The URL can be used to link to this page

Untitled 240 l� 'M om �&%q MEMIN mrilml R-111re m Lotus Lake 3 r Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 2 relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY 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 frontage. The lots also continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a variance from the lakeshore width requirement. The applicant has also prepared a plan that demonstrates that they could subdivide the property in a manner that complies with all elements of the zoning ordinance. However, this alternate also has significant visual impacts on the neighborhood. 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 47.27 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 if lots are in fact larger in this neighborhood than elsewhere in the community. The lots in the Sunrise Hills I" Addition range in size from 13,846.38 to 47,127.09 square feet based on GIS calculations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 square feet. 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 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 from 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 site is accessible from 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 of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest floor elevations of 913.5 and 911.0 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot 1 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 frontage. The applicant has also prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 3 increasing canopy loss from eight percent to 22 percent of the site. 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 houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. 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 from 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 longer 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. 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 staff s response: i . Lot wiatn. v ariance reauest is for i D feet iaxesnore Der lot. 1,oae reauires yu 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. Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting thel5 foot variance for each lot. 1. 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 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 4 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: South lot (Lot 2) 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 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 line is 86.5 feet. The 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement from 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 U II C.111V11 L. 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. 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. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 5 Sec. 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 offrontage. 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: 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. 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. 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.). 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 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 ft..." Note that this private drive originates in the north lot (Lot 1) and crosses into the south lot (Lot 2). Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 6 Now refer to the previous March 15th 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 ft..." 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 100 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 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. The north lot shows a lot width of 90 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 frontage 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 1 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 1 at the front 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. 5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights -of -way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface requirements. See.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, 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 storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to gravel driveways parking area, buildings and structures. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 7 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 from 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 cats). 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 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 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 from the 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 of land undivided by any public street or approved 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 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: 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 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 8 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. 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 from the 90 foot width at the building line, since this requirement is in Section 20-480 (a) (4). 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 Plaruling 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. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as follows: Total upland area Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation Proposed tree preservation 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac. 77% or 36,576 SF 55% or 26,126 SF 69% or 32,776 SF (with variance) 55% or 26,126 SF (alternative) The developer meets minimum canopy coverage, therefore no replacement plantings are required. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 9 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 22"d. 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. GRADING/DRAINAGE 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 from the lake, however; only minimal tree loss is anticipated with this grading activity. This grading activity is necessary to maintain positive drainage away from 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. ITTILITIF,S 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 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 $1,694, 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 1. 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 from 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 1. The applicant and staff Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 10 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 from Lot 1 to Lot 2. STREETS The site is accessible from 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. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA (soft.) FRONTAGE (ft.) DEPTH Lake Frontage (ft.) Code Requirements Co 20,000 90 125 90 - Lot 1 27,159 90 278 75 # Lot 2 20,342 100 * 397 75 # Total Alternate Lot 1 47,501 21,752 90 1 Not applicable Alternate Lot 2 25,749 190.21 137.8 150 * Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front building setback. # A15 foot lake front variance is being requested. Minimum state shoreland standards are 75 feet. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 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 alternate plat complies with all code requirements. 