The URL can be used to link to this page

1i. Subdivision of 1.66 Acres into 2 Single Family Lots, 3605 Red Cedar Pt Rd - _— C C. DATE: July 6 , 1988 ,. l C 1 TY 0 F C.C. DATE: July 25 , 1988 I • CUA1UAEIi\�\� CASE NO: 88-11 SUB ' by:"' Prepared Dacy/v STAFF REPORT 1 I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Subdivide 1.6 Acres into Two Lots Action by Cray Administrator E dorsel.,!/ ..___� Modified, ___ aRejected__. ___________ I V LOCATION: 3831 Red Cedar Point Drive Date 75/- F� - D3te S::b:ratted tc . - s.,a APPLICANT: Claudette and Bill Way 7'a5—g� Q3605 Red Cedar Point Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 I PRESENT ZONING: RSF; Single Family Residential IACREAGE: 1 . 65 acres DENSITY: IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family . S- RSF; single family QE- RSF; single family Id , W- RSF; single family I [ii WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Property contains existing home, gravel U) driveway to 4 residences and slopes to the southeast. I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential II Y Jr. CV 411iir...3_46111IP ' •4:41 MI \, , .„, .4.___,,,,,,„....., tr it am Al iii C ., 1 , 11 pr NM isigism I IN I= /IF/' , ■ LAKE ,.....1P" i IIII i.....t , Al / NNEW A S HT A \ • i I } I. 1 r RD • • c; • :,N.,..„ PUD—R , g -11. KINGS ROAD I .... ... . ild ... vi /WI IIIIIP; a cn i )1L AKE• - a 41.(;113v z 4 I i, as • ,•,-• • 411\;..._--,-- - - 7 **'■1. 7:: ,57-JOE/Ar ale m%A., itic •-• upillIIIIIIMME* ._ ,—....,,......._ poly, if 44,1 Aft MA I . • Alt I ' N l‘c-sit it IN ilk' , 10*Ce4491014 61.--eiaiV(510 \ ,, 1 RI 6,ccv_c.,10, L_IA,.--i -_ MAPLE SHORES DRIVE t =It- T4 4 f 4 0 I ' rrnirl" N 4 , ,././ ‘,• ii f II allir(( ,.../ . ,... . . ,,...1 .1 .4„., i_mion ,\„ . ....., I komilvt; i' mop =mp, lima-. _____________ • tilkitat a •--:. . . ...,,ima-'7•,_ we+ mit i.1 , ■ _____ Irf---.7 lidi I .., . I ,• ., 4 .° ■ • .. . ■ ••■■..m........ , - L.....77 1% \PO 41111../11017 u, A2 , 1 *. I I I.. -....• ...: i. k I,i ,- • ri;:5-------- IN 12 NO STA 4 '''' '''' '"'''' diliisirshAilt•rear akgtitabtg-- er,G, Way Subdivision July 6 , 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Attachment #1 ' Minnehaha Creek Watershed Attachment #2 ' DNR Attachment #3 Park and Recreation No adverse comments . ' BACKGROUND On August 7 , 1978, the City Council approved subdivision of the ' subject property into two lots . Attachment #4 represents the enclosure that was submitted to the City at that time. During the review process in 1977 and 1978, the City analyzed the site for a potential street along the existing gravel drive. It was the recommendation of the engineer at that time that a street could be built, however, the construction of such a street could be delayed until future resubdivision of the property. At mini- mum, it was recommended that a 50 foot easement be reserved in the general area along the gravel drive. The property owner at that time objected to reservation of the 50 foot easement. The ' Council' s action on August 7 , 1978 , was to permit the subdivision "as presented by the applicant" , and the easement was not required. ' ANALYSIS The proposed lot split meets the city' s minimum requirements for ' lot size and lot width. The parcel is located within 1000 feet of Lake Minnewashta and is therefore subject to the Shoreland Regulations . Nonriparian lots must be at minimum of 15 ,000 ' square feet. The proposed subdivision meets these minimum requirements. (Note that Lot 2 has 87 . 29 plus 2 . 71 feet of fron- tage equaling 90 feet. ) ' Access to the newly created lot can be achieved from Red Cedar Point Road, or at the discretion of the potential property owner, the existing gravel driveway could also be used. It should be noted that the gravel driveway will be located on Lot 2 . Access to the existing home on Lot 1 will be through the adjacent lot. Therefore, a private easement should be negotiated between Lot 1 ' and Lot 2 to ensure legal access to Lot 1 . The existing garage on the property will be located approximately 6 feet from the newly created lot line. The garage is in good ' condition and, although it would be rendered non-conforming, a requirement to relocate or remove it at this time would be too extreme. However, if an addition is proposed onto the garage, ' reconstruction would require meeting the typically required 10 foot setback. ( , 1 Way Subdivision July 6 , 1988 Page 3 Given the City' s prior analysis regarding the access and easement issue, it is recommended that a 50 foot drainage and utility and street easement be reserved on the westerly side of Lot 2 over the existing gravel roadway. The previous analyses used by city staff in 1978 were based on a neighborhood plan for Red Cedar Point Road. At the writing of this report a copy of such could not be obtained; however, in reviewing the file, it was apparently indicated that there was to be a road traversing the site along the alignment of the existing gravel roadway and heading westward back toward Minnewashta Parkway. Upon inspecting the site, staff finds that the topography and the location of existing homes at the end of the existing gravel drive would prohibit construction of this street through this area and toward Minnewashta Parkway. Retaining the easement would enable the city to initiate street construction if requested by the property owners . Because the subdivision meets the lot area and street frontage requirements , staff is not recommending construction of a public street at this time. However, Lot 2 is large enough to be resubdivided in the future. If this were to occur, it would be necessary to create a public street to provide public street frontage to the lot. Upon applying the front yard setback on Lot 2 , there appears to be approximately 60 to 70 feet of area between the setback line and the existing 12 inch caliper pines . Because of the topography of the site, it is anticipated that a building pad would most likely be located in front of these pines . It should be noted at this time that there appears to exist adequate buildable area such that a setback variance would not be necessary and the existing trees can be preserved. RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street ease- ment along the westerly side of Lot 2 . 2 . If Lot 1 is to continue access along the existing gravel driveway, an appropriate driveway access easement be executed with Lot 2 . 3 . If Lot 2 , Block 1 further subdivides, a street shall be constructed at the benefitting property owner' s expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five lots. , 1 . Way Subdivision ' July 6 , 1988 Page 4 4 . A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application process . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the subdivision subject to the recommended conditions with the following changes: ' 1 . Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be determined by City Staff. ' 5 . That staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future ' point. STAFF UPDATE ' The applicant was concerned about the location of the 50 foot ease- ment into the buildable area of proposed Lot 2 . A 50 foot easement ' can be located along the lot line if 10 feet is maintained from the east wall of the detached garage and approximately the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 . Approximately 80 feet of lot width on Lot 2 would ' still exist. Additional area could be gained if the detached garage was moved or rebuilt further to the west. (Note: The applicants have agreed to shift the lot line so that 10 feet will remain between the edge of the garage and the new lot line. ) ' Unfortunately the applicant was out of town this week so this option could not be discussed. In any case, the easement can be located on the property and leave adequate room for a house pad. ' The Planning Commission also asked staff to recommend to the Council whether additional right-of-way should be dedicated for Red Cedar Point Road. An additional ten feet should be dedicated to ' provide a standard fifty feet of right-of-way. Although Red Cedar Point Road is not currently under consideration for improvement, 50 feet would be necessary for urban section construction. ' Commissioner Headla also inquired if the Park and Recreation Commission wanted a trail along this street. The Park and Recreation Coordinator advised that Red Cedar Point Road was not on ' the proposed trail plan. However, 50 feet of right-of-way would provide adequate room for a trail if so required. The following recommendation leaves the Planning Commission recom- mended condition #1 as is to allow staff to work with the applicant further if the garage can be moved. Condition #5 has been changed to require dedication of the ten feet of right-of-way for Red Cedar ' Point Road. Way Subdivision July 6 , 1988 II Page 5 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION I It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision #88-11 subject to the plat stamped "Received June 8 , 1988" and subject to II the following conditions: 1 . Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street ease- II ment along the westerly side of Lot 2 . 2 . If Lot 1 is to continue access along the existing gravel driveway, an appropriate driveway access easement be executed II with Lot 2 . 3 . If Lot 2 , Block 1 further subdivides , a street shall be II constructed at the benefitting property owner' s expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five lots . II 4 . A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application process. 5 . Dedication of ten feet along Red Cedar Point Road. I ATTACHMENTS II 1 . Memo from Larry Brown dated July 1, 1988 . 2 . Letter from Minnehaha Watershed District dated June 22 , 1988 . 3 . Memo from DNR dated June 21, 1988 . II 4 . Proposed lot division considered by the City Council in 1978. 5 . City Council minutes dated August 7 , 1978. 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 26, 1978. II 7 . Letter from Schoell and Madson dated September 26 , 1978 . 8 . Memo from Steve Madden dated June 22 , 1988 . 9 . Map from Red Cedar Point neighborhood plan. li10. Planning Commission minutes dated July 6 , 1988. 11. Preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8 , 1988" . I II 1 1 II II I ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN \, 1/4 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer 1 DATE: July 20 , 1988 1 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Way Addition Planning File 88-11 SUB , George Way , Jr. The Planning Commission approved this subdivision on July 6, 1988 subject to five conditions . Condition 1 of the plat approval ' stated that the applicant shall reserve a 50-foot drainage, uti- lity and street easement along the westerly side of Lot 2 , Block 1 , with final alignment to be determined by City staff. 1 Condition 3 of the plat approval stated that if Lot 2 , Block 1 further subdivides , a street shall be constructed to the City standards at the benefitting property owner ' s expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five 1 lots. The Planning Commission further requested that staff ana- lyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road such that this road may be brought up to City standard at 1 some future point. Since that time, the applicant has requested that the City con- sider decreasing the 50-foot roadway easement to a width of 40 feet. The applicant has indicated that the additional requested easements might affect the eligibility of a further lot split of Lot 2 , Block 1. 1 The City ' s standard for an urban street section maintains a width of 28 feet gutter line to gutter line ( 30 feet back of curb to 1 back of curb) . With a 50-foot right-of-way, this leaves 10 feet on each side of the road for utilities and snow storage for snow plowing during the winter months. This space is vital to keep 1 the future roadway in a clear, open status during winter months. Staff recommends that the 50-foot roadway easement along the westerly side of Lot 2, Block 1 be maintained. 1 It is therefore recommended that the George Way Subdivision dated "Received June 8 , 1988" be approved with the five conditions that were instated during the Planning Commission approval. 1 1 (- C r . . CITYOF ,; r \ ..,i \ 1 .111,, CHANHASSEN ,, ,, I \ I / _: ., , .,:`. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 r MEMORANDUM I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer6t �- f r DATE: July 1 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Way Addition r Planning File No. 88-11 SUB, George Way, Jr. This site is located on the south side of Red Cedar Point II approximately 600 feet east of Minnewashta Parkway. The 1 . 7 acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with an existing II house located on Lot 1 , Block 1 . The existing driveway between the two parcels at present serves three existing homesteads . Sanitary Sewer r Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by the services II which have been extended out to the east side of Lot 2 , Block 1 . A 20 foot sanitary sewer and utility easement exists along the driveway. Each one of the existing homesteads is serviced by this sanitary sewer which runs along the westerly side of Lot 2 . r Watermain Municipal water service is also available to the site by the II existing service which has been extended to Lot 2 in the imme- diate proximity of the sanitary sewer services described above. Access II Since both the proposed lots have adequate street frontage, Lot 2 II of Block 1 may access either the internal driveway or Red Cedar Point Road. If Lot 2 , Block 1 were to futher subdivide, a public street r should be constructed in line with the existing driveway align- ment. For this reason it is recommended that the westerly 50 feet of Lot 2 , Block 1 be dedicated as a roadway easement at this II time. r r 1L ( C Planning Commission July 1 , 1988 Page 2 Drainage ' The majority of the site drains towards the most southeast corner of the parcel. The anticipated house pad location should not affect the natural drainage pattern. Grading and Erosion Control The plan does not propose any grading on the site. It is antici- pated that the grading will be limited to the house pad construc- tion. Erosion control shall be analyzed as part of the building permit process . ' Recommended Conditions 1 . A 50-foot roadway easement shall be granted to the City on ' the westerly 50 feet of Lot 2 , Block 1 . 2 . If Lot 2 , Block 1 further subdivides, a street shall be constructed at the benefitting property owner' s expense ' within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five lots . 3 . A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application process . IIIM 1 oN A;c�FF c WATERSHED BOUNDARY •N I•ii • ,....„...„..4,90 -;--,.. N App „, _- ,`Q MINH4' . 1 �S/IED D\S rr- y40* MIRINEHAHA CREEK LAKE MINNETONKA WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 M% NESOTA RIVER I BOARD OF MANAGERS: Camille D.Andre,Pres. • Albert L.Lehman • John E.Thomas James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Robert D.Erickson • C.Woodrow Love II June 22, 1988 II Ms . JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen I PO Box 147 Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 RE: Proposed development by George Way, Jr. I Dear Ms . Olsen: II We have received the information you forwarded concerning the proposed development by George Way, Jr. In accordance with Rule B: 5(c) , this project is exempt from permit II requirements of the MCWD. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 473-4224. 1 Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES II Engineers for the District (22et .‘. (1 qeuz-t, I Kevin C. Larson, Engineer I bt 1 I I I JUN 2 / 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEN I ■ 7-- i NA-02617-03 *le- ( IN PERSON ■ */INNEsoTA TRANSMITTAL Field . - ' Hydrographics I I DepaFtment ot II, Natorai Resources Director Office Adm.Services TELEPHONE Division of VV:,aters Permits , ACTION • Land Use . Take Approp. -- Local TELE' INote and File Dated,File /a 1760:gg Dist Please Call Note and Return File Groundwater I Prepare Reply Mgt/Climatology Invest and Report I e.(1A/Vielr-TSE A/ Surface Water&Dams RE: Ge,44,1,1 11 !3)on4 7 r ,--1 RI)L -s Al Fie'l•y• ..,1_7) s# z-AAI,E) 6' --'). FO/Z-- F-i' (--4.-- I L 4 /1/'IA)E-I/UA.-5 kirj4 - 1,..-1.------ g L 0/.s / -b--7 i'/ /iti‘ /z R.F.,,,,--,-.. I x re— &or 14.63,07-7-/A/. <-11.1&"---LA' :- I Z.07-- Na --.-7-T.7-'777777 -.: - -„., .:-;'..'_',:%:;:-..,.:::, I , ---e.s,-.-r- r.,'..; .,.,.,..,,,: :j,5.-.:-:: ..v.'4.['.,-:i,--.:.7.':-;`,....:-i'_:.:.;,, .,--.. : -,,:i3;k\•''''-',F,-"- '• '-- "'''''''''''''''47c:'-''-•.•''- 'i--'<,-, ''r.ai•.2'.-..:., ,'.::,•,-;-,'::414-1,i*`;:fg* .'-.-1-,'-*-'1-.=.-if:.-;:y-,'.--r.:',-..rs,'.7'--:,.-:--::-.--'-::':-.:.:::..::-.:.._.,::-.::;•:. .,.:.-., , ,.._ -,-..::::,,,..,_:,,:-:.:_.-.:-.:.:::.,.._. ::•-,'„,,,'1,::,;:.;.:.:;,,:::ii::; ,... i-;:--::::::'-'1-.;:,-;-,,-.:.ie-',..,,"',.il':,7:::::;',,:,,i',-.:,.1:-:',==,•::::}1-.it.,-,VEi.'::i• A:. 4';-.' r'::--;'.-;!•: .'rJ,":;,--5.5';- '.7, .,::.._'.•::- ':.., ;.<:;.-:'.--:'K''--=--I'''';::'..2j:-':.'.-..-,.- ;:"--:-. .2 7:-'-;I:-..:""..-;:i-"_:.....4:'.:1:i:' -:.;.;.:'.•:::/::.;::-.--5.'''--,:''''.1,„:';:-%-',-.:..,,"-'.'iY.,:i-:;-:".".-,.:,;.:/4;, .--, 11';.1: ";': .,:,4`,"...!;•;.:-.. ...;;''..f.'' ''-':1`...'< i'i::.''.-:". ,:-J=. •.:,. ';- .'-':,,--'?".-21',;"-e-t.:1;fq.‘<,'. :1-!,:.="3--;.;"- -:----..-;-..m't, :-.'. ::::'.,;'.1 --;-,----.":.!,,..7,--'',:;.:-::.....F.:"-7,--,•-.:`"T2'5%:::::;:::'-;-'77'-c...-::: ,:f.:.:.--:,:"4"-r,...'.':::-'.;;.:.:;;.%17,- -;,::::!';',.._-.7.:=;,:%!-:::;;:-,:-...1'::',--;;-:-.17,.,;:::C.','.:21::':',.-;".,...,;±:;,.:E",.:-..'P.".,..1'.",:."..