significantly
increase the amount of runoff currently going down the driveway or has been over the past few years.
One method to divert the drainage would be to overlay the driveway to shift the drainage to one side of
the driveway or the other to have it filtered through the grasses of the yard or so forth. There is a pretty
substantial distance between the end of the driveway and the lake, 75 feet. And given the amount of
runoff down the driveway, it's relatively small to be pre-treated. Staff believes that the existing lawn and
wooded area will address any runoff concerns to the lake.
Conrad: So you haven't made your final recommendation on that Dave, or have you? In terms of how
the driveway really gets, pushes the water off.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Hempel: We don't believe that the driveway as it exists today, it's created any real problems on the site.
And what they're proposing really won't intensity the current driveway.
Conrad: What's the angle of the drive? Is that a significant decline?
Hempel: Not really. Again there's sufficient distance between the lake and the end of the driveway.
The driveway in the staff report we're referring to is from the existing driveway to the proposed house
pad. Wasn't relatively steep. 10% grade. By shifting the elevation of that house pad down I foot would
resolve that. So even by relocating the house pad on the lot would also, we'd have to look at the
driveway grades but we're comfortable and confident that the 10% or less can be achieved.
Conrad: Okay, second question. Vii brought it up. I don't understand why we're sending two plats to
the City Council. We're making a motion tonight and two is not what we're making a motion.
Generous: The previous plat was reviewed and the Planning Commission recommended denial. That
plat's going forward. This is a separate plat that they're coming through the process with so we're
reviewing them both.
Conrad: Okay.
Peterson: Any further comments? Questions? Thank you Bob. Would the applicant or their designee
wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Were they planning on coming or not, do you know?
Generous: They were planning the last 1 knew. I haven't talked to them since last week though.
Peterson: Okay. Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, my name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. We're neighbors
to the proposed subdivision, as you know. This evening I'd like to present you with a mission
impossible. Your mission, should you choose to undertake it is to be convinced that the data on this plat
is completely compliant with city's code. I've given you a sketch, and I'll label it Item A. Representing
the upper non-Iakeshore lot from this August 4th plat that you're reviewing tonight. It's a one page
handout, and I don't know if I need an overhead necessarily to explain it to you since you have a copy but
just in case. The purpose is to demonstrate that the impervious surface represented on this sketch by the
proposed building, the deck and the driveway exceeds the 25% limit on the property area. In fact the
impervious surface figure given by the developer on the plat is understated by about 340 square feet. I'm
talking about now the upper lot only. I didn't do any measurements on the lower lot but that has more
property on it so it may not be a problem there. You look at the summary table that is in the lower left
hand comer of this sketch you'll see that the proposed impervious surface that the developer says he has
is 5,420 square feet and I have two columns there. One for the previous plat, the April 20th plat and the
August 4th plat, so nothing has changed. The figures are identical. Likewise, the upper, the allowable
coverage has not changed either which is 5438. He just squeaked in by ] 8 feet under the 25% according
to his figures anyway. Of the allowable figure. Now if you look at the lower half of the table you'll see
3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
a section which I titled actual data, which is some rough calculations that I've done and I've rounded up
to square figures on each of these, on the house, the deck, and the proposed driveway here. And you'll
see that there's a little bit of difference because I've calculated and figured the 5,780 square feet, which
is about 340 square feet over what the developer says he has on the plat. I'm saying that he's understated
it by about 340 square feet. If you looked at the upper right hand comer of the sketch you also see an
area identified as Area I, which is dotted in there. This slashed line is the old property line on the Inkle
plat. The darker line is the new property line. They moved the property line over about 15, 14 or 15 feet
to the east. So therefore the driveway has been extended by an additional 14 feet or whatever. 10 feet
wide. That amounts to about 145 square feet I'm seeing. Likewise, he didn't have quite 20 feet but add
18 feet on the driveway entrance over on the cul-de-sac so I added another 70 square feet for that. And if
you take the total of all those figures, I'm coming up with about 5,995 square feet or about 550 square
feet over the 25% limit. So I'm saying that the plat is inaccurate in that respect and in fact the
developer's exceeding the impervious surface by that 550 square feet or so. Personally I found it, I was
unable to complete my mission of proving to myself that the developer met his impervious surface so you
can judge for yourself I guess on that. Moving on to the issue which has come up before, is the ruling on
the 60 x 60 pad which the city attorney now says is not an actual 60 x 60. Rather it's an area, it's
interpreted to be an area of3,600 square feet and we were arguing previously that in reality it was an
actual 60 x 60. The attorney ruled in his ruling, he said that staff has interpreted to mean this is not a
literal 60 x 60, but rather 3,600 square feet of a reasonable shaped area. So the attorney says that this is a
staff definition and I think he's kind of evading the issue himself. He's saying staff interprets this way
and therefore that's the way it is. Furthennore there's no definition of what a reasonably shaped area is.
Whether it's 20 x 180 or whatever. The city is saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be the 60 x 60.
In your August 15th Planning Commission meeting you remember toward the end you were looking at
some changes in code and one of the proposed changes was to eliminate the reference to the 60 x 60.
And because staff thought that was not consistent with the other pads that were mentioned the 40 x 60 for
the wetland. The 40 x 60 for the PUD. And so the staff s position was that the less restrictive choice
was the way to go. And so staff told the Planning Commission that if they eliminated, if this 60 x 60 was
eliminated from Chapter 18, it said the Planning Commission didn't have to give approval on it because
it could be passed directly onto the City Council. And we asked the staff, is it they intended to propose
this change to the City Council but, and what implications that might have as far as deciding this
particular proposed split, and we didn't get a specific reply from that yet. And I did state it, I mean I
thought it was rather unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game from the standpoint of
eliminating a 60 x 60. The city attorney has stated that an ordinance amendment is being processed that
it would codify this interpretation so he's saying the city is going ahead with this independent of what the
council, or the Planning Commission might say. In the vernacular, the 60 x 60 pad is referred to by the
staff as the glitch ordinance and it's a glitch because if applied properly it would require a variance in
this case we believe. Our research shows that what is now a 60 x 60 pad was originally a 50 x 50 and it
was in fact enlarged because of the implications of construction on roots of trees and the impact of that to
allow a buffer to penn it, to eliminate possibly damage to the trees. So it was increased to a 60 x 60 at
some point in the past history. The 60 x 60 pad is shown as being about 3 feet away from the private
street on this plat where in fact we believe it should be at least, requires the structural setback of 20 feet
according to 20-481 because it falls under the category of streets not classified. If you look at the
definition of streets not classified, the DNR says that's the same as a private street and it falls under, all
in the same category of private streets, private driveways, or railroad which is the case for this proposed
development. And we don't believe that the plat allows for this setback at this point. The window is in
error and in fact the 60 x 60 cannot appear where it does on the plat. The staff report also states that
there's a question of whether the non-Iakeshore must meet a 90 or a 100 width at the building setback
line. It goes onto state that the plat could comply with the lot requirement, but it fails to say that the plat
does not comply with the lot width requirement. Staff is saying, trust me. That the 60 x 60 or the 90
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
foot, or 100 foot lot width could be accommodate a 60 x 60 pad even though you can't legally see it on
the plat right now. One other fascinating aspect of the proposed lots is that they've evolved into a many
sided polygon. The lower lot, or the upper lot is now a 6 sided lot, and the lakeshore lot has gone to 7
sides. So there depends on whether you consider a point to be another line, there could be more property
lines in this plot than we see of6 or 7. And the choice of front, rear and side lots becomes somewhat
arbitrary we believe. The choice of measuring lot width and depth becomes a little more obtuse and
difficult to measure I think when you get into irregularly shaped lots like this. And the question is, does
the city really want to encourage development of polygonal lots like this? Which leaves some space to
come to different conclusions I think. So if the city needs some advice on whether to accept the, or reject
the plat for this one lakeshore or not, I think I just refer you back to the words that were in the old, the
previous staff reports. It says the one up, one down does not continue the patter of lot and house
placement that exists currently in Sunrise Hills. The alternate plan, which is the one lakeshore, one non-
lakeshore has significant visual impact on the neighborhood. The alternate plan significantly impacts the
amount of tree removal, increasing the canopy loss from 8 to 22% of the canopy coverage. Assuming the
percentage figures are correct in this case, which I haven't looked at. The alternate plan would stack the
houses altering the pattern of development and the alternate plan would also eliminate almost all the
views of the lake and be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. The alternate plat is not the best
for the city and the neighborhood. Those are the city's words and the developer's words as a matter of
fact so, they're not our words. The developer is now saying, don't take me seriously about all these bad
things I said about the last time around because this is a good plan he's saying. In conclusion then I'd
say that the developer has kind of tacitly admitted by going through multiple revisions of the plat that
he's attempting to meet code but is still having trouble doing it. He has come up with short in complying
with the code as far as we're concerned, and either way you cut it, building two large homes in the place
of one would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and we believe this plat being reviewed
this evening does notmeet code and we would encourage you to deny the application. Thank you.
Peterson: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Paulsen? Thank you. Anyone else?
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I've been drawing pictures too.
Now two different owners have tried to split this lot up and down and there are three ways to split it by
code. In Section 18-60 it says all lots shall abut their full requiring minimum frontage on a publicly
dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance, or on a private street or flag lot. Now the minimum
frontage for a publicly dedicated street is found in Section 20-615 and it is 90 feet. So obviously this lot
does not front. Let me get to the... It doesn't front on a street so that can't be divided that way. So the
remaining two are either a flag lot or a private street. The owners have chosen the private street route.
So this is the private street here. And this is the paved area marked with the stripes. The city has
admitted that this is a private street. Not driveway but a private street. It says in the code, Section] 8-57.
It must be located within a strip of property at least 30 feet wide and extending out to the public right-of-
way or covered by a 30 foot wide easement that is pennanently recorded for all benefited impacted
parcels. As the private street again. Now, there are shoreland regulations about private streets and
driveways. In Section 20-484 the Shoreland Code, it says roads, driveways and parking areas shall meet
structured setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones when other reasonable
and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas
and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. The structure setback is 10 feet from the property
line. So the private street must be 10 feet from the property line, and I have that marked here. In Section
20-481, additional structure setbacks, the following structure setbacks apply. The setbacks from the
right-of-way line of a town road public streets or other roads or streets not classified. As the DNR has
said, that's a private street. 20 feet. Here's the 30 feet for the private road and here's 20 feet. Here's the
100 foot frontage which we maintain you must have since both of these lots are as specified a private
5
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
road. Not a driveway, but a private road. A driveways come off the private road. This is his buildable
area. It doesn't meet the 60 x 60 feet. The 60 x 60 feet was set up for woodland areas specifically. It's
important. There are beautiful trees in there and they should be protected. The other way to divide the
lot, if! take the flag lot. They didn't choose the flag lot route but I think this is what the previous
owners, the Baird's children had asked about. On a flag lot they have specific directions on the
prevailing develop, planning and so forth, but a neck lot, flag lot means that a lot does not provide the
full required frontage on the public right-of-way but rather is served by a narrow neck of land that
extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide. So here it is, 30 feet
wide. The striped area is the driveway. This is the lot line. This is the flag. They can't include this
property as part of their Jot area according to code. If this fellow wanted to have his own driveway, it
would look like that. And it has to separate itself because ofthe shore land rules from this property by 10
feet. Which leaves him with this buildable area right here since the 90 foot frontage for his property...
It doesn't meet the 60 x 60. 60 x 60's important. The city lawyers admitted, it's in the code now. He
says you changed the law to make it codified according to how the planning department is interpreting it,
or has been using it. But it's not accurate. In conclusion I'd like to say the city has picked a favorite.
First of all, why weren't the Baird children told of the private road easement option? They were told
they needed a serious variance to build a...serious variance according to the real estate agent, which I
talked to. She said that they didn't meet the 90 foot requirement. As you can see the 90 feet is right up
there with no real buildable area. It was such a serious variance she didn't recommend that they really go
ahead with it. In May while we were waiting for the latest city report on the up and down lot, the Igel's
called us and asked for a meeting saying they had the report and could they discuss the situation. They
had the report but we couldn't get the report. They arrived and asked us, what do you want? And I said,
we want you to live on the lot in a single house and join our association. Be part of our neighborhood as
full members. May I add now, we wanted them to enjoy their lakeshore and raise their boy to enjoy his
trees and his wild area with the owls and the woodpeckers. The little boy birthday parties running
through the woods. That's what we want. She said it's not going to happen. We bought the lot to split
it. I asked for the city report. She finally gave it to me and I started to read it and she said I didn't like
the way this conversation was going and she snatched it away. It was my neighbor who went and got the
city report for us to read. Otherwise we would have had to wait for several days before the meeting.
Why is my city behaving this way? We've lived here for 30 years. We've been good citizens in good
standing. I don't think this is fair and now when we prove they need a variance, they want to change the
code. They want to change shore land code. They want to change the 60 x 60 and I think it's outrageous.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mary Ellen Kuhi: My name is Mary Ellen Kuhi and I live at 2703 Chesmar Fann Road in Chanhassen
and when I read the notice I was absolutely outraged that the Planning Commission may allow this. That
is such a beautiful piece of property with so much wildlife and so many beautiful trees. We don't have
access on 5 or 41 for that many people. When I came home from work tonight, I came home at 6:30 and
it was absolutely impossible. The traffic on Highway 5. We are turning, I've been here for 5 years and
you are turning the city of Chanhassen into suburban sprawl, very much like I've seen in Arizona and in
parts of California. And it just seems like any builder who comes out here and wants to build gets the
penn it to build. And I'm really sick of it. I have seen it in the last 5 years, the population almost triple
out here. And we moved out here to have some peace and country. The wildlife don't have anyplace to
go anymore and I am simply sick of it. I don't know what's going on at city hall. I'm very naYve
politically but I just can't see why you continue to allow the incredible growth without really thinking
about the wetlands, the wildlife, the trees and the ecological ramifications of this kind of rapid, rapid
growth in Chanhassen.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Debbie Lloyd: HeIlo. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to give you
a handout first. I wish the Igel's were here this evening and I hope that we don't find that we're like not
in proper order by addressing this without them here. Could that be the case?