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. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 11 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 infrastructure. 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 infrastructure. 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. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 12 (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 1 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. 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: (1) 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. Finding. 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 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. 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 from them meet this criteria. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 13 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 from pre-existing standards since the lot size is consistent with other lots in the area and another lot within the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition has lakeshore frontage 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 of lake 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 of land. Finding: While the creation of lakeshore 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, frontage, "lot width," but not lakeshore width. e. 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 is located. 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. f. 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 diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: 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. Requiring Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 14 the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the crowding of houses near the cul-de-sac. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission 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 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, and revised April 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. 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 shall escrow 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 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 2. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 15 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 typical 5-foot and 10-feet 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 1. 9. 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 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. 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. 11. 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 1. 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." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen Dated March 3, 2000 4. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated March 28, 2000 5. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 3, 2000 6. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 6, 2000 7. Letter from Adolfo R. Zambrano dated April 17, 2000 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 16 8. Letter from David Igel dated April 21, 2000 9. Letter from Norbert Kerber dated 5/01/2000 10. Letter from Chris Baird dated May 7, 2000 11. Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen dated May 8, 2000 12. Letter from Debbie Lloyd dated May 9, 2000 13. Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson dated May 9, 2000 14. Map of Lakeshore Lots Less Than 90 Feet in Width at Lake 15. Sunrise Hills 1"Addition Lot Areas 16. Memo From Jill Sinclair to Kate Aanenson dated 5/25/00 17. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 18. Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 15, 2000 19. Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 16, 2000 20. Letter to Residents from Robert Generous dated June 15, 2000 and Mailing List 21. Letter from JoAnne Lipe to Kathryn Aanenson dated 6/26/00 22. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/6/00 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 17 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Lucas Igel Addition Subdivision On June 6, 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. The 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 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills lst 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 consistent with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent 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 18 d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e. The proposed subdivision will not 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: 1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 1. 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 1 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. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 19 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: (1) 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. 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 the 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. 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: 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 from 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. 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-lakeshore 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 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 20 along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-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 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 shore land management district regulations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 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 Lakeshore 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. 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 from a 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-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 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 self-created hardship. Finding. 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 alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore 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 Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 21 abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. In addition, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Finally, 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 all meet the 75 foot lakeshore lot width. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). 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 of land is located. 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 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 pattern of lot and house placement along the. street and the building pads will be barely be visible from the street. 6. 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. Finding. 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. Requiring the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the 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 pattern of lot 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 evaluations in the neighborhood because the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring homes. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with the shoreland width variance. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6t" day of June, 2000. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 22 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg\lucas igel addition revised.doc iacas Igel Addition revised CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:y i r _ e I OWNER:_ ADDRESS: % 5 5'i-ra�� h r r v G ADDRESS: S�vY-GW 0OC TELEPHONE (Day time) _ Co 17 9 10 - 9OO TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) X Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 7Z A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME L." c o1 S -Tq_v_ I LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION i_ c, 1! I1 oc k S u�, re S -± TOTAL ACREAGE I, l WETLANDS PRESENT YES x NO PRESENT ZONING F Ll D 1� REQUESTED ZONING Sctv1nf- PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Low feu ` I�CS•cQc�{ a REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 'Da wt-t, REASON FOR THIS REQUEST_ 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 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 applicant 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 request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I 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 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. Sk �. ature of Z-11-00 Date 2— R -00 Signature of Fee O ri Date Application Received on 1210 IM Fee Paid cX 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 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Replat of property at 7303 Laredo Drive 0 3 2000 Ji I 1 VI- �,-! II"il :I-q 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, LZ 'Gerald W. Paulsen Janet Dee Paulsen Attachment: Restrictive Covenants (3 pages) RMTRICTIVE CoVrNA2JTs TO THE PUBLIC: WHEREAS, Robert A. Scholer and Celine R. Scholar, husband and Wife, are owners of the property duly platted as "Sunrise Hills First Addition", Carver County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the offico of the Registrar of itles of said Carver County; and WHEREAS, It is the intention and desire of said owners to assure the permanency of said Addition and the stability of the property values therein; and WHEREAS. it is the further desire of said owners to establish restrictions for the mutual benefit of present and future owners of property included in said Sunrise Hills First Addition, NCW THEREFORE, in order to effectuate the foregoing, Robert A. Scholer and Colino R. Scholer do hereby promulgate and adopt the following provisions, covenants and restrictions and 'do hereby.make said covenants and restrictions a part and condition of each and every sale, transfer, conveyance or mortgage of said Addition or any part or lot therein; and said covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties hereto and on all persons claiming under them until July 1. 1987, at which time these covenants shall be automaticall y extended for successive periods of ten years, unless by a vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots in said Sunrise Bills First Addition, it is agreed to change said covenants and restrictions in full or in part. Invalidation of any of these covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other covenants, restrictions or provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 1. All lots shall be known,used and described as residential lots. No structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot In said plat other than one dotachod single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in hoighth with attached private garage, except as hereafter provided. 2. All garages must be within tho dwelling or attached to the dwelling either directly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling. . which 3• No stied, shops or out building;, of any kind/may be considered unsij;htly or objectlonable to other reaidonts of said Addition, may be erected at any time. iiils r•vstriction, however, shall not preclude tho construction of sightly or attraetivo structures for the comfort or enjoyment of o•nurs of the dwelling and i I his family, including such structures as non-commorcial family creonhoueos. playhouses and children's play equipment. 4. No structure -of a temporary character shall be used as a rosidonoe at any time. g. All buildings hereafter proposed for said Sunrise Hills First Addition, must be erected by Robert A. Scholer or his assigns. 6. ho building shall b e located nearer than forty feet from the front lot line. 7. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than twelve foot. 8. The minin m square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any one-story dwelling shall be 1,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and two story dwelling shall be 1.200 square foot, and in case of a ithe latter. both floors must be finished. The minimum square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lake - shore frontage shall be 1,200 square.feet. j 9. The exterior of any dwelling placed on any lot in said Addition shall i i be covered with stone, wood, brick or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be painted, varnished or stained. The exterior of any dwelling must be finished immediately and must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any part for more than six months from the date of the beginning of said construction. 10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of cinder block construction. ' 11. No second hand materials may be used for any construction. 12. No building may be moved onto any lot. 13. "o dogs shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs which are habitually noisy shall be deemed a nuisance and may be eliminated from the area. 14. No cows. goats, or any domestic or other animal. poultry or fowl of any Lind shall be kept in said Addition except dogs and cats, and the keeping of dogs shall be subject to rogulation set forth in the precoeding paragraph. 15. No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried .,2_ un upun any lot in said Addition, but this rostriction �' Nrealud• � _ pursuit of hobbies which are wholly confined within the d+rolling wnd Which h y way becaaos an annoyance or nulaanoe to offc�nsivo or of a kind which in an. the neighborhood. 16. Each owner of any lot shall have the right to use the playground area. provided by the above named Hobert A. Scholar and Celina R. Scholar for the benofit of purchasers of lots in said .addition, for access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maintenance and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach without the permission of Hobert A. Scholar. Any and all maintenance and improvement of and on said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills First Addition. 17. Landscaping of any lot on which a dwelling has been constructed shall be completed forthwith upon completion of dwelling construction. 18. Robert A. Scholar reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots owned by him and improve the same by enlarging said lots by consolidating two or more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce the size of final building sites from the sizes of lots now established. IN TESTIMNY WHEREOF, Hobert A. Scholer and Celina R. Scholar have set their hands this day of dune, 1957. In Presence of s i STATE OF MNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF IiENtIEPIN ) On this .