-f-t'7.:::::'..j.:":7:,-4:-A.:-.:::::::.r.::-.,F.I':-:7;;.: ::::f4:4::-/,'::::,- ',-T-f--' ,;T:.'-';;.7:-.1-.`:Z. ;::'-':- ...:r*: -`,..;`,. .-'.';'"":'''':%:'±'ilr-'''.5-":::-.--',':-...Z.::.[;-i.":-.‘'''''::1:;;;:;r•--;::2",: :'-',-",.,..-;;:;:;.4.;;; fi .'i..?,-'7"ii.1.1 ?-",.-1,.Z.,:::::...1.:...`;i.,.:'''..,7:-::,-..-:,-.2; 4:-..:'.. .:: :'7.,-i.:';.-::-: ' ,'." .'.-.'.',1..--,1,..,.:,.,:c,:?.7,:.',::v.ftfis.. .1%'',:* :4:ci5-,',3:-‘;',.t FIZ.:4,:;:.1...:=.;‘, ,;:-.1-:. :--1.` -,.F7-Y.i.el-;i7.-1;1...j.":.4i-S,z7‘;',. .,-. .:::‘.7!'-'-''.•:i•-.4.7:i:::';-:.-',3'.. .'•:: ::•;:'';-:'5.''''':.:Z.:!.;;;.?--:" -!:'-';=:4%,"-..:-',.'--1'.%`:-:"-'::.:::'":"*"::::;:,,"::T":: :L;...'';'-=;":-.;'?'..‘VI:-%'i:'.; :-.':: ::';'''''S.:;.!''''..: ::';‘;‘..r':-+:^.-:;-ii.;';":'';';`4_,;-. *:..5.::::- i'.,Ii.:,%:: ::-.;::,rZ-.:':::"VD::::-.j:i.Y.:;-;;V-;:::%:-. .;i7;.:;"-.'..-.--,::'-:-.'Zi'.--',.:1;-`47,:?;;;:'::-.:::?;-;:;-1:1,-::'?-:!:::1::.1„..,:l.s:;.:::=,:;4:1;..,1.:.:-7,-,....1';.,,,'',.:.i:1-7,3: ::::+ft,""1/,::::'.:.;:".1:,',',,..:TY:;;;',...'.f.''''''',.;3'''.-:2;','...'''''.:.; :•'.::!-'-2:%.:.!:.'::.'';'!.::::1:;"5‘.,:- -7":-:7-'7'..7.:1:35:Z.:'?i',t,'IC,:i1::•;!:5,..:-.Z;;A-;=":'1;:114.:',:.:4' .f,'`.;-::''''.i,-::i'..'4A.'".".%:-1.T,-.&:".;';'..;-'''f.4:7.-'''.-.:-.;'';•:-i::;"it'1-:.2;''''..i.i'::"%.,2-:::'''',3;.1.4.--;,--::':V.:,:i'S:.r.l':-,..1"Z:k.:".;':;-'::::-.;:..:.7,.Y:i.;,`,:"Ts",:,:::.1:.;j.: ::`::::''',. !:'?:,:3.,!:;....*:;'..1.!..,7'sr..,',."1:::"-:,;_,.yl..t,"-../:-..i...::-..'''''.:::7-..ji..:::::::',7.;:,..'".2j::::::'.-=':-.'f.::5-7■'-f; ---:::.....-,;-":■. .";;%':::-a-*.233.;:.t. -: 1,-,-:l':?:;f:.:;,!:,...",S,-;:l.:2;.;:-. .`,'‘..:;;J..;,.:::;-,?...;i: ;-:;...,[ift;;-,......i".. .Y.::,-....'::-::::ZI,j,li'z;:if;',"":-1.,"*-1. 1:".:::: :.;.:!;,;.-".:i'l.'.=..i;":!-.,---,i: ::',1;:'4'..."'N. ;-"".-:;'!''',...";-';'..lf..;7'.''.''''..;: .';'.±•;;;'f-;:;.7,:::-....-'...:.:17::::,...;,.:;:*-;.',"-:::•!;::.:::,'",-. 7.- .;7:1.1::- ..*.vi.6.:',',.$:.;,'ttP.:',..,_:;‘",:r1-Tji"..14:1`..[:%:.`"''i..if;;: ;:"::Fi:j.. ,...,-"-:',"•-•.-:-C L:=?"...-.:--v•,:.'":';-.-,--:',.,-'-'7.-..k.i."';'-..-,,' .=-C::-t--.:'-',-..- "f-'-'-.' -...,'-.::: .,•"1:1..--..--.--1,=;.1.f.f-c.--5--- -'.=::':', ..-..,.--:-.!.?•:.r t',.: ,--tf. ,..,,. 1;-''..':-."'02..■':'-'.:,9-..--,4-'"--;=",P•tf4--`1:?:`,::1..r.,.,'''':.:,‘. ..,,,,.. ,,....,Te:...:,...........::,- ,.-,f,:,i,...:-,,,;-,,I.-...:,,--.,,..„.......-;.-.-:::-.0,--,--,:',z,•-_,, -,',',..,:::-..:::,;;.:,:.4....-:0-,-.7::-.....-....,:..,:-.T,-,...,:-:,7,-...... ,;-.;...-,--,.,:.,..---.,;:-.,,?..,-;',..:,%.::p ,_,...:;;:...7,4.7.":1,-::.1,-;:f..",:..-/ .i.:•...;-,.:i'=,:::.1•:.f-::.-•:,,'.;',.:,,,,i..„. ,,,,,:"....,-..:;.=!;;:;',:.-....,.;-.4,1.,.:;,,;,:ii,..,,:,!-.,:;:-:•/::::..., , ,..;-:,-,-.:--...:-...:',..i.--.:-.:::, ''''..;,.7-,:`:'.-?. i:,;.:'..r-4......',;::::,.,:,:i'',..4--.'t.'''..c:<<?.:-fr'•."<:=',==:;,::- -- ..?-1.-.:',',--•:;'.:-e-z-..'17.1'''''' '.4".''''::'"'"'••- ',T,...,1 4').,•',;,.'■•■*.t.,,,,-; .,.. ..:-:.....,. . .1'5;..-;...r,==-.;•:-::::it,..,.;=:.-.J..:.:0'F,,-4_,,,.,-.7r7.,''-.7..c-..-;.'r...!,-......5.,.!;.,.',N.,--._-...fz,.;:.----...,,y,t!-...,:.-....:.,:i...:-.:.-„;-,,,,,-,.,,f4.3.:;.:-.,,,,;,,..-..,,,.;;;1;-.7,,-,;-:?: :.:.-f:Z'')-.."=k'Z':';::::=1:'ii,f•;:f::-.:::-:`:v.??.;'.-C.:=.:',-:--`-L'.;is.C.':::-."..":“-'1;:-.."..."-1::1:---:''.:`,:e' s•-:z:',,:c'. ::: -...::,1::.,•..if:,:51.171:;;;:....-..':::,:r.i.:::Y,:,,,-;,741--: .::.,,...,---.,%.':,:-.''--%,.:--'::::•';'-'''•-; "...--''':i;'.'.•-•:."'''.;-:.:;":".7-.'''.<-:--'''..,-t•,-,:.:4'.?:..--:.i.--7-..,.....: . ., . . " tC",T'i.';-4':-.;:.-:. .71?;--=:i:r. .E;;;:::,i'; ',.::;;I1:::;"<;;':''..--f.:;`-;1-!-','.:4".",...74:::C:7:;2:7',.1--:.)::-2-',7:7":'-;..t.::!-:',-;-1.:C.:--- :---:<+,<ii'-F---.:::;:::-::::-,,,-',-,;--';'....;::-.-r-?<.<)l':?;-.4-;--.:•:f.,:' <;:"/:-:=4 ;„'p,,,--.:-;:,:-.::::-;:::::::..... zrl',‘..,-':..e!-:........-.,....:A .-- 7.....-_-i‘t.--,,--, .— ....„.,,, , ....F.,.:. ; . ---.,,.. ,t .:"-:<:;- .-„„---,......_-..ii;v::...,,..•-:. -.?.;',.'::-.•7::_:.:!,,<-:.-....',;-4-:::::;.:..':'.:-!‘:'.---.--",'..s.'".:.4..(.'...':,=‘.<2'.;-"---.:.-7-.....-`,-.:::." .:.r.:.,. .•-.1.1:,.;i:;-.....,-.7,7 ,,....,:. ,..,....,..,;:..-;,...,.,- ,-.---;:-...y_.-.;-,-.. -.;;,,,--..-,.t-_'.. -:..-..,: ,..;.--,".-....-' . .. ' ..,..,,,...: :,...-.',i,-Fk!,-,,;:-.......:.- •.,..;.":"1,7,:ijs,-,'.',Z-'..-!.:,,-..-.'1",,:-: '4.;'-'..1.Z.,::::, 1",..".=;.";Sr=';','-'-'..:1 :'';i ..--z...,..' .-.:- :Ii."' ,=::1Z.-...'is..-,2-'",-;..1.7.'Tfs'Y!-..-":-..t.'..7.;''' ,..-`;'-'.'"::':;,.:::;'''';-;-,t,:>.:1'.i'c'';:C''"Z.."-':-:',•:`ii:::;;'?..';C-.. -,...•.,;,;';', . ',? ,-. ._ -3.-‘,75.4.-',-,:,:-',..-,....t.---.;-,-,--„:-,-.•y,,-..;.T::,•,;:-.**,-,. ,•,_:-,.,..-.•:'..-.;•,'.7-.=.••• ,*-.;:.,:,2*-'-*•;-,'•-...;7:-.4'..'.-*-f•-"-•'_-....7"-1;--•:';-!:,'....:',..,'7':: -!•*s-,.;,,;7.-;-..vi----.'•--5";,:7.-,*-..-_,:-....;:;:::',.,:zi-•2:it;',..;:‘,‘-';,-,th:,'-- =',- -:=1;.'•..,*iffit--,WsIt'..'w?•'-•? :-..,'..., ..7-::--t-1!,:- -••••:.*:1,:z.;*•.',;-,-.: .' *s....'-','!; 7T ,-5-..i-i-.; •-.?. .-•;`. .i:'':-.".„.•" •"-i:-.-:-ii:;-•:-?-:.-;•`:"' ::;:2- -4.-'t.:;?;%%':-.i.7-:-. .:. :--',;-7'-,:.1.W.; - ..:-. .--;,---?',-.--' ''',..:;,::::---,. -2'.--';-:„,,.'..;=-`--k.:;"*-:P.-,..%:::<.:,,53.W..is`",4-131!-;.--X-5...:,..I7.:11i.: .".•!-;.i".:-.72::::_;.-::-!"'gV-.-c-:•::-.:''''-'.'=';...'_Z''---,:"..i--=*--1.--i7, -..---:-.4*:.• -'...--i-*,.--::-.-:-.'•...-,zf.- --:-.1,..;!-:::=•;:,:.44.-;:74.*---:2,,-:•-•,-;.:-.-.-. ,,: -...,:,-,.;...,...,-;,..__J--;,.,----..„,-.,,:„..,,,-,,ti.-...;.,x ,tras..,,;7•,tp,L,,r:•;--,,•.'ne .:.:-.;*:•,--,,i--2.:.:!;.2-•,1'''';-'• ---'' •-•--:4- ' :••-•-,.:-•,--;f.:-.",-,:*---;:--E,-".-1.--•:-'-'--, .,•-•::',-:t':•f. --*-:•.,,:-:„....---.-.:...--,•:',,-.-. 5,"1.::::_-F,,,-..*.-.-..::=7-.. -:',>.---':',,,„*.4-- L.:w-'...'1,-.414,..,44Nt.fj.)',•""it-rVi•-:4-• -eT:-.-:;141'......i.:&::*41.•;-'•:is; -.:e7;.,,',,:'-;:t",?:;',.•-:-.:..•-•;'..-;i:.:•,;--41,;.•'--.'P:•.-;;',7-•=7fr.-- -.'..i.:*•:-"'•::--::'• -I:" -;-:::------,•:.*:-.'-.'''.'--4-:'*4'il.4-:-.Y-.4.-75:-.--..---'-.----.----.•-'--fifs'''''=-•••Y:-,''-'-- E.'-';,--*'-•-•::=:::-.:'''':.--,.:'-----,--- ''4.71:4(--7-Ci.":-V. ',--.Ai:f‘•C*,--.5.- -'.:-.:Tfil::,;.-,;:4',--=,...-',Z:,.:-,E,';:,:'.''..-..-.:7'_-:-:".-4::::i-I.:; :.-4'. ...-‘1:c.,:-.73..-•-:-:-'1 .--.''',.„ :7;.::'?;;;'::'.-',::.i:-:Tiiz.7-,,r'4..":-.:. '-'*.-,-",.."':'-'.;::.*---.,-:::::;c-5..--•'.---,...4,--:'...:•,',i'l;•-/-•,:-_,t.-,.'-:„.;7" -_-;71:.-•-•*::::---..L'---;-:''•_-----''',...;`_-:--:.,':*;:-.1'j -:.• '..!: I '-!:-.•c::::..';=:-;.-;;:.•!4-..;?;;;-:!.'-:‘,$-.:-.;.';',..--,,-a:.•-•'?..;',g.'.. ...'./L: -.-...-_'.';:k ''4''..1,---::: :*:::',-.;-"t't-,*,.--;-.7*.--••'", •;.•'•-'--'2...i,..:,-....:-..,...-.'-...:',"--:•,-.--_.'-fs.::--.....--;',-1-i-: -,,,q;--*:--,:,-.,.,0-,-...-,,,t,',- .,', ....-,-,.--:;;;;zZ:.'.t'•,..-r,.-..,::'-*:•7'•':•-•--,"::::-.--='---'s•-•'_-':. ::.z:- '------:•••.:'*--•-•.-. :•:''-.... -,..t""-*,::' J-;-'-,...:•:,-1.'f•••"i:,'a 1-*•`-''.-.....'s-1. :.----- ',-;'... .- --- ',_.•:, - - -,:-_,.,.....,;,,.:,•:!,, ,,,,':!,,,-:;-..,tz.t'...*::,. ,.. •:-Y-•.-....;'-.71":.r.-i.,...-4F I '.L'-.-:.t-'•f.:•-c."-:%. •-::::::---.!..e.,•,.-,..•;;;;;-7-,•,-,,_•7,-;.;:-..-,4.,..,,,,,,-:,•:,- --,:...-:,.. -; :,:......-_,..-;..--..-.;•-,,-;s-.:. --*, -;,... ,--.-- :-•:." ----. :. -.. . .:J.:. %.,.si-.2,......,,,,J.-.,L:::;:.".'-••••:.-r-',:-:-"-*:-..-1,;,.;-:4,:jc&=.,:-..':-. .-:.;_-'- --:,.-.„-.;..-,*;-..,.....i.;.-...-:!.-•:.'„----':--‘::::*_--'-f,-,----.i---: "*- - - -----J'_.--.„,..-..- ----7.,..1--J:=‘:,,---,---. : . .t. .-- ,- .i.- •.----. -.•' . -,_.:._., ..---..-2,...,:z.,,,3,-,-;.7.,r,-:.?__:,;:-.:-.--.7.,,•z--iz-21::4---..,,,....1-F-....-...,--, -------- - - .7., •-:. . ' ...' .:- ,._..•, - . • , - . • . _ „ , ,• • .... ... _ • - -., : . - • --- - - - . , , .. • - . . •.- - .„-- . ,,.., . • .. . , . . , _ •-• - .. i -- .•-.. . . - ... . ..-, - ., . ._ . ..-,.. . .- .. ,, _ - •- - • - , .- . .. . . _ - , . , . . _ . . ._ , _ ,. -.., .. • . - .. .. . , - . '--- JUN a f198 8, _ . .. ... . . _. . . _ _ _..... .. • P-1 CITY OE CHANhASS-\I . „ . ---- .. . . -- .. - - • „ . _ -. . . . _ , _ . in _ ... - . , . . _ . • , , , 1. .- ,-.-: , z" c C 1 I I _ ! 9--7 // � 1 I 09/20,00:;E. SUUtjiS ybiJ - I I• _� 1 /,),,.2,, 7s ,,/... / / \ 1 `; SRL I 1 \ /67:21,"6/E. D /7T /---___11z_t_____Ls ro ,) 1 C) c•• i' L I I ty0,73 , 03,0 I (6.s I —MT AL I, C.)- A I F/OCLOSORE 42$ .. I 11 Council Meet August 7 , 1978 -4- Councilman Pearson moved to accept Council Exhibit A of the Chanhas:, i ' Professional Building dated August 7 , 1978 , as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mays. Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz , and Geving . No negative ' votes . Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the rezoning request from R-1A to CBD conditioned upon entering into a conditional use permit. ft. ' seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz , and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to g approve the subdivision of the property represented on Exhibit A from the Bloomberg properties parcel subjer to presentation of a hardshell. Motion seconded by Councilman Pears. ' The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neve. Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. ' Councilman Neveaux moved to direct staff to proceed with drafting t?: documentation to execute the financing scheme described in the City Manager' s report of August 3 , 1978 . Motion seconded by Councilman ' Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Peal- Neveaux, Waritz , and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. . iSUBDIVISION REQUEST, GEORGE WAY, 3831 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE: Mr. Wa- is seeking approval to subdivide his property into two residential lots . The Planning Commission held a public hearing but was unable to agree on a recommendation on the road easement through the proper Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the subdivision for Mr. George Way as presented by the applicant under Planning Case P-408 . Motior. ' seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayo: Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz . No negative f votes . Motion carried. Councilman Waritz moved to allow the subdivision on a metes and bounds description. The legal description will be approved by City Staff. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz , and Gee • No negative votes . Motion carried. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, GORDON JULIUS , 336 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD : Mr. an� ' Mrs . Julius were present requesting approval to subdivide their property into three lots . Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the preliminary plat, Planning Case P-569 for Gordon Julius , subdividing a parcel into three reside lots and approve a variance to Section 8 . 06-a (1) of Ordinance 33 ' contingent upon successful negotiations with Near Mountain Propertie' Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz , and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Peal.' • ' Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz . No negative votes . Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12 : 00. tDon Ashworth, City Manager Planning Commission Meer'` g July 26, 1978 -2- ' The 1 .2 acres are located approximately 230 feet west of the intersection of Laredo Drive and West 78th Street on the south side of West 78th Street and is currently II zoned R-1A. It is recommended that the property be rezoned CBD. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated July 24, 1978. The Assistant City Planner recommended that the Planning Commission find this proposal II to be positively consistent with the HRA proposed concept plan for the redevelopment district and that the Planning Commission recommend the Council grant a variance to Ordinance 47K. ' A new plan dated July 26, 1978, was presented. Roman Roos - We wanted to try to get a finalized sketch plan and landscape plan that I would be ameanable to what the city's recommendations would be. We feel we have done this in several aspects. If you notice on this latest drawing I am using a zero lot line setback. The justification that I am asking for this variance is that small triangular piece of land that is just north of my property, about 14 foot on the west side going out to about 20 feet on the eastern side, is county land. It is my intent to try to get the county to vacate that parcel of land since it serves no useful purpose. In the worst case, if the county will not vacate or will not sell , that will mean that that piece of land will be there forever without a real use therefore it will be the front portion of my property. With the piece of property, in order to get as many parking spaces as I could and still not get the cluttered approach, I elected to set the building on that lot line giving me II 55 parking spaces with the idea in mind that there is enough land between the corner of that building and the highway. It is very difficult to tell you or agree to the staff recommendation of 73 parking spots based on not knowing what type of tennants will be in there. I am asking that the parking spaces be put on a phased situation. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The II following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Dick Matthews , and Jerry Neher. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ' GEORGE WAY SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:55 p.m. with the following interested ' persons present: James Larkin, Attorney for Mr. Way Wesley Searles , 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive Glen Carlson, 7141 Minnewashta Parkway Ann and Robert Osborne, 3815 Red Cedar Point Drive Ken Smith, 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive Ed Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Art Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Dolores Roman, Daughter of Genenieve Draus, 4343 Benjamin NE, Minneapolis Louis Zakariasen, 3861 Red Cedar Point Drive George Way, 3831 Red Cedar Point Drive Al Klingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Dick Pearson , 7307 Frontier Trail Mr. Way is seeking approval to subdivide his property at 3831 Red Cedar Point into two lots and to record it by metes and bounds description. The property would be divided along an existing sewer easement. II Planning Commission Mee( g July 26, 1978 ( -3- The Planning Commission requested staff prepare a report that speaks to the five points 1 cited in the Assistant City Attorney's letter of February 3, 1978. 1 . The Planning Commission must find that the Planning Commission Development Guide for the Red Cedar Point area requires that a public right-of-way be established through the applicants property. The Development Guide on pages 2 and 3 provides that potential I new street alignments indicated therein are flexible and will become fixed only after individual development requests are presented. After extensive study of the traffic circulation in this area of Red Cedar Point staff has determined that the city does II have an obligation to considering the health, safety, and general welfare of adjoining property owners. Specifically, this involves the determining of a minimum standard with which all the adjoining properties can be accessed by emergency vehicles which t has been partially attempted by the Red Cedar Point Plan. The purpose of the Guide Plan was to establish general guidelines and diminish any oversights as planning occurred for individual development. The Plan was attempting to express the need for the properties to the south of the Way property to receive access of sufficient I standards so as to satisfy any issues of public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The location of the proposed public right-of-way continues to be consistent with the City's plan for Red Cedar_Point. The City Engineer's opinion is essentially an I extension of the generalized purpose of the Red Cedar Point Plan and thus is consistent with the city's plan for the Red Cedar Point area. 3. There is a public need for the proposed public right-of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets in the adjoining areas. The extent to which there IIis a public need for the proposed public right-of-way is somewhat nebulous at this time for the property to the southwest of the Way property but when the criteria of public need is posed in reference to the properties south of the Way property it I becomes a question of whether or not the city has fulfilled its obligation of providing for the health, safety, and welfare of the southern properties. The proposal at hand is of such a nature that it could well forclose the city's ability Ito thoroughly plan for adjoining properties in respect to circulation and access. 4. A public right-of-way feet in width is a reasonable portion of the George Way subdivision in view of the public access need occasioned by Mr. Way's subdivision activities. In light of the fact that the right-of-ways in the plat of the Red ICedar Point are considerably less than the required 50 feet. It would be recommended at this time a no build line be established on the parcel to be subdivided so as to allow for appropriate setbacks and for the potential provision of a 40 foot easement II or right-of-way along the alignment of the existing sewer easement. It is apparent that the parcel to be subdivided is not benefitting from the proposed access at issue. However, the abstract history of Mr. Way's past subdivisions involved portions of I those properties to the south having questionable access. 