Peterson: They don't need to be here.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. What I handed you is a 3 page letter that Rachel Igel walked around our
neighborhood on July 17th, the night before the last meeting we had with you. And the second part of
that is a letter that she had attached and brought with this letter through our neighborhood. And there
was a neighbor who addressed this and made a comment about it, that she didn't like the tactic being
used but I'm going to use this letter tonight to point out a few things. In paragraph 2, the first buIlet
point. It says after a major investment in time and money we closed on the property in January of2000
with the understanding from the Chanhassen planning department that the property could be subdivided
within the constraints of the city code. I'm asking why the planning department would agree to this for
the Igel's when compared to the comments in the attached letter from JoAnn Leitby, and I'm not sure if
that's how you pronounce her name, but in paragraph 4. Ms. WeIlman by the way is the realtor. Also
Ms. WeIlman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that we'd be
able to subdivide. However, she told us that if we wanted to put the time and effort into the project, we
could pursue obtaining a variance from the city ofChanhassen and then seIl the lot as subdividable, if
and when we obtained city approval. There's a profound difference between the manner in which the
planning department handled the question by different parties. It's profound. Two different answers for
the same question. I want to know why. I really want to know why. Referring back to the Igelletter of
July 18th, on page 2. I want to point out some more misleading statements. Bullet point 2. Although we
will be subdividing the property, the average size of the lots will still be 30% larger than the average lot
in the surrounding neighborhood. Lot area on the plats presented are, and you know we differ with the
plat. We're not convinced that the plats are accurate. I think you've seen that in the discussion from the
Paulsen's, But the lot area presented is 2 1,752 feet for Lot], 25,749 feet for Lot 2. If these calculations
are accurate, Lot I meets the average lot size. However Lot 2 is a lakeshore lot and lakeshore lots
average 36,353 feet. So the lot they're proposing on the lakeshore is 29% less than the average lakeshore
lot in the neighborhood, and if you look with, if you look on the lot averages that I included in your
packet for tonight you'll see lots within Sunrisè Hills. Lots within 500 feet. And you'll see what those
averages are. Furthermore, if Lot I were represented as a flag lot, which indeed it reaIly is, then the lot
area of the upper lot actuaIly comes down to about 17,000 square feet. And that's 22% less than the
average lot within the neighborhood and within 500 square feet. That's what I wanted to point out this
e\'ening. ] still want to make it on record, and] still want an acceptable answer why the shoreline
regulation file is missing from the city. It's still missing. I questioned it when I went and picked up the
packets. I think it's unacceptable that a vital file like that. We're so proud of our lakeshore and our
regulations, and all the history is gone. ] think that's terrible. I don't know what kind of record keeping
goes on up there. I don't know what Bob did with the file. He's the last one who had it. I think it should
be produced. Thank you.
Don Huseth: My name is Don Huseth. I live on 7332 Frontier Trail. I've been there since 1966. We
love the neighborhood, The kids all grew up there. And now I'm there alone. I have a beautiful lot on
Laredo Drive and Frontier Trail. And if this baby goes through I want to split that lot in 3. I can put 3
houses on that lot. Won't have much grass to mow, but if you can afford this and go through these
ordinances, throw them out, take some new ones, then I'd like to put 3 houses on my lot and you should
be very agreeable to that. You'd have a lot more tax money. So I have been foIlowing along with this
and I'm very disappointed that it was agreed on to let them do this without having a little more
information, or at least looking over the ordinances that were in effect. And I think we should stick with
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
the old ordinances, or maybe we should throw out the Constitution of the United States and then we
could start all from scratch again. And that's about all I've got to say tonight. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: The public bearing is closed. Bob or Kate, any response to any of the issues or should we go
onto discussion?
Aanenson: Just to be clear, it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. They have a different
interpretation of the DNR rules but it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. And as
Commissioner Kind pointed out, I think if you take that house out, that may resolve some of that. We
can show the 100 foot line. Have the architect do that. Or the engineer, excuse me, but it can meet the
60. Obviously there's a different interpretation ofthat DNR and where we believe the common driveway
stops and the rest of the private driveway, there is nO setback.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Will you speak to the 100 foot line versus the 90 foot
line as far as your interpretation as where that needs to be, I'm talking about their lot frontage width.
Should it be 90 feet back or 100 feet? Or not back. At the width I mean.
Generous: The attorney's interpretation for the front lot, it's the 90 foot lot width is required.
Aanenson: But we're showing that it can meet the 100 foot, just to be sure. Same with the 60. That it
can meet.
Kind: And the plat that's before us has 60 x 60 foot pads on them that do meet all the setbacks?
Aanenson: Correct. That's our opinion.
Sidney: Mr. Chair? Question for staff. Is it appropriate to go forward or can we go forward without the
applicant being present? What's your recommendation?
Aanenson: It's our preference before the meeting started if the applicant wasn't here that we not.
Peterson: I don't think legally we have any reason to withhold it.
Aanenson: Sure, that's fine.
Peterson: It's their option to make a presentation anyway so.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, one other question. I think it was Mrs. Paulsen who brought up the point about the
building pad setback needs to be 20 feet from a driveway. Let's not even call it a private drive. Just
from a driveway. Could you speak to that?
Generous: It's within the shoreland regulations it states that from a private street there's a 20 foot
building setback. The private street is the paved portion of that.
"
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Aanenson: The common portion.
Kind: Not the easement?
Generous: Not the easement.
Aanenson: Correct. That's our interpretation and [think that's where the 60 foot, their interpretation of
the 60 foot.
Kind: So right now the way the building pad is drawn it's not 20 feet from the driveway?
Generous: Right, but that front house needs to slide back anyway because it doesn't meet.
Kind: I'm not talking about the house. ['m talking about the 60 x 60 foot pad. Because right now it's
like 3 feet from the driveway.
Generous: Yes, but it still could slide over.
Kind: [did a little tracing. [think it could still fit.
Aanenson: It does.
Kind:Yeah.
Generous: 15 feet on the south side.
Kind: But there's 20 feet from there.
Generous: But again you lose the private, that's a driveway there. It's not a private street.
Kind: Right. It's 20 feet from the street itself. Just like we measure setbacks on public streets.
Aanenson: Right, this isn't a public street. The common portion of the two driveways would be that
part. The 20 foot. This is just a singular driveway. One driveway so there is no setback.
Kind: And then, just to clarify the flag lot question. What's before us is not a flag lot so there's none of
those issues are before us. Would you speak to Debbie's questions about why the two different answers.
Aanenson: This was brought up before. Nobody in this office recalls speaking to the Baird's. There's
all kinds of rumors and speculations. There was also several people that looked in the file. Bob is not
the last person that had that file, you know.
Kind: You're answering the question about where the shoreland regulation is?
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Kind: And is that a document that can be recreated?
,
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Aanenson: I'm sure DNR has some of them, sure. Sure.
Kind: And the lakeshore lot size minimum, what's our requirement for that? 20,000?
Generous: That's correct.
Kind: I think that touches on the points that were brought up by the public.
Peterson: Okay. Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one first? Volunteers going once. Going
twice before I choose.
Sacchet: Alright. I'll give it a shot. Well first of all I'm very disappointed that the applicant isn't here.
Because at the bottom of this whole dilemma we have in front of us with this particular application is that
apparently the applicant has found a way to weasel themselves out of the covenants, which is really
fundamental. It doesn't go into the part that we deal with from the city but I really feel I need to state
this. I mean what good is covenants if somebody can buy a lot and register the title and erase the
covenants? I don't know. Legally there must be some sort of a mechanism when that happens that the
neighborhood gets notified or something like that. I don't know how that works, and I really wanted to
ask that question to the applicant. Unfortunately that's not possible here because that is really where it's
at. I mean the neighborhood is very clearly defined. It has it's pattern. It's incredibly closely knit and
here comes somebody and they can just sneak in and erase that from the title and here we have this mess
in front of us. Sorry to call it that but it's pretty messy in my terms. I don't like this at all. I don't agree
with one of the findings from staff. Finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause
significant environmental damage. I do believe that this subdivision creates very significant
environmental damage and it does that either way around. That's why at our previous meeting dealing
with this we denied the variance to make it two lakeshore lots because we didn't want the environmental
impact on the lake, and at that point [ actually was hesitant to go that route personally because I felt that
the second option, which is now in front of us, has in terms of the neighborhood an even bigger
environmental impact. So they're between a rock and a hard place. Either we sacrifice some of the lake
or we sacrifice the trees and the feel of the neighborhood so this is a tough choice to make. However,
Debbie are you, your lot sizes this time because last time you didn't like my saying about lot sizes. And I
still feel that from a city side it's very hard, certainly based on lot size to make a case. I mean using your
figures, which is a total of61 lots, the lot that's being subdivided is the third largest. And the two
resulting lots will be the lOt' largest and 21" largest out of 61 so on that basis it still is very subdividable.
I would be, I would want to be sensitive to the issue Mr. Paulsen raised that impervious surface is beyond
what's acceptable. I mean if they were obviously close before, and I don't have a calculator but I was
tempted to start calculating this with my cell phone but I would have made too much noise. If it is really
over, then that's certainly a reason why this should be denied.
Aanenson: Let me just clarify that. They're not getting a house plan. I think Deb pointed that out
earlier. When the house plan comes in, that has to be on the survey, okay?
Sacchet: So that comes in when the house plan comes in?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: That's not something that goes with the plat?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Aanenson: Right. And that's what we're saying, we'll agree the 60 x 60 pad fits on there but the house
pad at this point will come in when they're ready to build. And they have to show on the survey the
impervious surface percentage. That's a requirement.
Sacchet: Okay. So what do we do with this at this point?
Aanenson: I think Commissioner Kind's recommendation was to take the proposed building pad off.
The house pad. Leave the 60 x 60 on there but take that house off. We're not approving a house plan
with this subdivision. All we're doing is recommending to the City Council at this point whether or not
you're going to recommend on the subdivision. We're not approving any building plan at this point.
Sacchet: And in order to not recommend subdivision we need to have a good reason. Which this
impervious surface could be a reason.
Aanenson: Plus I'm saying, they're not approving the house plan. It would be the recommendation to
take that off. They have to meet the impervious surface. They can get a house on there would need to
confirm this.
Sacchet: Okay.
Peterson: So it's not a reason to deny it because we're taking it off.
Sacchet: Right, okay. Okay, well I'm curious to listen to you guys.
Peterson: Ladd, you're close to next.
Conrad: Thanks. I think when the neighbors were in before I said I didn't like the previous su.bdivision
and I don't like this one but it looks, you know if they can meet the ordinance, they can do it. And it's
really that simple and I think our obligation, and I'm kind of offended by a few, what a few of you said.
It's as if we're trying to cram more population into town. Come on. You know that's not why we're
here. There's some other things that are offensive and I've been around a while so you know, that's not
why I'm here. I'm here to try to protect some of the things that you care about. Usually it's an ordinance
that does it and I think you're applying your leverage on the ordinance, and it's our job to make sure it's
interpreted right. And we'll continue to do that but the previous subdivision didn't do it and you
challenged that but I think Mr. Paulsen, I also forecast the fact that what I'm seeing today is not that
unusual from other subdivisions in Chanhassen and if you don't like it, that's when we change
ordinances. Now I think, if you don't like how we're interpreting things or like our ordinances, that's
when you've got to get involved to make sure we change them. That's where we have control. Plus the
fact, it's legal. We've got the ground on what the attorneys say is right and you would want that right
too. You're talking about the people buying the lot. The people selling the lot have a chance to control
the destiny ofthis lot. They didn't. They just didn't. These subdivisions are going on in my
neighborhood and I don't like them and we're talking to staff about how to control them. And we're
talking to staff, how do you do it and it's hard to make rules. It's just, every situation's a little bit
different. Anyway, absolutely the impervious surface has to be met. Bottom line, I think it's legal ifthey
meet the ordinance. And I think I forecast that if they meet the letter of the law, you've got to keep
challenging to make sure everybody's doing the right thing here. Staff has not reason to ram another lot
in Chanhassen. They don't. Just trying to interpret what's there. They have no reason to deceive or to
do anything, at least in my view, so I would, you know my obligation here is to make sure that staff and
our attorney is interpreting it as fairly as we can. And if they meet the regulations, I think they can do
II
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
this. But they've got to meet the regs and it looks like, based on staff, based on the city attorney, it looks
like they can do it.
Peterson: Okay, thank you Ladd. Other comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make a couple. I'm comfortable with our city attorney's interpretation ofthe city
code and the questions that were brought before him by the Paulsen's. And I really appreciate them
pushing us to take that extra step. I think that that was a worth while because this is a sensitive area. I
would like, always have preferred to not have fictitious house pads on subdivisions. I'm adding a
condition to take that off of there and also any fictitious trees that mayor may not go. I want those x's
gone as well. The 60 x 60 foot building pad is all we need to see to make sure there's a buildable,
sufficient area. Sufficient buildable area.' Construct my sentence here. And I believe that the 20 foot
setback from the driveway is reasonable. I also believe that the 60 foot by 60 foot pad still fits with that
on there so I would add a condition that says, that that 60 x 60 pad needs to be moved away from that
driveway before it goes to council. I guess those are my comments.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any others?
Sidney: Yeah Mr. Chair, I'll make just a few comments. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's
comments and really could see how the staff report has become more concise and there is a lot of work
put into this whole subdivision issue. I appreciate staffs work on this. And I do agree with their
recommendation. As long as they meet the ordinance requirements, I see no reason to not recommend
this.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Others?
Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's comments. And I'll make a few
other points I guess. I don't think that restrictive covenants are an issue for the Planning Commission.
Those are private legal matters and we haven't considered that in the past and I don't think it's
appropriate in this case for us to consider those. And it is my understanding in any event, that the
restrictive covenant was removed from the property. I haven't seen the actual papers but it was
represented to us at one point that that did occur. I have friends in the neighborhood so this next point is
a little tough for me to say but I think there have been a lot of attacks on the staff in this case and I for
one didn't particularly appreciate it and as a decision maker, those type of attacks aren't helpful at all in
making a decision and doesn't carry any weigh with me. In fact the attacks tend to make you lose
ground. My personal opinion is that the staff and the Planning Commission are very respectful to the
community and try to be as responsive as we can be, and I don't think that a number of people who are in
opposition to this have given the staff the appropriate respect and consideration that they deserve and that
has disappointed me. I want to comment on one comment that somebody, I'm sorry. I can't remember
the neighbor's name that had the letters saying that they had been given two different positions. You
know as I read the letters it's just not supported by the evidence. There's a comment that says that the
commission mentioned that they could be subdivided and then there's a comment from a realtor and that
cannot be attributed to the staff. As the impervious surface issue, I think it's a valid concern and one that
we'll watch out for when we see a site plan but I don't think this is the right time to look at that. In the
end analysis is whether the subdivision meets the standards and I think it does with the conditions as the
staff has put on it and I agree with their interpretation of the city code and with the city attorney's
interpretation and I think that they're both consistent with our past practice and I think that this
subdivision does meet the standards.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I would say, I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said this evening.
This brings me to something I've said before. There are times that [ want to approve something but I
can't because it doesn't meet the standards and there are times that I don't want to approve something but
[ have to because it does meet standards and this is definitely one of the later times. [t appears it meets
the standards. I believe even if the lot lines had to be shifted to potentially address the 555 foot
impervious surface issue, that that could even happen to make it work. So [ see really no reason or no
legal reason that we can deny, in my opinion at this point in time. It seems to meet all the city codes that
we need to consider for this type of a request and I agree with staff s conclusions.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. In closing, I would like to vote against this but as you heard the continuing
theme, you know that's not why we're here to necessarily voice our personal opinions and vote that way.