=1 I, day of June, 1957, before me a not-ary Public within and for said County personally appeared Hobert A. Scholar and Celino R. Scholar, husband and wife, to me known to be the persons described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes and objectives therein set forth. • , �Y!/ III . �+ y/r. Notary Public 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 28, 2000 �JJ Craig Peterson Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission 1340 Oakside Circle Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB The Planning Commission had a public hearing on March 15`h 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 ft2, 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. As of today the surveyor has not formally replied to the City about the lot width. Bob Generous, assured me on Friday, March 24t" 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, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 e-mail paulseng@juno.com _.l Janet D. Paulsen 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 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 42 and 93 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 determining lakeshore lot area for non PUDR zoning? This contradicts the intent of PUDR to have less stringent requirements than SFR. Sec. 20-501 (Intent) states "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility ... through the relaxation of most normal district standards.". Sentence 93 of 20-480, states "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.". Can this be interpreted to be applicable only to PUDR, and not specifically to all shoreland? 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 PUDR, 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. 20-481 (Placement, design, and height of structures), subsection (f) (Height of structures) defines maximum home height as 35 feet. The 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 (Storm 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. 2000 Other inconsistencies lead us question the integrity of the Staff Report: The preliminary plat omits required data as defined in Sec. 13-40 (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 defines 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 formally 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 from the city attorney. If these issues cannot be resolved in a timely manner for our review prior to the scheduled City Council meeting on April 24 (or Planning Commission meeting if appropriate), then the issue should be moved to a subsequent meeting. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 (home) (651) 456-7754 (office) e-mail paulseng@juno.com Janet D. Paulsen Copy: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Scott Botcher, City Manager Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Roger Knutson, City Attorney 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 Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association* 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 + ,n; , April 6, 2000 goo Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director CITY y ur City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case 9 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 from 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 of 35 feet while the DNR Shoreland standards dictate a height of 25 feet. Cordially, i Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 (home) (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 Juno e-mail printed Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:39:03 , 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-mail 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 subdivisions 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 4/2100 >>> 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 (Additional 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? Le., 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 (95;) 9q4-7032 (home) April 17, 2000 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 CITY Ur Gjj" i HA S fV 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. Sinerely,,./ Adolf. -R Lambrarib-- 7301 Frontier Trail April 21, 2000 David Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Generous, I am withdrawing my request to go in front 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 from 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 from 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. me ely, ids Norbert Kerber 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen MN 934-1391 5-01-2000 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 171" Planning commission Agenda. As a resident of the Sunrise Hills and a resident of Chanhassen 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 of Chanhassen. 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 my 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 convey 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. 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 lakeshore 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 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Dir. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 MAY 10 2000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 w-t 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, Chris Baird 949-6121 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 May 8, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 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 # 1) 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 of the 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 of the 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 ofthe OHW line some 16+ feet). Kathryn Aanenson requested the length of the OHW line from Mr. Igel on March 17. This request was ignored for five weeks. The length of the survey line is 152.97 ft. Plat 42 now defines the OHW line as being exactly 75.00 feet for each of the two proposed lots. This saves the developer from having to admit to not having a full 75 feet on Plat # 1 which would have required a variance. Bob Generous stated that after reviewing both plats, he sees no change in the OHW line. Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 Attachment: Preliminary Plats p.l Survey for: DAVID IGEL \ P�� Survey for: DAVID IGEL j \ \� EA � �i - \ -er�E i 311a12006 r . \\ �� I�LAI z --WAR" ICY MIN AT�� 1 1 \\ 0" APL — _ a LE \ 76,s±. � • \� O.H.W. El y-120) 2000ev.= 896.3 r \ f \ \�. 1 \ \\\\\ \� �'� AS 7— MAPLE \ 16.3a �\ \� O.H.W. Elev.= 896.3 0 'BULGG A7 pNW LGNE 3(f OAK \ s \ b, Sankary 30' -OAK Manhole 1' 7 1i00, j S\ \ \ \\ Water Elevation = 895.34 �' s° kary �$\ \ v' � \ .0 •,� (October 6, 1999) Manhaie.,�17 book aroPaeeif _ Sanitary 51wer� s \� Water Elevation - 895.34 �� / \ \pow, (October 6, 1999) BULC \ \ ` \\ Poe •� Cyo• \ Sr MAPLE 10- ELMA0. (^W \ \ \\\ i I 4f "" S W LE C STER 914.4 41 1 ` N ` WAPLE ++ 1 \ \ .... �• ; e / ; :.. �. .\ j ! I ; .