5. The public need for said right-of-way is specifically and uniquely attributable to Mr. Way's subdivision activities. As in four above it is not clear if past subdivision activities of Mr. Way can be held as argumentative for the access Ideficiencies to the properties to the south. From a strict physical standpoint the conveyance of that portion of Mr. Way's property to Berton Pierce did contribute to the landlocking of these properties. IThe Assistant City Planner recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition that a no build line be established so that no building is to encroach within 50 feet I of the eastern border of the existing sewer easement. The Planning Commission look with favor upon Mr. Way's request to record the subdivision by metes and bounds provided that it be in the form of a surveyor's certificate for Council consideration. IJames Larkin - It seems to me that the problem we are dealing with here is that you are taking an ordinance that was designed to regulate developers and applying it to an individual case where the result is very unfair and II would suggest to you also illegal . I don't wish to quarrel with the planning concepts that may be presented here. It may indeed be good for Chanhassen to have the Red Cedar Point Comprehensive Plan and it - ' may be good at sometime if they want to put a road in there but I • Planning Commission Meer July 26, 1978 4!" -4- ' want to suggest to you that it's not fair to impose that burden on Mr. Way. Mr. Way is 85 years old and his need to sell part of his property arose because the City of Chanhassen has imposed upon him assessments for sewer and water. That house is served by Red Cedar Point Drive. It doesn't need the new road. He has a contract to sell the lot for $10,000. This lot doesn't need this road. What you 'are saying is that because of the planning concept for future needs they may want the road. If that's so, the city has the right to condemn it but to say we are going to impose a 40 foot setback line in order that we can come along at our leisure and sometime in the future and condemn it, I suggest it simply won't meet the test of legality. I appreciate staff's willingness to recommend that the platting requirement be waived. I think from a legal standpoint it's unconstitutional and unfair to impose on one person, especially in this situation , a burden that is really the community's burden. Ken Smith, 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive - I have an easement over the road in question and I go down to the lake. I am confused what the health, safety, and welfare meant in the planner's report but I interpret that as the city being able to provide services. He is saying, let's put a 40 foot road to here so that you can go on up the hill on that 12 foot road. It's not to here (bottom of the hill) that the problem exists. It's from here. You don't have a problem on this nice straight flat part, you have a problem from the end of that in terms of getting equipment up. Here is where the problem was where they couldn't get the fire engine had trouble II getting up this hill. It was way up here on his driveway. The 40 foot road here does not solve this problem and that's what I hear you are trying to solve. This road only serves four people. II Bob Waibel - It's an engineering question what would be a standard that would at any season would support a fire truck going up that road. Ken Smith - The engineering problem to be solved is how do I get a fire engine up this guys driveway not how do I get to it. I can get to it on the existing road.' To force a 40 foot road for access for four families , that's pushing a standard down the throat of an old man who is trying to sell his property. Bob Waibel - The 40 foot also included, the Red Cedar Point Plan does show that II circulation be carried through the property southwest of Mr. Way out to Minnewashta Parkway. Bob Osborne, 3815 Red Cedar Point Drive - My only comment is that I am opposed that any ' street or driveway of a 40 foot width coming down in that area. If you are going to provide some true protection you have got to come up the hill and if anybody here has seen that hill there is no way short of condemning the Cobb property that you are going to be able to level it and get a 40 foot width out of it. I really prefer the seclusion that that road provides. Wesley Searles , 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive - I do not want to see any 40 foot road go through there. I do not want to see a proposed road going to the II south of me across my property out on to Minnewashta Parkway. I want things to stay status quo. Ed Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive - I would just as soon keep it the way it is II right now. Dick Matthews - I would like to ask each one of the landowners here and I would like II them to state their name, I would like them to simply say yes or no to this question; do you feel as a landowner adjoining or connecting _ Planning Commission MeetirJuly 26, 1978 -5- this piece of property, that this 40 foot proposed road would serve your health, safety or welfare? Bob Osborne - No. Ken Smith - No, I don' t believe the 40 foot easement will benefit my health , safety ' or welfare. Wesley Searles - No. Glen Carlson - No. ' Louis Zakariasen - No. Dolores Roman - No. Ed Allerman - No. ' George Way - I am opposed to a 40 foot road. Louis Zakariasen, 3861 Red Cedar Point Drive - It seems to me that the Planning Commission , sometime along the line has really blown it and that there should ' be some compensation and some giving on the Planning Commission 's part of this thing. If this thing was that necessary it should have been taken care of a long time before this , activation of Kirkham ' Road or whatever. Jerry Neher - Who maintains that road now? ' Bill Brezinsky - It is privately maintained. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:35 p.m. Ann Osborne -- Mr. and Mrs. Way have been under a great deal of pressure. Mrs. Way did not come tonight because she has high blood pressure. I would ' appreciate it if you would make an effort to get it settled tonight because they have been under pressure for over a year. 1 i i I I ' Planning Commission Meetjng July 26, 1978 C ' II GEORGE WAY SUBDIVISION: II Roman Roos - I would like a concensus from each of you in terms of how you feel about this in view of what we heard at the public hearing. Dick Matthews - My assessment of this is that this road is such an "iffy" thing. Noboll seems to take a stand as to even its probability of ever going in. I have difficulty with a 40 foot road going across that mans property and then stopping somewhere down here. If we extended it out to Minnewashta Parkway we are in fact going to cause another problem with II another landowner and I think that proposed connection would start to cause problems with the landowners in between. If the city wants that road bad enough then they ought to buy it. Bill Brezinsky - We are talking about 40 foot wide right-of-way. One way to compromise !' is to say we will squeeze it down to a 30 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot road. You can't meet a car on that road now. If a car breaks down there or if anything, you can't get by them. A 20 foot road is what we have in Carver Beach with no parking. Dick Matthews - I think we are getting into an exercise in futility. We have to decide first of all , do we need the road. II Craig Mertz - From a legal standpoint you have got to distinguish between public safety considerations that give rise to a need for a road. If you find that that has occurred then that's a justification for condemning property If the activities of Mr. Way caused the need for a road then you can rightfully ask him for the right-of-way. If you feel there is a danger there and it's not attributable to Mr. Way then I guess your action would be to recommend to the Council that they order a feasibility study acquiring that roadway. Dick Matthews - If we leave it as a private driveway and we go on record stating that the City will not maintain or make any improvements on that property I from this day forward. Craig Mertz - There was a driveway there and all we purchased from these people was a sewer easement. We do not buy right-of-ways. I Dick Matthews - Let's say we let it go as it is and three years from now they come in and say, we want a roadway in there and we say to bad because there is no way to get the property. Craig Mertz - You still have got to face the questions , do you need the roadway because II of something Mr. Way has done. If you answer no to that and the other four points then you can't justifiably ask Mr. Way to give up his property. II Bob Waibel - If that's the case then have we shirked our duty? That's my main concern if it comes back to the city a few years down the line when an incident does occur. Craig Mertz - There is an argument either way about whether Mr. Way has himself generated the need for this roadway. He created two of the parcels that are landlocked. Roman Roos - Do you think he created this problem?