We're here to vote as we interpret the ordinances and assure that the ordinances are being interpreted
properly as Commissioner Conrad has said earlier. I think that clearly what tonight and over the past few
months that this has been before us is, we need to work on the subdivision ordinance and as Ladd also
said, [ think we need to focus on that. It's going to get worse as time goes on and we will be again
working on that. And one thing that I will miss with this project is the sincerity that all of the people and
the public have offered and their sense of passion and their sense of cause. That I think is truly
commendable and I for one, and I think my fellow commissioners will miss that too so. With those
closing comments [ will call for a motion.
Conrad: Oh I should do that Mr. Chairman so everybody knows who they should not like up here. And
again I think you really as a neighborhood, you've done an outstanding job. You've got to stay with this
and make sure we're still treating this properly from a legal standpoint. You should do that. But there's
one more step and it's a pain to come to these things and you think we don't care. We kind of do but,
stay with it one more step and see what City Council. The Mayor's here tonight listening so you may
have her ear. So I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe
preliminary plat subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition shown on the plans prepared by Carlson
and Carlson dated as per the staff report March 15th. At least that's where this motion goes on. Per the·
conditions, the 14 conditions of the staff report with a few additions. They're probably not real
significant additions but there the things that I'd staff to do. [want to make sure that the runoff issue as
we put in a private drive and street, the runoff issue is totally taken care of and that the engineering
department gives their total assurance that we have not increased at all any runoff into the lake. That'd
be condition number] 5. Condition number 16 would be to relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure
that it's totally legal. It's totally defensible on the subdivision as submitted. I'd like staff, condition
number 17. To review all the input that they've heard tonight and there's more documents and we don't
get to read them now when they come in here and hand them to us. We don't really understand them but
make sure that you, the city staff has read that and responds appropriately in time for the City Council
meeting. Those would be my additional points.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, one friendly amendment. What number are we up to Ladd?
Conrad: I went through 17.
]3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
Kind: Okay, 18. The applicant shall delete house footprints and tree removal information from
preliminary plat. From the preliminary plat before presenting to City Council.
Conrad: I would buy that Deb. And a comment. We all buy the 100 foot setback. Is there anything, for
the 100 foot lot width. Do we need any further definition from staff on that? They meet the 90. They
could meet the 100. Is there proofthat the City Council has to see?
Kind: Maybe direct staff to show, or direct the applicant to show both the 100 and 90 foot width on the
next?
Conrad: Do you want to keep that in the same?
Kind: That sounds like a 19 doesn't it? Or is it changing one ofthem that's already in there? Number I.
The front setback for Lot I, Block I shall be at the line where the lot meets 90 feet. Applicant shall also
show the front setback line at the 100 foot width.
Conrad: Yeah, I would buy that amendment.
Peterson: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on the plans prepared by
Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000,
revised April 20, 2000 and revised August4, 2000, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The front setback for Lot I, Block I shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. The
applicant shall also show the front setback line where the lot width meets the 100 feet.
2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department
or agency.
3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be
issued.
4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing
Code.
5. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements
including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings
shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2.
6. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third ofthe fees will
be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the
first building permit for a home in this development.
7. The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of$872. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site
meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2, 158.20. These fees are payable to the city at the
time of final plat recording.
8. A demolition pennit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing
building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat.
9. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building
Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota
State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen' s standard utility specifications.
10. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility plan will
be required prior to final plat consideration for city staff to review and approve. Tree protection
fencing must be installed prior to site grading.
II. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and
water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's
expense, will extend a water service for Lot] from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot I.
The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services to Lot I.
The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer
service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be
applied at time of building penn it issuance on Lot I. The cost of extending the water service to
Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot I. The
applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary
sewer lines that encroach upon the lots.
12. The typical 5 foot and 10 foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall
be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be
dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 2.
13. The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and
recording of the final plat documents, park and trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and
GIS fees pursuant to city ordinances. These fees are due at time of final plat recording.
14. All driveways shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots
must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is
to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the
driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7 ton axle weight design. Cross access easements
and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots.
The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide.
15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased rnnoff into
the lake from the construction of the private street and driveways.
16. Relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it's totally legal and defensible on the
subdivision as submitted.
17. Staff will review all the information and documents received at the Planning Commission
meeting and respond appropriately in time for the City Council meeting.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000
18. The applicant will delete the house foot prints and tree removal information from the
preliminary plat before going to City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED
AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, WHITE OAK ADDITION. COFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of Bob.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. Just to clarify when this was in front of us last time
there was an issue about a variance for that garage. The way it's drawn now there is sufficient setback?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. And then the second question, one thing that I don't think the current report touches on,
the previous one did but didn't really suggest what's going to happen but there was a well on one of the
lots. Is that something that we would usually address in this context?
Generous: It should be addressed as a part ofthis, that it be properly abandoned.
Sacchet: Will be abandoned, okay. Good, that's my two questions. Thanks.
Peterson: Any other?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. On page 6 of the report. The section on streets, about two
thirds of the way down it says although these conditions compromise the city's subdivision standards
somewhat, etc. Can you explain that to me please?
Generous: I'm not sure if the Assistant City Engineer could address that for you.
Hempel: Chairman, Planning Commissioners. There is a stipulation in the subdivision ordinance that
prohibits half street dedication in subdivisions. I asked for a legal opinion on that from the city
attorney's office. The intention of that was to prohibit premature development where the adjacent
parcels in the future would be burdened with constructing an entire city street. Dedicating additional
right-of-way and some future property owner would have to do that. With the idea that some future
property owner envisioned that he's got a street in front of him that he can subdivide off of but yet in fact
it was inadequate street width, right-of-way width and so forth. The plan before you this evening we
required the applicant to dedicate the entire right-of-way up to the cul-de-sac and approximately 2/3 of
the cul-de-sac right-of-way with this proposal. In addition, they're proposing and we're requiring that the
entire street width be built up to the cul-de-sac and then 2/3 of the cul-de-sac be constructed with this
proposal with the understanding in the future when the property to the north, the Headla parcel
subdivides, they would be responsible for dedicating the remaining portion ofthe cul-de-sac right-of-way
16
';f yv3.l'
O(}I<J?"{~ I' _'.;0. ,. .....c
\
\
S:»<> Cí\»>UI-or-= r
CD O~:J c.n_c a 9. ,:/'{,,.O
Q) -I <II C. ~o S! ;;¡. ~ ft. ~ .~¡"...'!'!',
en CD 0...... < - ..., ... ......] "~"''''
r::: c: ~ .... -,., ..... 0 ., ...., ~'!"".'".,'~,'
- - ..~ (I) CD ......':~~:
.... »<.c Q) cr <II <II Q) t:::I~N'
g,r- <II Õ iD c. >. ·1, "'..
C ::E <> -. ..,¡, ·
» Q) 0 3 >."
-I cr <" .. .'
» iD m ~ 1,'.'1,..".
(C -. CI -:;.,;"
<II 0 .~
c: Q ';:1'
UI ~¡-.,:
qii:.i,,;,
'&<..r
'n."f':;~
:>
c:
:n
,
"
~
"
:T
:Ð
o
<
<D
..
enOOJ:
c ::::!.CD 0
C"<nc:
-I<II""UI
0- <II
_en
!.~
~
Q
+
"'I'" '"
.....( ). >......
CO..a.w.þ..
00010
O-l»enooJ:
i<O"'<IIC::::!.CDO
CD.. cr<<>r:::
i-Il»Q)......m"cn
-mooo CD
8--
@>!..-,
+
'" + "'I'" '"
cn CD '" ..... ( ) . >. .....
~Ut CD.....Io. (X)...... w .þ..
"cn"'0100010
/
.~,
C'"
::> ~
C.CD
~'#.
01
. >.
..... w
CD CD
C Z
::>
C. 0
<II (")
....
:T
!e-
o.
. >.
..... w
CD CD
/
1:2
'"
"'.....
. >......
NO.
0'"
'"
"'.....
"".....
NO.
0'"
'!' ,
~- /
,i: ,.0
fJl õ UJ
·;m;,~ ."
Ag~{:
.......,....
.301 ,,0:7 '0
" ::ì:)
^ ()
,OOÒ
GI~ d:'
C)
~
I\}
~
ß
--
<..
&
;) ~
'\ ~
..... .:::> (;;1
.........t..I '"
..... 1
...{/
'"
......
.....
Z
Ii'
~
r'"
_0
'ti
(T
t
\_-
h
-\
r-J
r
í:J
-;
"
<4R,
r:{Do DR
( °l5Ac
"-
ì;':-..
,I· -_
I: ~.-
..¡ I·
0<9 .
~ f\J I'
f ___.
I:
~,.
I:
Y I...,
f
q,i
o
.r,
o
'h
-
"
o
,
"
I\".~
'" I ....
I<:; '\i <v to.
~ .....
~ '
'"
V>
V>
~
.
J~-G'-.-
;:::'-..s:..
<;> -
~
- ~
- 1r'__
u
:;v
ç
.".
-l
m
()
;v
-
<
\TO
~
<.
~
\
\
l
C\)
~
-
tJ1
-I
¡ Pcx¡
1m",
! (T'. 0.
, ~
[-t...
t I.. ¡
i '
I
.
,
~[
N -I
Zr-
I:) -
c 1:
"'
~ ~
,. 't
'þ
ï '
~ - ~ [! : ;::-} i-
..... . 8'", 6'
{..tv . ...
- '. ..:.
t' :<
\0
-<:
L11
....,
-
,
-
"0
iV
o
'8
lI'
fí1
'c1
r
C
o
)-
If\
(j)
(T'
ï
'...
~.-
't-
I:>
"i
-
o
....
~
70
IT'
c:.
(/I
IT
Û
œ
.........
:±:
o
Q
I,!)
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
Septernberl7,2000
Scott Botcher, City Manager
City ofCh..nh"'sen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel Subdivision, Clarification of City Attorney ruling.
Manager Botcher:
The subject subdivision is being presented to City Council on September 25th with two alternate
plats. This proposed subdivision is on Lotus Lake and is therefore regulated by The Shoreland
Management Act, which regulates all land within l,OOO feet of a lake and which requires local
governments to adopt the Standards of the act or stricter standards into their zoning ordinances.
We have six bolded questions that merit an answer. We expect that the City of Chanhassen will
ful1y evaluate the impact of its response in light of the intent of the code as written and its
implications on this subdivision.
All materials noted are ITom the Chanhassen City Code.
~..-:; -'" ~~-": :-::->:0...,..,.
:-:'; "1 ~
.. .L",
;rrr
._·.......1,,)
.., ".J'- ....... ,. "
'::.·,1
.,~-, '
1
~,
. ..-,
\ \ /..-
Issue 1. Please refer to the plat for one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore lot (Attachment A).
.\
Chapter 18 - Subdivisions Article III. Design Standards
Sec. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shaIl abut for their fuIl required minimum ITontage on a publicly dedicated street as
required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of 30
feet of frontage.
Since minimum frontage cannot be met, we believe the developers have two choices remaining
for the lakeshore lot: 1) to abut via the creation of a private street, or 2) to abut via the creation
of a flag lot.
The developers have chosen the private street option.
Question 1. Does the city agree that in the proposed configuration, the lakeshore lot must
abut on a private street as clearly written in the code?
Issue 2. Staff claims that the private street traversing the north side of the non-Iakeshore lot
(Attachment A) is a private street only as far east as the 20-ft width is required, and that the
balance up to Lot 2 is a "shared driveway". Isn't the portion characterized as "shared
driveway" in reality, a private street? Where in code, is there a defInition of "shared" or
"common" driveway? In 1994, code was specifIcaIly changed to replace the term "private
driveway" with the term "private street".
We contend that if the developers choose the Private Street Option to subdivide the lot, then the
the building window for Lot 1 (non-Iakeshore) requires a 20-ft setback from the private
street ("streets not classified") as stated:
Chapter 20 Zoning
Sec. 20-1. DefInitions.
Shoreland means land located within the foIlowing distances from public waters: 1000 feet ITom the
ordinary high water level of a lake. ..
Sec. 20·481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(b) Additional structure setbacks. The foIlowing additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of
the classifIcation of the waterbody:
Setback From: Setback (in feet)
(4) Right-of-way line of town road, public streets, or other roads or streets not classifIed. 20
Question 2. Shouldn't there be an additional 20-ft setback as defined by Sec. 18-481
running the entire length of the private street?
Please make note of the attached email from The DNR (Attachment B) confirming that the term
"streets not classifIed" is included in the defInition of a private street. We believe that
Chanhassen must foIlow the Shoreland Management Act Standards.
2
Following are items that the city attorney has been asked to rule, and which we are asking for
clarification (refer to Mr. Knutson's letter of Aug. 31 to Robert Generous).
Issue 3. 100-ft lot width required for lot accessed by a private driveway.
Chapter 20. Zoning Article XII. RSF" Single-Family Residential District
See. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 1 00 feet as
measured at the front building setback line.
(See Attachment A, stacked plat dated 8/4/00).
Question 3. Since both proposed lots are accessed by the same private street (with an
entrance on the cul-de-sac), does not code read that both lots need to meet the 100-ft
requirement?
Issue 4. The area occupied by street rights-of-way must be excluded from total lot area
when calculating impervious surface.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot area means the area of a horizontal plan bounded by the ITont, side or rear lot lines, but not
including anv area occupied by the waters oflakes or rivers or by street rights-of-wav.
Street - a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-wav approved pursuant to the
requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public
access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial,
parkway, collector,avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an
entity comply with the preceding requirements.
Mr. Knutson responded on the basis that a private street is not involved, referring only to a
"shared driveway".
Question 4. Rephrasing the question, for the non-Iakeshore lot (Lot 1 on Attachment A) -
must the area of the private street right-ol-way be exCluded from lot area?
Issue 5. A lot is an area of land undivided by a public or private street.
Sec. 18-60. Lots.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum ITontage on a publicly dedicated street as
required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum
of thirty (30) feet of ITontage.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area ofland undivided by anY public street or approved
private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise
permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a
principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal
use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are design and arranged
or required by this chapter for such building, use or development.
Mr. Knutson answered the question on the basis that a private street was not involved, referring
to a "shared driveway".
3
Question 5. Again, rephrasing the question: Since lot 2 (Attachment C) must abut a
private street as required by Sec. 18-60, can Lot 1 legally be divided by that private street?
'.
~
Issue 6. Multiple variances. The proposal (Attachment C) does not rneet the lot width at the
OHW line for Lot 1 nor for Lot 2, and also does not meet a 90-ft lot width at the building line for
Lot 2. Mr. Knutson did not address our contention that multiple variances are required.
Section 20: 480 (a) (4) Additional Provisions
.....Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area
standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the
building line.
Question 6. Doesn't the proposal require at least 3 variances total for the two lots?
Cordially,
Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen
(952) 934-7032
Attachments: A: 8/4/00 1ge1 Addition (stacked lots)
B: 6/12/00 email from John Stine, DNR
C. 4/20/00 Igel Addition (2lakeshore)
Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Robert Generous, Senior Plaimer
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Councilman
Linda Jansen, Councilwoman
Steve Labatt, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
4
\
z
o
ï=
ë5
o
<,
.....J
W
Q
V1
«
u
::>
.....J
o
W
V')
o
a..
o
a::
a..