\ %�.1� 30' MAPLE CO-) TER ( I Iron I� Mr I i, 5' ELM � `• � � �', � \ � ; � � �• 1 ` w- ELM ELM I F(.0 I I `.1 \ 1, 1, I � ASH0 � i I ( { �X,� ASH `;J0 / \ � 6LE LE07, LE ale 16 1 GF-RauC� w PAULSEN LueAS ISEL A Q0t 10rJ 730S L4-Rr:Do DiL 3UNRISL- �+l LLS P• 1 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 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 ADDRESS 71i:,L c J -\ 7 oy1 � I € pc �� (__ Avulf l � 7.3�S 114A1 1333 PHONE C7 j - L, C :� (^ 906R aC,-7-2-1 :� 2 1);Z�� 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 ADDRESS PHONE Lj L V��k"d Cq 1 93 tO, �37`/ q i a 937- 96 y %2Jo i&U�E?ew L 9 1, 7a �o Vic„ T . �fik r jam. �/ `f `[�7Sj 7;Zi Fi��.s- , � T��, c` Y�� Y P r(�:? P, -:5/4 L-71il Z�4y y Z - -21 R0 ( �S - w 7 3o s L� fir-' -7 O 3 2- 3DS daj,, br- 93q--70-6Z Z.0 Ktowcc,. Cit cl It M" A�15 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. NA ME ADDRESS PHONE L i i r•�� /lei, j �> �f ;�' ./ Imo, /' %l / �L/.i ✓ 1 f .7 ✓' z� D L% l�//i�'�n.;i ;� ^. /i1i�•+%7 � � l,- �,,,L1• �-�-'ti>� f 2 � I-1<Ctl��+ � � IZ Ci��'�!1-1 � 1�) -v'z 2/ c /( . 6 733� Y6 Lf t -S�l I3 7 2,1 ;�34 ��2 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 ADDRESS PHONE � lG�N�AP� DO, �i��i 2193 q J (? 7- "06 ZZZ "-710 ' 1416 4- Oar, e� � aak P,.. t 3v- �a� - ,ya '/ it v 6-3 1 3 4/ -s.� S-y 1. 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. ADDRESS PHONE 93 7 - 89 -78 M A L K E R S 0 N GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER 9 0 1 M A R O U E T T E AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205 TELEPHONE 6 1 2- 3 4 4- 1 1 1 1 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612-344-1699 May 9, 2000 Bob Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Igel's Request For Variance At 7303 Laredo Drive Dear Mr. Generous: RECEIVED MAY 10 2000 Cf TY OF CHANHASSEM 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 for 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 cities authority to grant variances from zoning requirements. Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that cities: ... may hear requests for variances from 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 of the ordinance... 38378.DOC 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 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 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 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. 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 neighborhood. Minnesota cities have broad discretion to make zoning decisions, and, in particular, to grant variances. Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn. App. 1995) (a court "will not invalidate a city's zoning variance decision if the 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 Attorney 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 attorneys 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 of land use law throughout the last 27 years. Until the Rowell case was decided in 1989 most city attorneys, planners, planning commission members and council members believed that it was very difficult under the statute and, therefore, under the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto to grant variances, except in the most extreme cases. Such situations typically were, for example, when because of the ravine on a preexisting lot, a house could not have been built unless a variance from 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 VARIANCE 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 if it denies a landowner "all economically viable or beneficial use of the property"); Wheeler v. City of Wayzat , 511 N.W.2d 39, 41-42 (Minn. App. 1994). That is not the situation in Rowell or in this case. The Court said in enacting the statute authorizing cities to grant variances that the Minnesota Legislature intended to give cities jreater discretion to grant variances than they would have in any event under the provisions 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 only when there was no reasonable use without a variance. Instead, according to the Court, the statute authorizes variances whenever the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable wa3 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: 1. 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 from the street, which would make them barely visible from 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 of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 5 the most dense and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage from 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 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 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. 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 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. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 6 B. THE VARIANCE 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 from 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: 1. 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 from the street, which would make them barely visible from the surrounding neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the removal of trees 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 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 Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 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 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. 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 % 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 from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side -by -side lots' homes to be located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from 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 if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the 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 from 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 of the city and achieve excellence and originality of design; 6. Facilitate the provision of public services; 7. Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. As noted, if my 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 of land, 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 of the 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 of the 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 environmental 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 concern 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'/2 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 from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side -by -side lots located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from 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 environmental values of shore 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 of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 10 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 from them meet this criteria. Rgagnse: 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 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 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 neigh boringproperty 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 surrounding five 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 f ve 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 ninetyfoot 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 of land. Response: 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. ReMonse: 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 of Chanhassen 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 f ve 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 of land is located. Response: 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 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. Response: 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 cleanup 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 future 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 finding 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: 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 SAGSTETTER DECISION FULLY SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. The Court's statements in Rowell were recently endorsed again and expanded upon in the 1995 Sa stg_etter decision. A thorough review of the case is very instructive and supports the granting of the variance requested by the Igels: 1. 