- Jerry Neher Yes. The problem is there whether those people want to recognize the fact or not. Walter Thompson - I don't think he created the problem. Roman Roos - I do. Dick Matthews - I have difficulty finding out what problem he created. Obviously there isn't a problem because all these people were here telling us there weren't. Roman Roos - Let's look at it from a planning point of view. Let's look at and see what it's doing to the overall plan. Dick Matthews - I don't see where you have got landlocked land. Craig Mertz - There is a private driveway that goes up that hill and there's four houses that use that driveway. 1 Planning Commission Mee( g July 26, 1978 Dick Matthews - Being landlocked means you can't get in and out and they are getting ' In and out. I don't see how it's landlocked. If it's landlocked because of a definition or an ordinance, that's one thing but if it is landlocked so that you can't get in or out of it, that's another thing. ' Jerry Neher - The thing about it is , all these people sitting back there saying they have no problems. They sell that property and that new buyer may think he has a hell of a problem. Roman Roos - Craig's number three point is very important. There is a public need ' for a proposed public right-of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets. That's what the planning obligation is all about. - That's what the Red Cedar Point Plan is. ' Walter Thompson - I think- the City had better buy that property then. Dick Matthews - If we go with this thing. He takes us to court. Are you going to win or lose? Craig Mertz - Probably lose. Jerry Neher - I think we could buy it. Dick Matthews - If we believe in that and that's what we want, then he is due just compensation. Bill Brezinsky - You are going to improve the access to the base of the hill . Bob Waibel - To prevent any problems from that point between Red Cedar Point Drive and the bottom of the hill . After that point maybe all liability should be waived. Bill Brezinsky - Without taking the hill completely down almost, you are not going to improve those driveways. You are going to have to sweep around ' somehow. Roman Roos - If we put in a 20 foot road it's going to be just a detrimental to him as a 40 foot. He is going to lose the sale of his land or whatever. I don 't think we can even consider Mr. Way we have to consider the road ' and the overall Red Cedar Point Plan. The Red Cedar Point Plan never ever considered going to the top of that hill . We, as planning commissioners , if we go along with that, if we acquire that property, run it to the base of that hill at this point in time we have the capability of extending that road all the way over to Minnewashta Parkway then we have met our obligation as far planners. ' We have met our obligation as far as what we feel the injustice has been done to George Way. If we could maintain a standard road system. Give just compensation to Mr. Way then I feel we have met our obligation. Dick Matthews - That road, if they got a 20 foot or 40 foot easement through there, ' that doesn't mean they are going to put that road in. There is no since in putting that road in under todays conditions. All you are doing is providing easement for future road system. Craig Mertz - It would merely be preserving the corridor. Walter Thompson - I am of the opinion that we leave the easement as is. Roman Roos - I would like to poll the commission. The first question being that the ' Planning Commission Development Guide for Red Cedar Point area requires that a public right-of-way be established through the applicants property. Jerry, how do you feel about number one, yes or no. Jerry Neher - Yes. ' Dick Matthews - I disagree. Roman Roos - I agree. Walter Thompson - I disagree. Roman Roos - Item number 2, that the location of the proposed public right-of-way continues to be consistent with the City's plan for the Red Cedar Point area. Dick - Yes. ' Roman - Yes. Jerry - Yes. Walter - Yes. Roman Roos - Item number 3, that there is a public need for a proposed public right- - II Planning Commission Meeti( July 26, 1978 1 of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets in adjoining areas. Dick - Yes. Roman - Yes. Walter - No. Jerry - Yes. I Roman Roos - Item number 4, that the public right-of-way 20 or 40 foot is a reasonable portion of the George Way subdivision in view of the public access need occasioned by Mr. Way's subdivision activities. Dick - No. Roman - Yes Walter - No Jerry - Yes. Roman Roos - Number 5, that the public need for said right-of-way as specifically and uniquely attributable to Mr. Way's subdivision activities. Dick - No. Roman - Yes. Jerry - Yes. Walter - No. I Roman Roos - I would like to go back to number one and see if I can get another vote. That the Planning Conmission's Development Guide for the Red Cedar Point area requires a public right-of-way be established through somebodies property. Craig Mertz - That is true because the map that you had before you was a photo copy of the development guide and it shows a line as a proposed roadway and it does go through the applicants property. By this first finding all I you are doing is recognizing that that is a genuine copy of a page from that booklet. Roman Roos - That's why I voted yes. Dick Matthews - I can't dispute that. Walter Thompson - I didn't understand. Roman Roos - Number four and number five are really tied together. Let's consider them together. Do you agree there is a public need for said right-of- way specifically and uniquely attributable to his subdivision activities . Craig Mertz - Mr. Way owned originally the blue, the green, and the purple and he has divided that into three pieces. Now he is requesting another division so this is his forth shot at it. The other divisions took place in the township days before he was answerable to any city council . That's how he got by with creating this monster. Of the two landlocked and when I say landlocked I simply mean no access to a public street, of those two parcels there is only one with a house on it. Roman Roos - He divided the property and he created this problem. We didn't create it. I don't know how anybody can answer negative on items four and five. 1 Walter Thompson - He is not the one that put the road through. Roman Roos - He also created a piece of land that has no access to it. Walter Thompson - That's his problem now. Roman Roos - What about the land around it going south? Walter Thompson - We can't do anything about it because of the topography. There isn't anything we can do for him. Roman Roos - We have an obligation to the overall public. Dick Matthews - If I was doing something for the public then I wouldn't have any trouble with it but I don't know what I am doing by voting the road through there. Roman Roos - It's something that we as planners feel that that area needs. Dick Matthews - I guess that's where your quarrel is. Two of us don 't feel that way. Craig Mertz - You can talk it out until you come to a concensus on it or if you don't think you are going to arrive at a concensus I would suggest that one side or the other either offer a motion to deny the subdivision on the _ I I Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 (- II grounds that the applicant indicated an unwillingness to donate the right-of-way or the opposing team offer a motion to approve the subdivision as presented by the applicant with no requirement that the X1�i qhht- f-wa t be dedicated. sTde from he issue of the road right-of-way is there anyone that disputes that the property is properly a candidate for division? Roman Roos -- I have no problems with that. ' Craig Mertz - If you want to duck the issue you can make a motion to deny subdivision approval on the grounds that the resultant parcels violate the provision of the ordinance requiring not greater than two to one ratio. ' Jerry Neher moved to recommend denial of the subdivision on grounds that the developer is refusing to convey the recommended right-of-way. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. Dick Matthews and Walter Thompson voted no. Motion failed. Walter Thompson moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision request of Mr. Way as presented. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson and Dick Matthews. Roman Roos and Jerry Neher voted no. Motion failed. 