;
Ii
-
:-
~
2
..
\
, ~ 1
l~ ;: i
a. g I
i :c
~
·
·
·
~
o
,
~
~
ri
~
,
,
\
\ I
'.
.,
- ~-
:-.1
i
.,
, .
.~~
.~
o.
i~
.'
~..".
JW
I
..
"
"r'
",/
-
n
.~
,/
.0
J.
./
~.
l.o.J
2:
S.
'0
a
0,'
,,\-J
o
"
;:¡j.
i;q""
~
..
"'"1:
..(~.
...
·
·
·
·
'0
Q
..
·
:¡¡
u
·
;;;"
i
.~.
:;¡
....
...
'::
."
.!
,.
'~f'
"1"('-
-~~;
..'
C'I
,
. .
I-
..
-
..J
.'
-
.-
{ '.-
.....
&
1\
...
-
,.
Q¡-
$
""
s
(J
Q/.
Q-
,;.--
.,.. "
. ,
, .
.~ :;.~: ..,.;..
. ," .'~._-
.., ,:1....-. h'·,"
)1,(.., '~.-:¡~ ~"-~.
'\:',;' t~~G"-$ .....
;:.....~ ~
. 9,\ .... "?~ '
,\ ,~," ,-:Y-
o
.,
~.
'_.
. iT'
..;.~
:' :'
..··,0
>.~/
:1.;
---
--:~--0: '
. .-.'r,,' .....
f.?f' I.~. ~.
I
~
,.
--
-
"
--
--
,
,
- .
-.
-;....-.
.~
,
-,
< .
. :.:
,
.5!j
; ;
· .
- .
.-
-~
o.
.-
..
¡-
: .
e =
.'
j:
) :
· .
U
· .
~ .
· ~
· .
~ ~"!
i ~ õ
·
.
.
=;:
·
·
i
· .
..
e...
~:;
do
·
·
·
·
·
-
~
:
,
·
~
,
,
·
:
~
.. .
! i
.! ...
c ... õ
: r.
" "; õ j
.c "ii. ..
~ : ì }
Ü II 0;: .
.
: '" ..
.." :5
¡i
. .
1"
(1 -g;
0; :e...
¡'t ...
å ë. r:
."j:
,¡a J~
¡; ."r
.!'ª :',8
.. õ ¡.c .:
'0'" ¡-I' ~
-!.x .. c: :;
ð~ ~~ .."
- - !
~~ :
Q 00 ..¡
::- 3 õ ~.'
ontlÍ II
.... :1 t
_... ~ ~ t: .} ";
_õ~¡! ..õ'
- -~.. ¡¡
~-' -
.:;: -; '3.. r ~
:~~:r:~¡;¡..
~. -¡'_._," "1 i ": .:II
~;: ;o:::.!~='
-' ",' ~ ~ ¡
""...~!:..3·z
.!.:!"!=!:!i
- '" t!. ~; :' - II:
'; -; š.i -.. ! iii .2
;;~:¡¡3cj
i :; t Öo
0'0' _0. ....-.. i. '
. . ! ! ·c ~
.¡ ~ Co c. :: u .: :5
':;/11{CC
-'rrx;/.¡I.C,S/Ï Á
t
~
e
1l..,Ar¡¿.E ~f1o R£ ,
J ¡ .
~
.e
I foJIJµL.AM:€ ~~ ~ § ~!§
j JJ .-
. .~
~ a-
e
· . .- S~2S
· ~ ".
~ .......................
I·a II : .. '" '" ....
f·ii , . 'Z. ,3 -'i:i. j ;; ii;¡
..... n..-CLi .; .;.;
ii · .
H' - "~..,,
.- -
·
o
· .
!'!'
: :
, ,
· .
i:J
, ,
· .
f~
~
=
,
~
I ......III~ ......,.111 uln.. ..;)Ullt: .....JUIIII.:tUIIt:tg¿anr.state.mn.us>
To: <Paulseng@juno.com>
Cc: <Mary.cummins@house.leg.state.mn.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:39:33 -0500
Subject: Shoreland Rules Inquiry
Mr. Paulsen;
I am responding to a letter that was sent to Kent Lokkesmoe, DNR Waters
Director by Representative Workman on May 23, 2000. I presume you have a
coy of Rep. Workman's letter. If not, please contact me and I WIll end
you a copy.
There are two questions in Rep. Workman's letter:
1) re: Lot width - the lot width standard must be met at the OHW (near
the lake) and at the building setback (from the OHW) line. Emphasis
added. From DNR's perspective, there is nò requirement that the lot width
be met at the street setback line, unless that line is coincidental with
the structure setback from the OHW fine. The goal of this standard is to
have consistent lot widths between the structure setback from the OHW and
the lake to better provide for aesthetics and area for natural vegetative
growth to better protect the lake environment.
2) re: streets not classified. A private street would be included in
DNR's definition of a "street not classified" from our "Guide to Buying
and Managing Shoreland" brochure. The following rules (MN Rules
6120.3300, subp. 5) apply:
Subp. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and
parking areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking
areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation
and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from
pUbfic waters. They must be designed and constructed to
minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with '
the field office technical guides of the local soil and water "
conservation district, or other applicable technical materials.
A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet
structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore
impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement
altematives exist. If no altematives exist, they may be
placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize
adverse impacts.
8. Public and private watercraft access ramps,
approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed
Within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and
erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private
facilities, the grading and filling provisions of subpart 4,
item 8, must also be met.
Hopefully, this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can do
more to assist you.
John Unc Stine
DNR Waters
Phone: 651.296.0440
Fax: 651.296.0445
Vtc::it nil' nA\.tI\.uah.ro...... ~ ......... .J__ _.1._..._ __
..-'- -.
'1//1/00
,l.ríA",uMf',vr ß
¡
.
!
. .1 ~
~- '"
-£ t-
¡: \..
J ;' /
-..) <:, :! ,,\'" /,.'" . \.
¿( . : /.' .~
'\ .....:.
o '
\..
..;................
" i
,~ j Q,...
z
o
¡::
Õ
c
«
..J
w
Q
111
«
<.J
:J
..J
'. .
c
W
111
o
a.
o
~
a.
....:----
?
}.
ii
II
.,
"
u
/'
¡
,:..
~t~i
h!,
bl!
..
/
w
z
:5
I·~ 1
:t '
&
I
~
.1-
I"
iW
¡' 1
t't·~ ·
. . ,I
:.., .3,
f . I
iJ J
U .
th .
If)!
" .)
~i
,I
I' , .
.. v !
IJ . '
I . I
!j!h
f °1-:
~l h~
H
H
~
..
.OS
!!
j ."
i H 5
~ 11 t . ~
. ¡ . - 1 'f!
í; ~!. f if' ì
!i S5' 1 lIt 1
! ~:1¡'t'i'l
"¡ !! ¡ ~.! }I
1= ~, ;j¡ t'I'Pl~ l1i~
. =. ìi 1 , I 11
J¡~~HII; . 'if
II ; "] H !. t, t I¡ t[
:1;'I1J;¡"~J I
I ~J H HuH I hi:
'2 1...A1'.~¡"¡oR.E
~
!!!
~
i
w
I
.:
j
-
3
\ ~
~/
!
.
=!
,¡ iõ
1 ¡I~
I 1 ~¡11
ttl'7/00
¡"TrA.dJl,A&7r' C
Ò
N
j
'-
"Z..
I
Ie
w
~
~
!I.
..
i;!
~
I!U
$h~
liB
JM
¡GEL
FAX NO.
6124011362
Sep. 02 2000 04:31PM P2
RACHEL & DAVID IGEL
August 2, 2000
VIA FACS\MLLE AND MAIL
Ms. Kate Aanen$on, Planning Director
Mr. Robert Gencrou.~, Senior Planner
City of Chanhas$en
City Hall
P.O. Box 147
Chanha..en, MN 55317
Re: Application for David and Rachel Igel
7303 Laredo Drhre Chanhassen, MN
Dear Ms. Aanenson and Mr. Generous:
This will confirm that we have asked to be placed on the next available Planning
Commission meeting agenda, scheduled for September 6, 2000. We waive oW: rights under
the so called "60 Day Rule" as set forth in Minnesota Statutes related to our proposed
subdivision of the above-referenced property, and specifically request that the City take such
riroc as the City deems necessary to review and act upon our application. In addition, upon
approval by the City Council of either of our subdivision plats before the City, we agree to
remove the alternate subdivision plat from consideration by the City Council.
co: Bruce Malkerson (via facsimile)
.6]9; STRAWBBRRY LANE· S!-t()ll£WO()¡). MN . 5:;:\31
l·HON~¡ \/5.2....01.:).'\77· PAX: 'S~."Q1.0('2
( I~,)
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City c.nttT Drive, PO Box 147
ChanhaJJtn, Minntlota 55317
Phone 612,937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
Enginemng Fax 612,937.9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Wíb www.ci.chanhas.en.mn.UI
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer J)l\y ^
~
September 20, 2000
Planning Commission Update
Igel Preliminary Plan Subdivision Request for Lucas Igel Addition
Land Use Review File No. 00-06
At the September 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission approved the preliminary plat for Lucas Igel Addition with
conditions outlined in the staff report plus three additional conditions. One of the
conditions was for staff to review the runoff ITom the private driveway in
comparison to existing runoff conditions. The Planning Commission specifically
requested that no additional runoff be generated to impact the lake with the
additional lot.
Upon review of the drainage patterns for this area, the lot currently sheet drains
easterly towards Lotus Lake ITom Laredo. Plans proposed to expand a small
portion ofthe driveway to 20 feet in width which will add very little additional .
runoff towards the lake. There is a long distance between the driveway and the
lake whereby vegetative cover will slow the velocity of water and filter sediments
ITom any runoff prior to reaching the lake as it has done in the past. Staff does
not believe that an additional homesite impervious surface will negatively impact
the lake over and above what currently exists on the property due to the fact the
house is set back a significant distance ITom the lake. There is no doubt that an
additional homesite on the property will incrementally increase the amount of
runoff through the site due to the increased impervious surface coverage on the
lot. Again, staff does not believe any negative impacts will occur to the lake with
an additional homesite being placed on the property. We are not recommending
any additional storm drainage improvements or mitigation measures.
jms
c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Matt Saam, Project Engineer
g:\eng\projects\igel addition\update.doc
---.
IW
The Cirv ofChanhalStII. A (I'Owinr communirv with clean lakes, aua/irv "hools. a charminr downtown. thrivinr bufÍnesm, and beau tim/ park!. A ,reat place to live. work. and t
\
.....- --
09/20/00 15:50 FAX 651 452 5550
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
.. CHANBASSEN CH
I4i 002/003
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Anorney~ at Law
Thom", J. Campbell
R(' ~cr N. Knub~'1'I.
Thûl'Il.as M. S((lrr
EllinH R. Km.:L~(;h
Jodj.Jamnik.
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
...
Andre:>. McDowcll F'oc-)'Ic:r
Marrhew K. Bmkl'"
)ul.., F. Kelly
M.,,"cw )" rol i
Margueritt:: M. MCCr.¡H()I)
Gin. M. ß,..nd[
DI"<1. Dial: (651) 23'¡"6215
E-mail Addrltts:rknutson@f:k-lflW.com
·,'\Iw II1.L~,xr.IIf' \VnH"'}lfl
September 19, 2000
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Dñve, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDmON
Dear Bob:
You asked me to respond to an additional set of questions posed by the
Paulsens. Their questions and my responses follow:
Q. Is A DRIVEWAY A PRIVATE STREET?
ANSWER: Section 20-1 detines "street" as:
"A public right-ol-way accepted or a privale right-ai-way approved punuanI IO the requiremenls
of the city by public Qurhor/ty which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting
property. The IeI'm "j'treet" shall include a highway, thorougJifare, arterial, porkway. collector.
avenue. drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an enlity complying
with the preceding requirements. ..
Section 20-1 defines "private street" as;
"Private ~'lreet means a streeI j'erving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which i".
not dedicated to the public, but is owned by one or more privCJle ptlrli,,~·. "
In order for a "driveway" to be a "private street" it would have to (l) serve two or
more parcels of land, and (2) have been approved as a pñvate street by the
City.
Q. Is A STRErr A ROAD?
ANSWER: Section 20-1 states that the term "street sholl include .." rood" if it is 0
public right-ot-way or private right-ot-woy approved pursuant to City
requirements.
Suire 317 · Eagandalc Qffice Center· 1380 Corporare Center Curve . Eagan, MN 55121
.. ')
09/20/00 15:50 FAX 651 452 5550
CAMPBELL KNl~SON
.. CHANBASSEN CB
IaJ 003/003
Mr, Bob Generous
City at Chanhossen
September 19. 2000
Page 2
Q. IS A PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT CONSIDERED RIGHT-Of-WAY?
ANSWER: The City Code does not define "right-of-way." Black's Law Dictionary
defines it as the right to pass over the land of another. Assuming the private
street easement allows passage over the property by someone else, then the
answer to the question is yes.
Q. Is ONLY THE COMMON PORTION Of A DRIVEWAY DEFINED AS A PRIVATE STREET, OR IS THE ENTIRE
EASEMENT, INCLUDING THAT PORTION SERVING ONLY ONE PARCEL, DEfiNED AS A PRIVATE STREET?
ANSWER: The portion of a driveway only used by one property owner cannot be
a "private street" because it would not meet the definitions requirement of
serving two properties.
Q. Is THE 20 FOOT SETBACK (SEC. 20-481 (B)(4» REQUIRED fROM THE EDGE OF THE EASEMENT OR
FROM THE PAVEMENT WITHIN THE EASEMENT?
ANSWER: If the "edge of the easement" is the right-of-way line it Is measured tram
that point. not the pavement.
Q. IF A PROPERTY HAS fRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. BUT MUST ACCESS VIA A PRIVATE STREET, DO WE
NEED TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF PROPERTIES ACCESS VIA
PRIVATE STREETS?
ANSWER: I don't understand the question. What setback requirements?
Regards,
oger N. Knutson
RNK:sm
cc: Scott Botcher
Kate Aanenson
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 553 I 7
Septernber 19,2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 553 I 7
Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, Mission Impossible (please attach to Staff Report)
Attached is a sketch of the August 4 plat representing the upper, non-lakeshore lot. This
sketch illustrates that the developer/surveyor erred by understating the impervious surface
for the lot.
The impervious surface (proposed building plus the private street), exceeds the limit of
25% of the property area. In fact, the impervious surface figure given by the developer
on this plat and the previous plat (April 20), is understated by 350 rr.
The summary table shows that the developer says that on this plat and the previous plat,
the proposed irnpervious surface is 5420 ft2. The al10wable coverage is shown as 5438
fr(againthe same on both plats). The developer says he is 18 rr under the allowable
25%.
The lower half of the table summarizes our measurements of impervious surface. We
calculate this area to be 5790 ft2 (350 rr over the allowable area of 5438 rr).
In the upper right corner of the sketch is an area identified as Area 1. The dashed line to
the left is the property line as shown on the April 20 plat. The line to the right is the new
lot line. On the recent plat, the developer has added a section of the private street to this
lot that was part of the other lot on the previous plat. This adds 145 ft20fimpervious
surface.
In the upper left corner of the sketch is an area identified as Area 2. This represents the
portion of the private street that must be 20 ft wide (not 18 ft wide as shown). This adds
another 70 ft2 of irnpervious surface.
The total impervious surface is 6005 rr or 565 fr over that allowed.
Mission Impossible is to reconcile the figures provided by the developer with the
measured values. I can't do it.
Cordially,
é/ ,P
;.h/l µ¿jl tv( ¡!w./Sh.-
I
'Gerald W. Paulsen
-.~~"
II
I ¡' _
,
~
'+
In
~
()
Q
~I'
00-
o
!Ù
IJ)'
';>
.j.¡
CJ/.
I
...,'
...1
o
-
i-
0.
~
"'1'.
...J
1.11
<.!J
If)
.{
V
:)
.-1
£l.
L!J
VI
f1.
o
ci
p.
/'
JJ
1. -. . -
-" "':"~
A
\
\ A
\' ~
g
\ œ
.
r--
~
"
I
'I
,
1
,
,
"
\1
,
\-
UJ
~
l-
If\
~
4:.
::-
C!:
0..
--..- -
" -
....
- 0
.... ...
,-"- ~ - ~r
I
ò
"
....
<..¡.
Ç)
In
o
""
'ì
'L-
~
t..
< S
~t¡"
't 0
- I;)
.,¡-
I- ~
j~
.
~
..,.,
<r>
'"
~
~ <::>
"? :;j
"'ï.",
...
'~IA
:1
:I:r,
.,'"
...-.... ~
:1 Q¡:¡:
'C)o
, t-
.
\
I
I
I -0
-",
! ·1
'{ ~-'
._--~~
:JVs 10 _
(:In ''};::;
v 003
Ö'þ',>
rI
\-
~
~"
uJ
1-'2.
0-
..Jj
~
1\.1
2
,
......
1
COo
.. lP ,..> ,...
UI I- {) - Q,)
%,1\ -
~t
~ ~I~
" ~\;:(
¡-;¡- .....
1./ ..'
I~ q. .....
i!j ~
~ ¡}/
'<:J
~
rlfp j'
QO "-
o 0 co 0<0<01°<0111)1<
cf ...:y NO co ~ "';t('l"),-Ø'J,...C(C
ttJ'J 1'-'<I'<DI'-NOI<
<oN <') N NU)+<Ø
1'-'<1' '<I'
~II) <0 +
~_N
~~ 'ë) -,fI"':
" C)C) ~ Q) (/) 0
go .<:: .<:: .<:: Q) cn..::.::m...tJ)-..
o 0 0 1::> ::Jo>.cCOj!a
R o 0 0 c: o (I)"¡:: ::I ~ 0 ::=
.s£ oS :J IDD(/)<(I-C
IV
NO co co 0<0<01° <:
<ON <') ~ "';t('l").,-cn ...
1'-'<1' '<I' I'-'<I'<D.... ..
~II) <0 N Nil)
N +
~-
-I'll
~~ Q) ~Õ
o Q) rJ) ~ Q)... .
0)1::> :JO>.c Q
'C: o Q)'¡::::S -
~:J IDD(/) é
\-
~
..J
""
"
\
-
~
o II)
.c :J Q)
(/ 0 C)
III 'S ca
~ t.. L.. Q)
I'll 2i Q) :¡:¡
'= ~ ,ê :3 ~
g < 1::> Q) ~
-~ ca 5! Q):¡:¡ ca
~~~~~~~(¡;
õjõe'5o~-g
...I¡:I.,...Ia..<f)«~;:)
~
Q)C1::>
C)...J ~
ca <t :J
~;:) <f)
Q) I- ca
> 0 Q)
8<t:¡;;
Q
:¡:
~
.
C
n
L
~
é
ðl¡I)JÞ<,_ r:.. to r')l\
......> .
From:
Date:
To:
Subject:
Jerry/Jan Paulsen; 7305 Laredo Drive; Chanhassen MN
September 19,2000
Chanhassen City Council
Proposed Igel Addition, Unresolved Issues (please attach to Staff Report).
#1. Use of terms private street/driveway vs. "shared" or "common" driveway. There has
been conflicting discussion on the definition of the terms private street and private driveway. Staff
agrees that the terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, and
private drive are used synonymously in code. We find no definition in code for "shared" or
"common" driveway. In 1994, code was changed to replace the term "private driveway" with
"private street". Attached are two pages (Attachment A) ITom a staff Memorandum (May 26,
1994) proposing the term "private street" replace "private driveway". We are waiting for an
opinion ITom Mr. Knutson on the application of private street in this proposal.
#2. Multiple definitions of front lot line. It seems that no one can agree on what defines the
ITont lot line of Lot 2 (Attachment B, 2lakeshore lots). We contend that the north lot line between
Lot I and Lot 2 where the private street crosses ITom Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the ITont lot line for
Lot 2. Sec. 20-1 defines the ITont lot line as the line separating a lot ITom a street right-of-way,
Attorney Malkerson (applicant's counsel) said the MN Supreme Court said the lake defines the
ITont lot line. Mr. Malkerson has not responded to our request to cite the specific case, The DNR
says they have not heard of such a ruling. Bob Generous said Mr. Malkerson was wrong; the ITont
lot line was the point nearest the cul-de-sac where the two lot lines converge (with a length ofQ
ft!), City Attorney Knutson says all the preceding are wrong; the lot has no ITont lot line as
defined in Sec. 20- I. He says that when the interpretation of ordinance is debatable, the
interpretation that is least restrictive applies (either the northerly line or the south-westerly line is
the ITont lot line). Two sections of code contradict Mr. Knutson's premise that the least restrictive
interpretation takes precedence.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot line, ITont means the lot line separating a lot ITom a street right-of-way. In the case of a
corner lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street.
Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions.
Generally. Where any provision of the Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter
than the general provision imposed by the Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or
rel!Ulation shall be deemed to be controlling.
Sec. 20-3. Interpretation.
(a) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are either more or less
restrictive than conditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which is most restrictive
shall nrevail.
#3. Weare waiting on answers from the City Attorney on six items (Sep 17 letter to Scott
Botcher):
· All lots must abut on a public or private street.
· A private street requires a 20-ft setback.
· A lot accessed by a private driveway requires a 100-ft lot width at the ITont building setback
line.
· The area occupied by street rights-of-way must be excluded ITom total lot area when
calculating impervious surface,
· A private street cannot divide a lot.
· The 2 lake shore proposal requires multiple variances,
Thank you,
~ u/J l~l~4eJ~
I
~~ -S) T~,^--
-~
~~
p. of''
,
I
f
C ITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commissiol\
FROM:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner n
DATE:
May 26, 1994
SUBJ:
Zoning Ordinanc,e Arnendment to Section 18-57. Streets, by, amending sections (n)
and (0), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16, and
Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and
Loading.
BACKGROUND
Staff published this ordinance amendment f9r the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting.
At the meeting, staff noted that the Citý' Attomey hàØ. suggested additional changes which
required staff to republish the request¢kamendment as'~c:quired by City Code. On May 18,
1994, staff requested that the Planning;Commission discuss ,the requested ordinance amendment
and give staff some direction anq,tfeedback on any ch;üiges or issues they wanted to see
addressed. The two issues tha~}Øére raised were the impaçt of this amendment on affordable
housing and hard surface c9x~¡:åge. The private street ordin~fe will have a positive impact on
both the hard surfase"c,overage as well as affordable housing because the streets are built
narrower. ;'t;~::¡Y~'>:;:;~'T";~~\"'\':'" -- '-"r;r~T'
rßY7,'~(',Jr;;::T'<',~';
ORDINANCE A.MENDMENT
"~~F/~~0>
The current private driveway ~rdi~lilièe'sets spindards .f9~ theIR~sidential'Single Family District
only. A number of the high density residentia(~s \yçll'as"Ì1on-residential use proposals that have
been submitted to the city, have been utilizingyrívåte driveways. The zoning and subdivision
ordinances do not have standards to measure tIi~~e:ltypes of private driveways. Staff is proposing
an amendment to the subdivision ordinance, Section 18-57 (n) and (0) and to the zoning
ordinance, Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows:
(n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban
service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to
1jJifjt>D PAUL <,t2¡.)
An^¿~M5¡JT" A
~, L..oH
Planning Commission
May 26. 1994
Page 2
urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in
subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural
standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of
private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57 (0).
(0). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16.
Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private
dri'¡e'llay street if the city finds the following conditions to exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to
construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the
location of existing property lines and hornes, 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 pro~ide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The use of a private driveway street will permit enhanced protection of the city's
natural resources including wetlands and forested areas.
If the use of a private drÏYe';iay street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the
following standards:
1. The common sections of a private driye\yay street serving 2 units or rnore in the
A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved
to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround
area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable
fue codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7)
seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade
of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on
applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office
districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26
feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area
acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire
codes. Plans for the driveway street shall be submitted to the city engineer.
Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built"
plans signed by a registered civil engineer.
2. Private drP¡e.....ayG streets rnust be maintained in good condition and plowed
within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches.
Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties.
r, '!:, elf:'¡
"
"
. ..,
"1\ II:!¡ }fH
Ii ,II
'.
}-..:'"
;r -".
.
z
0
¡:::
0
0
<(
-'
w
º
tf)
ð
:;) ,;\,,~.
-'
0 ;/
w
tf) ........
0 ~ "
a.
0
n:
a.
,l-
i 91"
, -1111
,,¡
'~ .
,&J
II.
h
Ii
II
Ii
-
.' W
z
:5
¡
t;;;
,Ii'
Hal
hi!
\
o
()
w
a::
, :s
"
'\/
'\
,
I
10
"Z....
",___u_·-
.....
I,H
I" : ¡
5 # 8
I I-~
-<'-
-,r-
Co.
J.
I [Ii
l~
I' , I
.. j.
!f.!¡
í~Þ i
" ~ ')
I'
,I
.!
h ".
l· ~ !
" I '
! I
!t .Iª
~ ¡ I~:
¡¡
"}
f.
: t
ci
~
::c:
1,;
U
..
E .r.'
.
S H æ
~ Hi il
3!~ ;~ I f I r~ ì
.1' f!" j 1¡
U ;¡~. I I
11 ::11 I'I!
0" B I ~. till
¡¡ .. " "1 < ! ! I .
i ~" ~ H !It I, II~
'! ; ~ III!' J II fl
h - - ~. f I II If
~I ;;l"} II tj I f
~ iJ H H f If b ,.
~
~
~
~
;r
w
~
~
"
~
.:
¡
-
š
ê J
æ .,
M ~ ~;
; ! J"l~
~ 1m!
t¡ /14/0{) {3,4u~se"
Þ TT¡:'c.I4M EI..Jt
00
'"
'"
J
'...
..
'"
~m
~~:;-~
JIll
8 (1, 'I.p.,
Deborah Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
612-934-5696
To: Honorable Members of Chanhassen City Council and Mayor Mancino
Re: Proposed Igel Subdivison - Sunrise Hills
Date: September 19, 2000
The Paulsen's have some very basic questions about the City of Chanhassen' s Code in
relation to the Igel Subdivision. Since their questions have not yet been answered, I will
address some other basic but related points.
I believe the Chanhassen City Code and Comprehensive Plan are written in simple
language, and not too encumbered with technical jargon. Yet, when it comes to applying
this simple language, I am left with the overwhelming impression that - English is my
second language. Let me assure you, it is not. It appears that staff has the liberty to
interpret this code and this interpretation can cloud original intent of the language.
Since the role of the Planning Commission is to put their faith in Staff there is no one to
question applicability unless of there is opposition to a development. Case in point was
the first subdivison proposal of the Igellot, which was approved by Planning
Commission. The Staff report error regarding the lakeshore ITontage requirement, made
it appear that the subdivision met code, when indeed it did not.
Had the Paulsen's not reviewed code, the subdivision would be history.
Over the past several months I have reviewed many subdivison files. Let me just simply
say that there are plats, which have been approved with flaws. And when the flaws are
al10wed to become "historical precedent" we've only enabled the perpetuation of errors.
That of course wouldn't be our intent, but it will become the unfortunate outcome.
"Historically we've applied code this way". Don't buy that as the only reason to
interpret the code other than as written. Ask questions? Seek the truth. For example, we
have Shoreland Regulations. Do we apply them for all land within 1,000 feet of a lake?
Simply the most alarming or disheartening element ofthis process was not that errors are
made, or that code is not applied. Rather, It was that that when discovery was made of
code relative to this situation was found and questioned, that some powers that be
attempted to change the code rather than uphold it.
ÆüL/Mi ¥
t·-·.....,
,í\.\
ì,' ,
, (
FROM
¡GEL
FAX NO.
6124011362
Nov. 03 2ØØ0 12:53PM P2
RACHEL & DAVID IGEL
October 3, 2000
VIA FACSIMIlE AND MA.n.
Ms. Kate Aanenson, Planning Ùirector
Mr, Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
P.O. Box 147
CÞanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Applic"tion for David and Rachel 1ge1
7303 Laredo Drive Chanha.sen, MN
Dcar Ms. Aanenson and Mr. Generous:
This will confirm that we b"ve asked to be placcd on the City Council meeting
agendà. scheduled for November 13,2000. We waive our tights under the so called "60 Pay
Rule" as set forth in Minnesota Statutes related to "ar proposed subdivision of the above-
referenced property, and specifically request that the City take such time as the City deems
necessary to review and act upon our appücarion. In addition. upon approval by the City
Council of either of our subdivision plats before the City, Vle agree to remove the altetnate
subdivision plat from conside~tion by the City Council
cc: Broce Malkerson (vi. facsimile)
6195 STRAWBERKY LANE. . SHOKEWOOD. MN I 553'1
PHON~' 952.4Ul,)177· fAX: 9SZ,"OI.J36~
I ~ ....\
Î.." !
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Camphcll
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J, )3mnik
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452,5550
...
Andrea ~kDt1wdl Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
John F, Kelly
Matthew]. Foli
t..1argucrite M. !\kCarron
Gina M. Brandt
Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215
E-mail Address:rknutson@ck-law.com
~ A!.w li,-en~d in \X'ljc<msJ11
October 6, 2000
RECEIVED
OCT 1 0 2000
CITYOt:
, CHANHJ¡SS£tv
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDITION
Dear Bob:
You asked me to respond to the Paulsen's additional set of questions "as
phrased by them." Their questions and my responses follow:
Q. DOES THE CITY AGREE THAT IN THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION, THE LAKESHORE LOT MUST ABUT ON
A PRIVATE STREET AS CLEARLY WRIlTEN IN THE CODE?