1 1 i H i -- 1 •WILLIAM D.SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T VOSLER JAMES R.ORR HAROLD E.DAHLIN LARRY L.HANSON RAYMOND J.JACKSON SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ' WILLIAM J.BREZINSKY ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS JACK E.GILL -Mr THEODORE D.KEMNA JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E.ADOLF (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH ' HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 DANIEL R. BOXRUD WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON. TEXAS September 26, 1977 Chanhassen Plannin g Commission c/o Mr. Bruce Pankonin Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' Subject: Proposed Subdivision by George Way Gentlemen: ' As directed by the Planning Commission, we met with Mr. Way and other concerned property owners on the site of the proposed property division. Our conclusions are as follows: 1. A future street across the Way property should I follow the existing access road (east of the proposed division line) . The alignment shown on the Red Cedar Point Development plan would be costly and restrict development of the Way property. 2. Subdivision approval should be subject to the Owner's granting a right-of-way easement on westerly 50 feet of the easterly parcel. 3. Construction of a street to City Standards could ' be delayed until the property to the west is sub- divided. The future stre t could either be a cul-de-sac or continue " ward to County Road No. 15. Construction at this time would not materially improve access to the homes on the hill to the south. 4. The 40 foot wide Kirkham Road right-of-way, east of the Way property, could be vacated for roadway purposes, but should be retained as a drainage _ II easement. We recommend the lot division be granted subject to the provisions outlined herein. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ' 4.-4,71/ WJBrezinsky:sg , 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner 1 FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector 1 DATE: June 22, 1988 SUBJ: George Way, Jr. , File No. 88-11 SUB Upon completing the site plan review, I have found that it meets the minimum requirements as recommended by the Uniform Fire Code. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 )l<} i t tj* s is - , k f , . F 1 LEAS 4 MS ED MAY' I uNGr IF NW' �- ∎�. USE OK O `Te4-sciN)o -—— CI L/ REc , ..... ..... , I 0(..../ ) , 1 1 ` s. / t �� , RTIcLOt / ; / f Ji i ) , �` ; 9 -_ . ,, . � it 1. SST Eta / o...., RATTING/ 411 __ NEW BO 8 RIG t' • , - --- r o EA r 'Apr MOLT AUiva • ' - - ' r ' 0 • I 1 1 p AN it , 010,0 I / 1 \ t 1 SO ECT r1 t PeOPir • , z I le, 9 4, 0 o . Ili 1 ___:-/%7---ii:x iiid L.2. ,-.." ...-. ‘ ....• ...,•,;" - J ...:1- , .1 ` 1 8 !i‘ 0 .. 0 . /IV --4r I_; _ °V --c , H A N H ASSEN C nenoneG n t1FV F l_®PIVI E II I Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 9 Isetback. That it should conform to the same rules that the neighbors have had in developing. IConrad : I wouldn ' t feel good about sending this to City Council even with a negative vote. I think from a property owner , to give this a chance, I there should be more information to staff . I have to treat staff like experts in this case and the experts who know far more technical information than I do are saying don' t go for this one until we get more information and it' s just that cut and dry for me. I think it' s to your I benefit that we would table this. Very possibly there might not be the information that would allow the subdivision but on the other hand , it' s the only thing that's going to get the subdivision through in my mind is a I little bit more information so City Staff can deal with the problem but I agree that the position on the lot is going to significantly change the environment with clearcutting that will have to be done. I 'm not for the I variance that would grant it closer to the road. I think the fill will roll over to the next property and I guess I just see a lot of problems with this particular parcel . I 'd like to see some answers. Some technical information so at this point in time, rather than turning it I down and passing it forward to City Council , I think it' s to everybody' s benefit to table this and have the applicant work with the staff to try and give us a little bit more information on what would happen to this Iplan . Is there a motion? Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to table the preliminary plat #88-16 as I shown on the plat dated "June 13 , 1988" for more information. All voted in favor and the motion carried . II PUBLIC HEARING: ill5C SUBDIVISION OF 1. 66 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 19,421 AND 52, 854 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, GEORGE WAY, JR. Public Present : IName Address I Claudette and George Way, Jr . Robert Way 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive Tom and Kathy Paradise 3755 Red Cedar Point Drive Lori Lobitz 3720 Red Cedar Point Drive Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. IChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . IIGeorge Way, Jr . : It's my mother ' s land. My father had it divided before but he didn ' t quite comprehend what had been done I guess . . .dividing it up _ so it can be more easily sold. We' ve had some . . . II 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 10 Kathy Paradise : My name is Kathy Paradise and this is my husband Tom. We live next door . When we bought our property which was actually bigger , it I was zoned single family along this loop. By moving out here we moved out here to get away from being closed in. We don' t feel that the lot is large enough to accomodate two homes and the area being as built up as it is, we're concerned about over populating the area. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : Has this been decided if Lot 1 . . . Dacy: Lot 1 is proposed at 19, 421 square feet. That' s where the existing home is . Erhart : Lot 2, excuse me. Dacy: Right and the newly created lot would be 52, 854 square feet so it would be over an acre in size. Erhart : Okay, so these are as big as the big lots that are typically found in the area. What was the reason for not putting a new driveway out to Red Cedar Point Road? Dacy: That ' s still an option. The applicant or a future lot owner of Lot II 2 could install this new driveway or improve the existing one. Erhart : Okay, so it' s just a matter of convenience? Dacy: Yes . Erhart : And that' s not a problem with us? ' Dacy: No. Emmings : I don ' t have any more comments . It seems like an appropriate division. Ellson : I think the size of the lots are good sized especially for this lake area. I think it' s a good split. Batzli : I guess in visiting it I was surprised to see how big it really ' was. In speaking with at least one of the neighbors in there, his only concern was that the roadway be maintained as it was so they have access for the current people who live on the south end of the property and I think he ' s going to be the one that ' s most affected by it . I was kind of concerned because it looked swampy down there and I asked him if was wet down there . He basically said that the previous owner had a garden down there and it actually wasn' t swampland. That destroyed all my questions and I think it' s appropriate . Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 11 Wildermuth : I agree. I think the subdivision looks appropriate but in view of that low area there as you drive through, I 'd like in addition to ' the staff recommendation, I 'd like to see an easement , a drainage easement established where that corregated metal culvert is on our map. ' Batzli : Won' t that be within our easement? Our right-of-way anyway? Our 50 foot condition. Dacy: You' re right, the 12 inch corregated metal culvert . Wildermuth: Yes . Do we need anything additional? If there' s a 50 foot easement, street easement? tDacy: Right. The recommended size of the easement would cover that area . ' Headla: Where was that 50 foot easement going to be? On Red Cedar Point Road? Dacy: No , it would be located roughly on the westerly side of Lot 2 and probably a portion of Lot 1. Headla : Okay, and that ' s going to take care of the people on the hill? Dacy: Right, it will be located down to the southern property line where the other properties begin with their driveways . ' Headla: There' s only one house up there now isn' t there? Dacy: No , there ' s four houses . Claudette Way: But they go up the hill in the back. ' Headla : Yes , the Pierce house burnt down. Batzli : They rebuilt it. ' Headla : Along Red Cedar Point Road , did the Park Commission look at this at all? ' Dacy: Yes they did and they had no comments on this particular one . Headla : They aren ' t interested in having the road a little wider , an ' easement so people can ride or run or walk? That road is so narrow and if people are parked there and you had to bring the fire trucks , it could be a terrible mess . ' Dacy: If the Commission wants to add that as a recommended condition for staff to analyze, that ' s fine. To the best of my recollection, I don' t think Red Cedar Point Road is on our overall trail plan but if you feel ' that 's important. . . Headla : When I park my car on that road , people came awful close to me. 