ANSWER: Access onto Laredo Lane is proposed to be by a "private street." That
part of the driveway used by both lots to access to public streets is a "private
street." Section 20-1 of the City Code defines "private street" as:
"Private street means a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is
not dedicaled to the public, but is owned by one or more privale parties, "
As defined, that part of the driveway not used to access both lots is not a
"private street."
Q. SHOULDN'T THERE BE AN ADDITIONAL 20-FT. SETBACK AS DEFINED BY SECTION 18-481 (b)
RUNNING THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PRIVATE STREET?
ANSWER: The twenty foot setback would have to be maintained from the "private
street" segment of the driveway.
Q. SINCE BOTH PROPOSED LOTS ARE ACCESSED BY THE SAME PRIVATE STREET (WITH AN ENTRANCE ON
THE CUL-DE-SAC), DOES NOT CODE READ THAT 80TH LOTS NEED TO MEET THE 100-FT.
REQUIREMENT?
ANSWER: Section 20-615 of the City Code provides:
Suite 317 . Eagandálc Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 ( 2-~))
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
October 6, 2000
Page 2
"The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as
measured at the front building setback line. "
The only reasonable interpretation of the requirement is that it only applies to lots
that don't have direct frontage on a street. All, or virtually all, lots have
driveways. If it is interpreted to mean that any lot with a driveway has to meet
this requirement then the provision would apply to all lots and the provision
would serve no purpose.
Q. FOR THE NON-LAKESHORE LOT (LOT 1 ON ATTACHMENT A, STACKED) - MUST THE AREA OF THE
PRIVATE STREET RIGHT-Of-WAY BE EXCLUDED FROM LOT AREA?
ANSWER: The City's past practice has been not to exclude the area from lot size
calculations.
Q. AGAIN, REPHRASING THE QUESTION: SINCE LOT 2 (ATTACHMENT C) MUST ABUT A PRIVATE STREET
AS REQURED BY SECTION 18-60, CAN LOT 1 LEGALLY BE DIVIDED BY THAT PRIVATE STREET?
ANSWER: Section 20-1 of the City Code defines lot as a separate area of land
"undivided" by a street or pñvate road. This is a definition, not a regulation. In
this case, the private street does not divide the lot.
Q. DOESN'TTHE PROPOSAL REQUIRE AT LEAST 3 VARIANCES TOTAL FOR THE TWO LOTS?
ANSWER: It doesn't matter whether you view it as "three" variances or refer to it as
a variance from lot width requirements.
RNK:srn
- AMPBE' ,UTSON
anal Association
Roger N. Knutson
CC: Scott Botcher
Kate Aanenson
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
October 12, 2000
'Plt...i?
/'
Scott Botcher, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed 1ge1 addition; related ordinance changes
Mr. Botcher:
The Planning Department is proposing changes to city ordinance that would facilitate the ability
of the developer to split a lakeshore lot at 7303 Laredo Drive. The proposed changes include:
1. Eliminating the requirement in Section 18-61 for a 60x60 building pad.
2. Rewording portions of the code in Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management
District, including Sec. 20-481 (placement, design, and height of structure).
We have stated at Planning Commission meetings that it would be improper to implement code
changes in the middle of an application process.
Shore land code is based on DNR guidelines. The Shore land portion of our code was approved
by the DNR in 1994. How can the city justifY deleting any of this code? We have
correspondence that states it is advisable to contact the DNR in advance, of when a Shoreland
Ordinance amendment is being considered. Depending on the amendment, DNR approval may
be needed.
We request that the city provide a written statement, signed by the City Attorney and a
representative of the city, that the city will disregard any changes to code subsequent to the
application to subdivide this lot. Since the developer could reinitiate an application in the future,
under his name or under the name of a different owner, the statement should be made in
perpetuity, or appropriately, for a period of30 years in the manner a state statute attempted to
negate our Restrictive Covenants.
Cordially,
~ ¡,/-l Ú fjuß¡¿-v---
Gerald W. Paulsen
(952) 934-7032
Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Councilman
Linda Jansen, Councilwoman
Steve Labatt, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
~,~~')
L--" '
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Ctnttr Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhl1SSen, Minntlota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
Gentral Fax 612.937.5739
Enginemng Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
~b www.ci.chanhasltn.mn.UI
-r, roo. /'", ,
October 31, 2000
Mr. Gerald W. Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Paulsen:
I am responding to your letter dated October 12,2000 regarding the proposed
Igel Addition. In a discussion with our City Attorney, he indicated that the
Council lacks the authority to grant your request even if it so desired.
Additional1y, I could not support granting such a request.
Sincerely yours,
Jlfoocoo
City Manager
SAB:k
c: Mayor & City Council
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
g:\user\scottb\paulsen.doc
" ,
( 7'2:
\ (.,/ ./
.-.,-.......~
City Ctntn Drive, PO Box 147 FROM:
ianhl1SStn, MinntSota 55317
Phone 612.937. 1900 DATE:
;eneral Pax 612.937.5739
ginemng Fax 612.937.9152 SUBJ:
Wc Safety Fax 612.934.2524
,b www.ci.chanhllSlt1l.mn.UI
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
5.
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager
Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director
November 7, 2000
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Housing Goals Agreement
BacklUOimd
In 1995, the cÎty agreed to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act. The city stated that they reserved the right to negotiate these goals every two
years. Attached are the goals that were last revised and approved in 1998. This
resolution is agreeing to participate. The goals have not changed.
The goals are negotiated every 2 years. Staff is recommending that the goals be
reaffirmed. They are attached for your review. As a part of the Comprehensive
Plan update, the housing element was updated. Participation in the Livable
Communities Act is a part of the city's housing policy. There were several public
hearings held on the Comprehensive Plan. I believe the housing goals and
policies adopted by the City and approved by the Metropolitan Council reflect the
community's values regarding housing diversity. The 1999 Strategic Plan also
supports "housing diversity" including several action steps. Agreement to
participate in the LCA is consistent with the city's adopted Comprehensive and
Strategic Plan.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the 2000 Livable
Communities Act Housing Goals Agreement.
Attaclunents
I. Resolution
2. Housing Goals
3. Building Permit Activity
4. Residential Development Statistics
5. Staff report on LCA and Action Plan
City ofChanhasJe1/. A fTOWinf communiI'; with clean laktl, aualil'; !Choob, a charminr downtown. thrivinr bulÍntlltl. and beauti/ù/ park,. A ""at Dlace 10 live. work. and Dlav.
" .
DATE:"
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVERAND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY:
SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION ELEcrING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEAR 2001
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statues Section
473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to
address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota
Statutes section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing
Incentive Account, and the Inclusionary Housing Account is intended to provide certain funding
and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans
under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites
cleanup funding ITom the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless
themunicipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the
Minnesota Statues section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan
Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycling housing goals
for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan
Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the
municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the
Housing Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing,
negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local
Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and
WHEREAS, for calendar year 2001, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in
the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 2000, can continue to
participate under Minnesota Statues section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate
in the Local Housing Incentives Program by November 15, 2000; and (b) the Metropolitan
Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing
goals for the municipality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen hereby elects to
participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act during the calendar year 200 I.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this _ day of
2000.
ATTEST:
Scott Botcher, City ClerklManager
" ~ .
Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor
YES
NO
ABSENT
Livable Communitites Act
Table 2-3 CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL
Affordability
Ownership 37% 60-69% 30%
.
Rental 44% 35-37% 35%
Life-Cycle
Type (non-single 34%
19% 35-37% 1991 Comp
family detached) Plan
Owner/Renter Mix 85/15% 67-75/25-33% 80-90 / 20-10
Density
Single Family 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1.8
Detached
Multi-family 11/acre 1 0-14/acre 9-10
Overall Average 3.3
"
Chanhassen Affordable Housing Goals Progress under the Livable
Communities Act (Nov. 2000)
Long term Goals Results Percent of Long-
1995-2010 To-Date Term Goals
Owner -Occupied
New Construction 1,562 units 717 units 46%
Rental
New Construction 202 units 71 units 35%
Total 1,764 units 788 units 44%
Goals
wner CCUDle ew onstructIon
Project Year Units
Mission Hills 1995 200
North Bay 1995 35
Autumn Ridge 1996 112
Walnut Grove 1997 128
* Arboretum Village 2001-2002 242
Total 717
o
o
. dN C
* concept approval only
Proiect Year Units
Centennial Hills 1996 39
Lake Susan Apartments 2000 162
Powers Rid!!e Apartment 2001 80*
Arboretum Vilhw:e* * 2001 32
Total 313
Rental New Construction
*264 additional units approved
** Concept approval only
Current LCA affordability goals are:
LCA Progress Report
Page 2
· 2000 Units renting for no more than 30 percent of household income for families
with 50 percent or less of median income ($3 I ,800 max.) = household size and
number of bedrooms sets the max for example:
o Efficiency -$556
o I Bdrm-$596
o 2 Bdrm-$715
o 3 Bdrm-$826
o 4Bdrm-$922
· 2000 Ownership housing costing no more than 30 percent of household income
for families with less than 80 percent of metro area income ($50,880 max.) =
$134,250 or less home value.
There have been two apartment (rental) projects recently approved. Both of these
projects are proposed to be market rate. A proposed rental town house project at
Arboretum Village would provide 32 affordable rental units. There is discussion of two
other rental projects and they are Doug Hansen proposing 36 units on his property on
Santa Vera and Presbyterian Homes at Villages on the Pond which may have 170 units.
The only affordable owner occupied units that are projected is Arboretum Village, which
could have a total of 242.
These numbers are based on the current housing goals that were adopted as a part ofthe
Livable Communities Act and the Comprehensive Plan. The goals have changed since
the city first agreed to participate. Assuming a 90/10 owner/rental mix of the projected
5,784 dwelling units; 30% of the owner occupied (5,206 units) were to meet the standards
for affordability and. 35% of the rental units (578 units) were to meet the standards for
affordability .
City financial assistance to date has been on two projects one rental and one owner
occupied.
Centennial Hills
· Land Acquisition $100,000
· Approximately $300,000 is being held in escrow should the a project short fall
occur (30 years)
· All units subsidized at approximately $1,500 (no property taxes)
· Subsidy approximately $61,199 per unit). This subsidy is based on tax
forgiveness. This project pays $28,000 a year in taxes versus a market rate
project would pay approximately $130,000. «Example $130,000-
$28,000=$102,000/65 units=1,569 tax per unit * 39 affordable units =
$61,199.00))
LCA Progress Report
Page 3
North Bav
· $700,000 (not including interest) subsidy of 35 units through the HRA for the
creation of a housing district
· 18 units will be for first time homebuyers ($95,000)
· 17 units will be affordable by the LCA standards (under $120,000)
· Subsidy approximately $20,000.
o
o
'"
*
0
0
a-
a-
00
a-
....
a-
'"
a-
'"
a-
.,.
a-
..,
a-
N
a-
-
a-
0
a-
a-
00
00
00
....
00
'"
00
'"
00
.,.
00
..,
00
N
00
-
00
0
00
a-
....
00
....
....
....
'"
....
'"
....
.,.
....
0 0 0 0
'" 0 '"
-
r:/l
~
~
~
~
o
~
Q
~
~
~
:Q
o
'"
.,.
o
'"
..,
o
o
..,
o
o
N
o
'"
N
o
o
.,.
c
c
c
'"5
~
c
...
~-~..,......
,...............œ
CQNCbIt)
..;
gj~
ON
..,'"
...
g¡ :!!
'"
'"
°
g ¡!3
N
'"
...
¡¡;¡:::;
g¡:¡!
...
'"
...
..,
~;;
~:¡¡
N
...."
"''''
°
:;HI
N
~
&I~
¡;; §
~~
g¡¡S
..,
"'N
- '"
ooINCC"
ooIU'lNM
..,
NCÐNN
""'" ..,
N
=~c:oco
N
U1IcnC:OOClO
ootCOMN_
-.t1ca.,."=t
CQ ~NM
MO(OUI
"""'..,
~ &I~N
CëI~N
¡¡;: :;¡::!!!ä!
,,"0'"
NO-
~g¡:N
:::i~~
¡e¡~
i!1¡!¡
;:!j:!!
$ LnClNcn..
5; ~ an;
~~ ~~I
~~;~¡
!j5:=i~
!;I
-
N
N
N
'"
...:
...
c:;i
.
."
...
N
N
N
...
...
...
N
¡;
N
."
...
...
'"
...
..,
'"
."
N
'"
N
N
'"
...
'"
..,
'"
..,
N
:;¡:
..,
N
..,
N
'"
N
."
'"
N
'"
'"
...
<=>
N
;1¡
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
N
."
."
'"
'"
..,
:!!
°
...
'"
~
..
~
i:!
'"
."
"?
'"
...
."
'"
'"
..,
'"
'"
".'
'"
."
N
'"
'"
...
~
'"
'"
'"
"?
'"
'"
"t
'"
.,.
'"
'"
N
'"
..,
N
'"
'"
°
'"
'"
°
'"
'"
."
'"
..,
'"
..,
'"
'"
.,.
'"
."
'"
N
..,
'"
N
"t
..
..
..
..
'"
a;
'"
°
°
co:
z
~
œ
'"
Ii
ìii
~
...
Z
~
r;a,</!.'¡ t.'¡ t.'¡ t.'¡ t.
i:i:ioo:tMMCOO
...... -
...
~'¡ t.) t¡l!.¡¡I!!.
~_cøCOIn
a:;:Ln _N
~
...
'"
~CDCX)CIC)"""
::E~-In"""
=
Z
~ ~~
~ ~!i ~
~~~~~
m....l ~¡¡
z!s ~ ~ CI
ëi5Q~:E2
N
¡:;
~
t
I
!
1
.
.
~
~
..