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 12 Claudette Way: Are you talking about Minnewashta Parkway? Headla: No, Red Cedar Point Drive. If there is any real emergency that whole place is just going to be a mess . I thought there would be some plans. Larry, what do we do with that swale that' s in there? The drainage. People can' t fill that in or if they fill it in they have to have a culvert or what happens? That's a natural drainage area. Brown: If it' s a drainage area , I don' t think it would be advantageous for either one of the properties, either Lot 1 or Lot 2 to obstruct that drainage. If Lot 2 obstructs the drainage they' re going to get an overflow condition over the road anyway. They' re going to end up with the drainage and certainly Lot 1 could obstruct the drainage. Headla: I was thinking of the people to the east. If any fill went in there at all and water could run right down to Mr . Benton then couldn' t it? Brown: I 'm sorry, I guess I don' t understand your question. Tom Paradise: On the southeast corner and. . .and the drainage flows to the II southeast corner . Headla : It' s close to the southeast . Now if somebody wanted to put any fill in there, then it could go onto the neighbors and then into what they call a swamp here on this drawing . Do we have any way to protect people from that? Dacy: One of the conditions of approval is that we get a drainage and erosion control plan for a building permit for Lot 2. In looking at the site, I think the most natural location for a building pad is going to be in front of the pines but you never know. There could be somebody that would want to locate the house in the rear of the lot . Headla: I 'm thinking like in 10 years. If you look to the southeast with the natural drainage, I think people might be hesitant to put something in there and I just wondered if we had any way to stop that? Not that it' s necessarily detrimental . I don ' t want to leave that but if someone would start putting stuff there and then it would flow right into the swamp then into Minnewashta . ' Brown: If I may make a suggestion , staff is going to have to be looking at this lot through the building permit application process and we will be attentive to the drainageway. The other option that you eluded to is maybe 10 years down the line Lot 2 could possibly be subdivided and again we would be looking at that drainage. Headla: So one way or another you. . . Conrad : I don' t have any problems with the subdivision . Although it ' s not as big a lot as maybe you'd like to have, it certainly exceeds a lot of the current standards. A lot of us moved out here for larger lots but _ again, this particular case, this is larger than our standards in the area 1 ' ' Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 13 so it meets that and I feel comfortable with the subdivision. Is there a motion? ' Headla : Let me bring up something just for discussion. How did the rest of you feel when you went down that road? Did you feel uncomfortable ' where there are so many people back there and it ' s narrowness? Batzli : Are you talking about Red Cedar Point? ' Headla : Red Cedar Point , yes . Batzli : I looked in my rearview mirror as I was idling there on the ' street looking to turn into the driveway. Emmings : It' s been developed for so long and it was put in in such a hodge podge anyway, what can you do? I don't know what you can do on this application to straighten out that mess? Headla: If we start asking for like 20 feet. An easement for 20 feet . Maybe it should be 10 feet . I don ' t know but we 've got to start someplace. ' Wildermuth : But to get it all the way. Headla: It's just like. . . , you don' t get everything all at once but get it by evolution . If you start now, eventually I think that could be ' possible. Erhart : You want to get a total of a 66 foot easement on Red Cedar Point Road so you want 33 on this property? Is that what you want? What is it now Barb? Dacy: Red Cedar Point Road I believe exists as a 40 foot right-of-way. Erhart: So what you' re saying if you ought to increase that. . . ' Headla : I guess that is 40 feet . Is that adequate for a car and emergency vehicles? ' Dacy: A typical city right-of-way is 50 feet . We could look at an additional 10 feet to be dedicated to the Red Cedar Point Road right-of- way. That would give 30 on the south side and 20 on the north side. 50 feet is adequate for the road surface plus an off-street sidewalk. Again, ' whether or not there ' s going to be a sidewalk there or off-street trail , that's something that the Park and Rec Commission would have to look at. ' Erhart : Wouldn ' t it be more fair just to ask for their half of 5 additional feet because you don ' t know what will happen to the next door . . . ' Headla : There ' s still a lot of land that can ' t be used down there . Maybe it should be 5 feet on this side but it sounds like that should be coming from us . I think it' s a good suggestion from the Planning Commission that Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 14 we take a look at that. Conrad : Are there any priorities on that Barbara , from the City standpoint, to upgrade that particular road? Dacy: Not at this time. Erhart: I think it's been our policy in the past , at least in south Chanhassen on the subdivisions we've had that is anytime a subdivision comes in , we try to get the, you know TH 101. Although there is no plans for TH 101 except to close it I think, everytime we've asked to bring the easement up to what the State has recommended and we' ve done it. If it applies here, I don't think it will adversely affect the property. , Conrad : Maybe there' s a motion that we could have the staff make a recommendation to City Council in terms of expand the road easement on Red Cedar Point. Headla : That would be the way to get the ball rolling . Let me make that motion then. ' Conrad : And remember Jim has something . You were taken care of. Wildermuth: I was just going to make a motion. I move the Planning ' Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8 , 1988" subject to the conditions 1 through 4 set forth by staff and to include a condition 5 that staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future point and make that recommendation to the Council . ' Headla : Second . Batzli : I' d like to amend his first condition. I think he wants to amend II his own first condition to go along with what Barbara suggested and that is , that the reservation of the 50 foot drainage easement is not necessarily going to be along the westerly side of Lot 2. I propose with a friendly amendment that it be changed to read , reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be determined by City Staff . Conrad: Jim, would you amend your motion to read as such? Wildermuth : Sure. , Headla: Second . Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : ' Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 15 1. Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be ' determined by City Staff. 2. If Lot 1 is to continue access along the existing gravel driveway, an ' appropriate driveway access easement be executed with Lot 2. 3 . If Lot 2, Block 1 further subdivides , a street shall be constructed at the benefitting property owner ' s expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five lots . 4. A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the ' building permit application process . 5. That staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar ' Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future point. All voted in favor and the motion carried . • PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RELOCATION OF THEIR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND ' CONTRACTOR' S YARD ACTIVITIES TO PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF PARK ROAD, MERIT HEATING AND COOLING, INC. Public Present : Name Address ' Steve Berquist Applicant Tom Quammen Applicant ' Bob Schoker Agent for Merit Heating and Jim McMahon Jim McMahon 8301 Audubon Road ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : The plan that they submitted that you gave us tonight , a little ' bit of a time table. Do you have any comments on the plan and the time table to guide us? If this 1988 , we ' re talking about 3 years out . Can you give us the down side to approving the request as is without those improvements? Olsen : It ' s just that we' ve always required those improvements to be made. There are reasons to have those improvements . As far as paving and ' widening of the roadway for truck traffic and things like that. And the landscaping to screen the activities. It is also difficult to, they did not want to make that investment at that time but that could be the case ' in 1991. We are requesting a feasibility study to see how sewer and water will be extended to the site and how much it will cost . There are some key factors.