~
'"
~
1993-1999
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
1117100
I ROSS RO'N WETlAND PARK NET I,TOTAL GROSS NET
IPROJECTNAME PRIMARY i N
93-1SUB~ lands of ¿'keSLJoe 36 0.4 11.54 0 24.~1. 33 0.92 1.37 ShonIlanddistrlct
93-4SUS WlndmillRu1 17.:.~ _ª.3II__ ° 0 14.551 ~1.9~. 2.41 farmfleld
D3-8SUB I QaksEItates 13 2.2 0 -00.1. 1Õ.ã1· 231 1.77 2.131f8nnfield
93-10sUB LotulLakeWoodl 4.47 0.32 0.3 3.85 7 1.57 1.82 WCIOI.1edfwetIa
~-t.OIIk..tMiI'W1eWIIshUI 35.83 9 3 81 15.83 045 1.26 2.804
~~2SUe T_HeightI 1 7.1..~ ° , .,' =,¡:5.~_ 13 1.83 2.00 linfilldeVelopment
93-14 SUBtShenando8h R 11.5i 3.5~r- 8 20 1.704...i- 2.50 I
93-15 SUB Churd'lROIId 3~3-r- Õ -º..--. aT - 3.3 04 1.21 1~deveIopment
93-16 SUB TJO - 1.06 0 ° Or 1.06 á 2.83 2.83 nfIII cIeveIo nt
93-25 SUB AddItIon 9.95 2.08 ° 0.15r·· 7.721 17 1.71 2.20 lâraeareasoftreepreservation
94-1 SUB IMInnewastULa 19.7 1.7 ° 0 ~I 1.37 1.50 beachlotlshorel8nddistrid
94-3SUB otlvewood 25.95 4.6 104.8 0 .-J~~ 0.31 1.22 shorelanddiSbid,wetIand$ redone1998
94-4SUB Sh8dowRldae 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 17 1.06 1.42 3.9acreë:lutlot ettobe atted
94-5PUD MisIion re.famII 7.1 ° 0' 0 7.1 16 2.25 2.25
~-¡¿,W~h!S 37.9 3.67 6.71' 0 27.53, .46 1.21 1.57 wetlandsltopog~
94..aSUB CnteksIde 39.5 04.2 5.7 5 24.6; 44 1.11 1.rvlAdjacenttoBJufrCreekcorrldor
94-Wl10SUe Brendel'lPond 23.3 3.e 7.2 ° 12.~ 21 0.90 1.681 l...-l!:9!wattand
94-13 SUB Pointel8kølucy - 18.15 1.63 562.<- ° 109' 19 1.05 1.704 ShoIeianddisb1ct
~15SUB Hob8nSWìldWoodsEa~ 1.87 0¡f; õi~-º..L.- 1s7L 3 1.60 1.60 InfilldeV810pment _.
~ftSUBIForeatMead0w8 202 2.2_ O.f.--- 51 13, ~ 0.94 1..46 bluff areas n_. ~__
92-4~MudowsatL.onøacres 95 1Ò 241 -- aT 611 112 1.18 184 __ __-L-
~2PUD ITrotterIR~ ~5 744r -56 -----------or 194ð'__~__ 1.51 252 tree....Pf!lervaUonlwetl8ndS__ I -=-__
9;-3PUD...lWlIoW-RIdøe 303..,.------~ ~839 ....gt 17:911-""",~ 122---+---2071a weU!nd __ L-_
92-1SUB IStoneCI!'Øk 81 10041 096 - 8t-- 821 141 17'U-_~~øreservallonlWetland!_ _.------L __
92-4SUB IthlIienAddltlon I 9. 181 09 ° 631 17 1.891 2.70 ._~
~-5SUS ¡Bluft'CreekEs~1 1 61.45: 7.91 19.71 01 33.85' 78 1.27 I 2.30 _ ,-'
93-3PUI?.... .~satLonaacres : 96.77: ~_0.e71 &t--. 7~:.~_ ~J-;- ___~ 1.58 iweUandsJsevere~~~1woodS I. --~
93-6PUDISørinafi8Id .' ~ ~ 0.5. 5.30-_ 54.~~__1.~--+-2.451 __.--L_._~
!!5-3SUB:+l,JIkeLUCYEsta.. tea +---1~~-!-_, ..,..iE-- ~ '1:.42 _.g_!.04_t--1.80Inatul"ê!tweua~'y-,__re.<!one1~ u
95-2QSl:-t~HiH____----i----~8.35-!.-~.. 0.66 --------.9~--1i~_.12._-L~~~tland ;._.._____
~~:_~~~L-~:~-~t_:~'i-=~C;'~~..::: ~!¡ !i=H¡ :;~~limimd~.__.OL ~-~t:::=
~t~· :SIather~----~-¡~~+-- 0.7~t--~~'---+- ~,~+-.-~+-- -~::-Ht-~::~~'6~~----·---------~-
!~fi~·no!~~=~:r-=t~Lj+-·?f:·~g¡-~Ir:="=..i1=~~r ~~I:~!~~=-"=~= ~:::=~==..~
96-15SUBIBlackWBlnutAaet , _ : ___.1.!:ªi_---º.:...___L____--9J= _-ª'~-_._,.!l--º,-ªº-:......---O.30 'inftllde~~_____ ____.,_-2.-__
96-18 sUB.iSonA Acldition i 8.31 01 1.75' 14-- 6.551 1:, 0.12 ~15 'inftUde~ment ':-::;::- ___ i
97-1ª_UB-1H.!!LhoverAddition . .----r--4B.99¡-;3::.83 . ~Æ==-}lI-- 32.331,- 5<.1 -JJ! _~~!E.P.!~:treeS,wetlancIs__ -=.---:--==
97-11SUB'Monson,~~ition : sr--- _0 01 _. _ oL ~ 21 _0.40 0.40 ,~otdava~nt __ -----1----.-
98-1PL!D~I!!.....moreAddltion .J. 6~ _ 0.83 2.1~ 0.~t_---l.81 8r-1.2:5~~Iuft'Creekl:lvert8.Y _;';,~ ----...:..---
~~SUB'ErlcPeter8On +--~ 5.~! ~3.591 0 __F3-1- ~I 0.32 I 0.73j'lnfi1rdeVaJJ!!!..ent-RiceMarshJ.a~ ,I
99-3SUB ~ 1-- 3.71 -~---º 2.79 2 0.54 0.72 InfiUdl!l~nt.Rlce~.~r!!!La~_..i..-..--_
99-4SUB 'Brozorick t--- 1.441 QL_----ºL--.9 1.44 2 1.39 . 1.39 InftlldeV~entLotusLa~!- ___1--_
99-5SUB !SmIthHlI~_~__t-~_-'-- ~ 91 ° 1.33 21 ._.1.50 1.50 Infill~ ___, :~
99-10SUB~DaveIoøm!!!!.. ' ~.~! _~ oì 0.__ 0.91 --{¡---_~ 2.20 :Inflttdeyel~ ._.. -t
~~~~~B:~~__-~_-1-__!~::{+-1A~ ~dL_~=¥=~~~=~rl~ ~:= j~=~ent-Lotus~. . .-~-;--
00-3~Q..l$~~!!ilion__L~ 5! _-º,~~_..QL______-º-I_____4..º~_._._--,,~+- 2.00 2.47 11,nfi!I~~rT'!8nt __. _ ~,,_ ._
~~'~-~~=-~~J---~~~~- ~-:..~-=~~_~_~+_='--~~~~__ -§1-;¡oW~¡' #PI~~'!1Jj[~J~"!!,}L~~=.~~~ -~--=-~-:~="~=-
__-+-_______ _§I,JJrr9TA~_,...:L.º1l~_--i_~'~ I ~ªI:L:-_~-,-º-~ ~~021_1..301.OQ.L__ ~~____L_____..______ . ------~"..
____L PERC,ê!!l I' _ 14~__~~ 3% 68% A~i---_~__ 1.1!9 ¡ _ ___ __ ___ ___ ---
MUlTt-FAMILY I _ ----1-_ I , ----L- u -r--
94-5~Q..lMiaIIonHHlsIM~~ 47.18 11.6 5.871 Õ 29.71 20B!" 4.411 7.aOtï"92 a1'tordabt! uniïí ------t
94-18PUDI'Autunn~9!.- 28.13 4.29 ° 0 _2~.84 140 4.98 5.87 82af1'ofdab1e ___ ---------r--~
92-3PUD QakPondlOakHIUI 2419t--2.091.. 18 0 203 141 583 695 9OaIfordabIe I __
94=7SP--1Piãiri8CntekTownhomeI ~;'-6+-- -~ -011 _ 0--, 45, 24 522_ 522 10 affordable -===r--
87-3PUD 'PowenPleœ ~9~ 01 0 ° ~48 495 495-l0affordable _
95-7SP ,Lake Susan Hill Townhomel 729 0 _OJ 01 ?.29¡ 34, 466 j 466 ,Oaffordabla _~
95-8SP1Cent11IV1IaIHIUs 2~~ 0 0 at' 224.---- ì 2955~ 39 affordable
~~D INorth~_~~21J---1-s2~~Æ~ 2638 _-__14141 _7ß-,~_537¡35affordabl!.--~___
96-3PUD 'TownhomeutCreek8ide ____1-_2,,031 2W----' 1 0211 3~ 25~. 687 ,0 affordable --+_
~~PYº~8ßJtGrove(sf,smIOf+twnhol ~'~-ª4--o~--__Þl-_~-~~ -_)~7 4:+.. 577 128affordable -_ _ __.
~!:)!~±LakeS.!0'8~Apartment!:lOme!~_991_ŒEO' ___-º, __01______99C-...15~2 __ 1536 1636 Oaffordable _ ____-1-___
~.;SPRIPowen~nts _-+__~+----= 0 -----1l.---i=-2O~- 344 _~~~+_1~9QJº---aftorda~- ------ ----- - .:.-~--
~!~"",'!!I~(""~'2O'J =,814: 28181.._-=-±..!8~i __381... 3~~~î:tal:'~-"'P~--=:~~-_
-t ..s:¡gl~1 384~ ~f~;__ "i'1~".~~~~~-:~~--=~""- ,"=-"~-
I TOl'!\lS ~.71 201.53 193"53-,--"58,681 985.32"+- 3.198J. ~ =r-" " "...," " ±_
PERCENT~_ 14% 14%1 ---- 4%: 69% AVG 2.29 3.31 I __ ~_ __
r ,,--,. ,
NOTES
-~_..
-...
--
I
-t" --
--
g:lpIanIPast,present,Futureldensity
~
o
~
'"
I
o
..
~
<.:>
~
is
;<:
......
-...
uu
~tg
o ' =
U¡:H
Ë~ª
~¡~
~<~
O¡¡¡o:
0:00
~$"
COI ,;.;1 ~
'"
M
.111.&
"-I g I ~
z:l! ~ M
-
.Ii
oI!
~li ~
¡~ J
I!!~S'-<
-<
101
'$.
~
~
,,;
M
g =
,::....1
:E8~
of'$. ~to
j~ð ~
';!"= :q
. ... ~
a .
3.&1
= ;<:
! i ·t~ ~
;iu] ~
..= "
- =
If'"
~-a ~
,;11
Lð
=
Inl
~
~
~
'"
M
'"
II
i ~
~Þ4!
t.&j
<.:> ...
~
~
"
~
M
:;¡:
.;
~
"'1
o
~
....
;;;
..
<')1
"'I ~
'"
~
~
!:,¡ - ~
~I -:: ~ ¡¡
~_s ,.:
iH ~
~
f
. ~
~ ~
EXPLANATION OF
AFFORDABLE LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE YEAR 2000
TO BE EXPENDED IN 2001
Simply stated, here's how we determined you community's ALHOA for 2000 that is to be
expended in 200 I.
First, we determined the average market value of your city's houses in 1995, doubled it to
arrive at a base value. We then found all of the 1995 high priced houses that were above
this base amount and subtracted the base value ITom each of those high priced houses to
arrive at an excess value number for each house. Next we added up all of those high priced
house's excess values to arrive at the total base year excess number. This 1995 number
doesn't change.
We did the same for the current year, this time using the current market values for the
houses and the current base value using the Consumer Price Index change according to the
requirements of the legislation.
If the current year's excess is bigger than the 1995 excess, we subtracted the 1995 excess
ITom the current year's total excess to arrive at the Growth in Excess. We multiplied that
Growth in Excess times your city's tax rate. This is the Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount for this year. This means that if there is no growth in the total excess
from 1995, then there is no Opportunities amount.
Definitions:
HOMESTEAD
A homestead is defined as property regularly "homesteaded" by its owners. For farm
homes, it represents the assessment of the farm house, a garage and one acre ofland only.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPl)
The Consumer Price Index measures the inflation factor in the U.S. economy. The
Department of the Interior publishes this rate monthly along with a yearly average. For this
program, the yearly average CPI is used.
To ensure that this base value does not lose its meaning in future years the base value is
increased by the CPI each year. This increased value approximately represents the effect of
inflation on the market value of houses in your city. By changing the base value every
year, the houses that were not included in the first base year calculation should not be
included in future years just because the market value has increased due to inflation.
Refer to attached sample city printout for assistance
Column A-Any town
This is the name of your city
Column B-2500,OOO
This is the 1999 value used for identifying homesteads in your city that were above this
hurdle number. This hurdle number was the result of multiplying the base value (see above
for the definition of the base value) times the CPI change ITom 1995 to 1999.
Column C-255,736
This is the 2000 value used for identifying homesteads in your city that were above this
hurdle number. It is exactly like ColuMn B, except the CPI change is now ITom 1995 to
2000.
Column D-200,OOO
This is the 1995 sum of all houses having values above the base value. It represents only
those houses that were above the base value, and reflects only the amount left over after
subtracting the base value ITom each house valuation. For example: If a high priced house
had a value of $ 240,000 and the base value for the city was $ 235,000, then that high
priced house had an excess of 5,000 (240,000 - 235,000 = 5,000). This original aMount
does not change. This original figure is used as the basis to determine if you city has had
any growth in high priced homes since 1995.
Column E-250,OOO
This is the 2000 sum of the high priced homes having values above the current hurdle rate
found in ColuMn C. Like Column D, it represents only the excess amounts not the entire
home value.
Column F-50,OOO
Quite simply this is Column E minus Column D. If your city has added higher priced
homes since 1995 you should have a balance in this column. If you city has not seen an
increase in the higher priced homes since 1995 there should be no balance in this column.
There is no negative balance in this column. All negative values become zero. This
number is the basis for all subsequent calculations on this form.
Column G-12,500.00
This number is your increased growth in higher priced homes (ColuMn F) multiplied by
you city's local tax rate (Column K). It represents the extra propertv taxes received by
your city on the higher priced homes identified in Column E.
Column H-230,000
This number is the total of all homestead property tax capacity (not market value of the
properties) in your city times 4%. The number is calculated and supplied by your County
Auditor. Why 4%? Since all higher priced homes will have a value above $72,000, then
their tax capacity would be at 2%. However, since the program doubles the market value
to arrive at the base value, then the tax capacity on the homestead tax capacity should also
be doubled or 4% (2% x 2 = 4%).
Column 1-57,500.00
This number is the result of multiplying the 4% Homestead Tax Capacity (Column H)
times your city's local tax rate (Column K).
Column J-12,500.00
This column is the lower of Column G or Column I. Simply stated it represents the
calculated extra property taxes your city receives ITom these higher priced houses. In some
cases these extra property taxes may be the 4% Homestead Tax Capacity number (Column
J) rather than the Excess Growth number (Column G). In those instances, the growth of
high priced homes is faster that 4% of the net tax capacity for the city.
Column K-25.000 %
This is your city's local tax rate for 2000 as certified by your County Auditor.
Column L--12,500.00
This is the same as Column J. It represents the Affordable Life-Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount for 2000.
Column M-125
This is the actual number of higher priced homes that had values above the 1999 hurdle
rate.
Column N-150
This is the actual number of higher priced homes that had values above the hurdle rate for
2000.
A B I I c II D E II F II G II H II
4% ofTotal
Payable 1999 Payable 2000 Homestead Growtb Excess 4% of Total Homestead Ta
Market Value Market Value Net Tax capacit] in x Homestead Tax Capacity :
rro"'Dship Base Amount Base Amount I Pay 1995 I Pay 2000 Excess Local Rate Capacity x Local Rate
:own 250,000 I 255,736 I I 200,000 250,000 II 50,000 I 12,500 II 230,000 II 57,500.00 I
J
I I K II
L
II M
N
Lessor of Growth
in Excess or 4%
Home Tax Capacity
Pay 2000
City Tax
Rate
Affordable & Life
Cycle Housing
Opportunities
Amount
Number of
Homesteads
in 1999 I in 2000.
12,500.00 I I 25.000%1
12,500.00 I
1251
1501
·
(please print or type)
Livable Communities Survey
January- December 1999
Community Name:
Primary person completing the survey:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Robert Generous, AICP
lrille: Senior Planner
Telephone:( 952 ) 937-1900 ext. 141
Fax:( 952 ) 937-5739
E-mail address:bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Others involved in completing the survey:
Name:
Telephone: (
Section(s):
)
E-mail address:
Name:
TeJephone:(
Section(s):
)
E-mail address:
Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your responses are essential to us as an
irnportant part of our compliance with the Livable Communities Act of 1995. We need to receive
your completed form by Monday, June 14, 2000. If you have questions about the form, please
contact Kathy Johnson at (651) 602-1332 of the Research staff. Guy Peterson (651) 602-1418
of the local Assistance staff will assist you with questions about ALHOA. Once again, thank
you for your assistance.
Survey Contents:
A Production of New Rental Housing Units...................................page 2
B. Production of New Ownership Housing Units.............................page 2
C. Removal of Housing Units......................................................page 3
D. ALHOA....... .... .................................................................. .page 3
A. Production of New Rental Housing Units in 1999
1. Please list the rental units for which building permits were issued during 1999.
R t r d ~ tal ts' I d' Ill'
en s Iste are or to cos mc u mg u Illes.
;MQí:lthlv,iRèi'jt'Affordability Levels for Rental Housina (1) ...,... . ",
Efficiency and Three +
SRO· One Bedroom Two Bedroom Bedrooms
Units affordable to Under Under Under Under
low income $556 $596 $715 $826
households
All other new Above Above Above Above
rental units $556 $596 $715 $826
·single-room occupancy
(1) Affordable to households earning 50% or less of the regional median income, adjusted for
numbers of bedrooms.
B. Production of New Ownership Housing Units in 1999
For the LCA report, affordability of new homes intended for owner occupancy should be based
on the approximate selling price. The unit valuations listed below need to reflect the cost of
land. construction and materials and finishing expenditures, such as landscaping. If building
permit valuations are used in responding to this survey-- please approximate selling prices for
units by factoring in the average cost of a city lot for the specified type of unit.
1. Please list the number of ownership units permitted in 1999. Affordable ownership unitsare
defined as those sellin for $134,250 or less.
:~~i\\'t1~ . ,~ ~NèW~OWÎl"'r.iOccU
Single-Family.
Detached
Sellin
rice of home
ledHousin ,!./nlts
Duplex, Quads and
Townhouses
";".."..~."":i<.,~. ""x+;¡"~' ~.-.
. .... -. ", ." ,': :¡;. ,'. ~"' ,," . _ ,ø"¡,?o ..,¿, <.; ._'" _
. ., , ., ~'. .,., ".,.. '.'.~ ..... '" ,. , ,
Condominiums
Less than $134,250 (1)
o
55
o
$134,250 and over
189
33
o
(1) These units would be affordable to households earning 80% or more of median household
income.
2. Please list the number of owner-occupied units constructed during 1999 selling at $109,000
or less. '
.".{. ,j!>$""'··.v,"i!:~Y'·~:¡ii''''''''·!·fcR-c''·"·New'Ow-'n· e· r'''c'c''u' Pl'ed Hous'lng"Unl'ts"
.f"" ~·:;1"...;;¡;¡it¡"j....-·_.. .~'-... """",""""""m.. _...._"',...~ . . _..~ ~ . ~.. '"
Single-Family, Duplex, Quads and Condominiums
Semn price of home Detached Townhouses
Less than $109,000 (2)
o
o
o
(2) Units would be affordable to households earning at least 60% of median household income.
These units should also be included in the total number of affordable units selling for under
$134,250 in question 1 above.
C. Removal of Housing Units
1. How many housing units were removed from the housing stock in 1999?
Single-family, detached 2 multifamily units 0 mobile homes 0
2. How many of these units were occupied until demolition? n
3. How many units burned or were destroyed by natural disaster? 0
4. How many units were demolished because of deterioration (physical or structural)? 2
5. How many of the units were replaced? 2
6. Of these, how many were replaced by single-family, detached units priced at $134,250 or
less? 0 How many of the replacement multifamily
units met the rental affordability standards shown above? No rental units.
D. ALHOA
During 1999, did your city expend at least 85% of its required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing
Amount (ALHOA) toward meeting its negotiated LCA affordable and life-cycle housing goals?
(See enclosed ALHOA applicable for 1999). The ALHOAis an amount of local expenditure to
support the development of affordable and life-cycle housing or to maintain and preserve such
housing. These expenditures may include such efforts as local tax levy revenues such as those
that support the local or county HRA, any local dollars contributed to housing assistance,
development or housing rehabilitation programs, or toward housing inspections and
maintenance programs. Yes X No (.t b&, i.!C~, tì') .
If no, please explain
xfield
Research Inc.
November 2, 2000
Dear Colleague,
We are pleased to present the accompanying summary of findings-A Study of the Relationship Between
Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities-showing that the construction of
tax-credit affordable housing has little or no effect on the property values of surrounding single-family
homes.
The study was commissioned by the Family Housing Fund and conducted by Maxfield Research, Inc., a
real estate research finn located in Minneapolis. The research project examined 12 suburban neighbor-
hoods in the Twin Cities to detennine if property values declined after tax-credit affordable housing
construction.
Maxfield tracked the sale of over 600 single-family homes and townhomes in the 1990s, comparing
housing market perfonnance before and after construction of affordable rental housing. The study also
compared home sales in areas around affordable housing developments to more than 1,800 home sales in
areas without a comparable tax-credit development. Overall, single family homes surrounding a tax-
credit affordable housing development perfonned at or above market levels in sales price per square foot,
and in sales price to list price-two major indicators of home value.
As more and more workers move to the Twin Cities to take advantage of the area's strong job growth, the
need for affordable housing will continue to grow throughout the region. All communities will need to do
more to help meet the needs of its low- and moderate- income families. Many communities have tradi-
tionally resisted affordable housing development in part due to a fear that it will adversely affect the
property values of single family homes. This study shows that this is not the case.
The Family Housing Fund, together with Maxfield Research, publishes these findings to give our public
and private partners a tool in support of their efforts to meet the affordable housing needs in their com-
munities. Please help spread the results of this study to elected officials, community and business leaders,
and the general public.
The report is available on the Family Housing Fund's Web Site at www.fhfund.org. For more infonna-
tion or to order additional copies of the summary of findings or the full report, please contact the Family
Housing Fund at (612) 375-9644 or e-mail shawnan@fhfund.org.
Sincerely yours,
-Yhtt ~
Thomas P. Fulton
President
Family Housing Fund
WI
M~ ujo d
President
Maxfield Research, Inc.
~ccJJ/
Thomas G. O'Neil
President
Market Research Partners, ~nc- ,... ;-.;, . ~ ""
[" ?GOO
I...... : . ~'-" _: ~
612.338.0012 (fax) 612.338.5288
510 Marquette Avenue, Suite 300, MinneapoLis, MN 55402
aeld
Research Inc.
A Study of the Relationship
Between Affordable Family
Rental Housing and Home
Values in the Twin Cities
Summary of Findings
Preparedfor:
Family Housing Fund
Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 2000
Purpose aCResearch and Methodology
·
Maxfield Research' conducted this research to determine whether there is evidence to
support the claim that tax-credit rental developments for families erode property values in
the areas surrounding them. The Family Housing Fund, a Minneapolis-based non-profit
agency that supports the development of affordable housing throughout the Twin Cities,
funded the research.
·
We examined 12 neighborhoods in the Twin Cities in which a tax-credit rental housing
development for families (built between 1993 and mid year 1997) was located within a
dense district of owner-occupied homes, termed a "subject area." The subject areas
generally contained between 150 and 300 owner housing units within one to three blocks.
·
We presumed that negative impact by a tax-credit development could be determined by
analyzing three measures of market performance among homes sold in the subject area:
sales prices per square foot; the percentages of sales to asking (list) price and; time on the
market. Comparing homes sold in each subject area before and after construction of a
tax-credit development (a "pre/post" analysis), as well as comparing homes sold in each
subject area to homes sold in areas without a similar tax-credit development (a
"subject/controf' analysis), would reveal the presence of negative impact.
·
In the pre- and post-construction analysis, we compared market performance in the three
years before and after construction start of the tax-credit developments under study. We
focused on homes sales that were part of a continuous data set, representing a
homogeneous submarket of properties that sold in all or most of the six years under
study. In this manner, we analyzed roughly 600 records across 16 submarkets in II
subject areas.
·
In the pre- and post-construction analysis, we also addressed the claim that the overall
Twin Cities housing market was becoming stronger, and that the subject areas around
tax-credit housing simply did not increase in strength as much as they should have.
·
In the subject versus control analysis, we compared subject area sales in the post-
construction years to sales of similar homes (age and size) ITom the same community and
school district, located in areas where there were no tax-credit developments for families
built between 1993-1997. We completed 68 subject-control comparisons in this manner,
involving roughly 470 subject area records.
1 Market Research Partners completed the report under contract with Maxfield Research.
1
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Specific Findings
· The homes that were sold in the subject areas around the 12 tax-credit developments in
our study, in general, displayed similar or stronger market performance in the period
after the tax-credit properties were built, as well as similar or stronger performance to
comparable homes sales from a control group. We identified generally upward price
trends, declining market times and stable or improving sales-to-list price percentages in
most submarkets, over the six-year study period.
· Some subject areas displayed poorer market perfonnance after construction of the tax-
credit development in question as compared to before it, or poorer perfonnance as
compared to a comparable control group. However, such poorer perfonnance was almost
always limited to one year, or isolated among one group of homes in a subject area; there
was little to suggest that there was a sustained, negative, post-construction trend in any
given neighborhood surrounding a tax-credit development in this study.
· As a group, the subject areas hadfar higher average annual per-square-foot price
appreciation after the tax-credit developments were built than before: 5.9% versus .9%.
Housing style did not make a difference, as significantly superior growth in the post-
construction period occurred among both townhomes and single-family homes in the
subject areas, collectively. (Figure I)
· The ability for sellers to gain the prices they asked for was not impeded in the years after
the construction of the tax-credit developments under study, as sales-to-list price
percentages among homes sold in the subject areas were generally higher in the post-
construction period than in the pre-construction period. (Fignre 2)
· Market times for homes sold in the collective subject areas were shorter in the post-
construction years than in the pre-construction years, with the exception of single-family
homes in period post-2, which showed a 24-day jump over the previous year. In this case,
the jump in market time did not exceed the low point ftom the pre-construction period.
This suggests that the market, in terms of selling time, varied in similar fashion before
and after tax-credit housing construction. (Figure 3)
· We found that the subject areas, as a group, exhibited slower average sales price growth
in the pre-construction years than the Twin Cities Metro Area overall (2.95% versus
4.23%). However, after construction, the gap in perfonnance between the subject areas
and the Twin Cities narrowed by a half percentage point. This indicates that, rather than
weakening after construction, the markets surrounding the tax-credit developments
became stronger as a group, relative to the Twin Cities overall.
· The subject areas perfonned similar to their respective control markets, as revealed in the
subject-control comparison. Of the roughly 1,400 market-perfonnance measurements we
completed in the subject areas in the post-construction years, 96% fell within the range of
values of similar age and size control group peers ITom the respective larger market. Just
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
2
4% of subject area values (55 in number) fel1 below the range of values exhibited for
comparable control sales.
· In the subject-control comparison, poor perfonnance in the subject areas exhibited itself
most often in the fonn oflonger market times than control counterparts (28 outlying
values) and lower sales-to-list price percentages (18 outlying values). In only 12 cases did
an outlying subject area value take the fonn of a lower price per square foot, as compared
to a set of control peers. The 12 cases oflower prices relative to control peers represented
just 2.6% of the price values that we measured in the subject areas.
· The subject area around Arlington Ridge Apartments in Shakopee merits further research.
Seven existing townhomes around Arlington Ridge took significantly longer to sel1 than
their control area peers in the second and third years after construction of the
development. However, this submarket was just one among 68 that we analyzed. This
indicates that negative impact by the 12 tax-credit developments in our study, at worst,
was limited to relatively longer market times for one submarket of units, in one subject
area, over two years.
Conclusions
· We conclude from our research that there is little or no evidence to support the claim that
the tax-credit family rental developments in our study eroded surrounding home values.
The infonnation from this research suggests that the various housing submarkets
examined in our study perfonned nonnal1y in the years after construction of the tax-credit
properties in question, varying in similar fashion to the pre-construction years, and
responding to supply and demand forces in a similar manner as the larger market.
MAXFIELD RESEAACH INC.
3
$80.00
-
o
o
...
I!!
!!!
'"
III
."
..
.c
..
C
¡¡:
~
..
...
I!!
.!!
Õ
c
$76.00
$72.00
$68.00
$64.00 $62.82
$60.00
$56.00
$52.00
100.0%
99.5%
99.0%
.e
0
-
.. 98.5%
:::;
S
.. 98.0%
..
1i
III
97.5%
97.0%
96.5%
Figure 1
Sales Price Per Finished Square Foot Among Homes Sold
13 Housing Submarkels Surrounding Tax-Credlt Propertlss (Combined)
3 Years Before and Aftsr Construction
-Single-Family Only
. Single Family & T.H. Combined
. . ... . -Townhome Only
$67.89
$65.52
$60.26
$61.39
$64.10
.-'
...................... Â~
'-.
.-...._ .___.._..t.-'
$54.4
$56.16
Pre-3
Pre-2
Pre-1
Post-1
Post-3
Post-2
Figure 2
Sales Price to Ust Price Percentage Among Homes Sold
13 Housing Submsrkets Surrounding Tax-Credit Properties (Combined)
3 Years Before and After Construction
· Single--Family Only
. Single Family & T,H, Combined
.. .. ... .. -Townhome Only
~Â" ..
Pre-3
Pre-2
Pre-1
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Post-1
Post-3
Post-2
4
75
65
VI 55
...
.!!
-
0 45
j¡
E
~ 35
z
25
15
Pre-3
Figure 3
Number of Days on the Market for Homes Sold
13 Housing Submarkets Surrounding Tax.credlt Properties (Combined)
3 Years Before and After Construction
.
Single,Family Only
Single Family & T,H, Combined
.
- - ..¿. . -Town home Only
...........
....
,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
,
, .
..
pre·2 Pre·1 Post,1 Post·2 Post-3
5
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.