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 of the 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 of the entire park resulted from the City's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities and public restrooms. This could only be accomplished from the revenue from 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 of the lake, minimize hardcover, minimize impact to drainage areas, minimize views of the houses from 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 affirming the grant of the variances, the Minnesota Court of Appeals showed again that the variance tests should not be narrowly 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 from 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 of St. 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 Sa stg etter. It also is important to note that my clients have complied with every aspect of the 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 frontage 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 frontage, but does not support the lot lines needed to keep the existing house intact. Bob Generous confirms the removal of the house would allow for two lake lots. • January 11, 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 from 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 of Chanhassen 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 satisfy the neighbors and commissioner's concern 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 find 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 from 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 of Plymouth, 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." If that 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 of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 19 IX. CONCLUSION. 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. If the 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 of the 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 of this 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, Bruce D. Malkerson Enclosures cc: Rachel Igel David Igel 501 581 571 23 yy 26 25 (D 24 I � � 2��3�0 541 ?� 22 21% 2 cm 3 14 5 C-i cp 1 '3 cj 6 1789 7189 7191 7193 cli 7195 7192ryl . � 18 25-7930140 i� �3 P') 14 0 117,90 apt &OY 15-;V30150 17 qg1160 16 p) as Se -I C'LJ (6, dI- 2,(1 E270070 0 i SLI( 7 (A 7194 -7196 7198 1-14 1 15, 0 % rV CP -j 6 0 7 ct cli 8 26-8210020 tv OP CP N30 o 11 pclu sc,y� 7� 01. 2.5-b2A01 2 LOTUS OVry 4 1� 10 Irso 9 0LjTL0TA 25-82JO240 15, OUTLOT A 3 12 2 0 S. 13 100. N V �Plo J20 3 L-0 o, 14 'po ,'b I;? IV 14 00 10 00 /0 2.5-62001 'e 99, 15 A, 15 -4 -5 V�, .2 100 ao 3 10 16 CD cY ca 4 5 g 25-8200170 I cli 17 7305 C, 7307 IV ; _.: % 1 4 73j-4 rV 0�0 0- 4 2T- Frontier 936 7226 7228 7230 7332 7334 .9 8 7336 0 7338 0 e,0 C, r, cc vp 9 8 ,�20 21 7 N 9 C', 10 cli I - �p 8 C\j N cli CIJ CY NI) C\j cli LO C-i N21 25-8810030 N oY R ON zrw 3 09 - 6 3 c4 5 cv �3 0 rc," N 3 2 I 25.8820060 8 N N C-4 c9 22 4 25-8820050 504 \0c'5 1 410 408 N406 N404 402 2 1 400 5 4502 500 9 co - 25-8820040 4 503 501 Highland Drive Highland Drive ta -4-4 401 0 411 409 407 405 0403 0 4 !2 CV 7 5 4 3 2 too 8 3� 36 Iz 8 000 cV C\j CV CV 740! 25.8820030 0 V ro 25-8810090 r 8 7 6 7329 ON 7331 "N' 7333 N73-35 LcQ4 m 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 lots under 15,500 35 42245 35 654870 18711 Avg. sq. ft. 0.425 Acres/ lot FY4 I S 17'4�7 SUNRISE HILLS FIRST ADDITION LOT AREA 5/11 /2000 Lot, Block Area 1&2, 1 17,057.59 3,1 19,359.00 4, 1 40,233.24 5, 1 14,037.54 6, 1 13,950.44 7, 1 13,995.73 8, 1 14,118.66 9, 1 17,562.06 10, 1 32,331.92 11, 1 47,127.09 12, 1 24,402.89 13, 1 36,370.45 14, 1 13,846.38 15, 1 15,399.34 16, 1 15,893.97 17, 1 15,363.72 1,2 16,658.00 2,2 14,000.00 3,2 14,000.00 4,2 14,000.00 5,2 14,000.00 6,2 15,400.00 7,2 15,400.00 8,2 15,400.00 9,2 15,400.00 10,2 13,665.00 11,2 15, 750.70 1,3 17, 070.48 Total 531,794.20 Average 18,992.65 g:\plan\bg\sunrise hills 1st.xls 4 MEMORANDUM CITYOF TO. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist,? CHANHASSEN 690 G q Center Drive, PO Box 147 DATE: 25 May 2000 Chanhassen, Alinnesota55317 SUBJ: Igel Addition Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.9375739 On Monday, May 22, I inspected the Igel property in order to verify the submitted Engineerbig Fax 612.937.9152 tree inventory. According to the inventory, there are two oaks identified as Public Safety Pax 612.934,2524 diseased and a dead ash tree. The oaks both have dead wood in their canopies but MCI) 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. The City of Chanhassen, A Qrowine, community with clean lakes, auality schools, a charmho, downtown, thrivino businesses, and beautiful barks. A oreat Place to live. work. and Plan ** 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 APPLICANT: David Igel Lake Shore Lot 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 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel 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 dosed 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 advance 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. I .., � r, A, /"' Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 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 ARLIS 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 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & 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 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 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 WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRI, 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 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 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 721 1 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON H & JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRL CHAN1ASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J THIELGES & 7208 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & KAT14EI-EEN WITKEWICS 7210 FRONTIER 1RL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 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 SAVIK 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 CI-IAN14ASSEN MN 55317 Sunrise Hills Homeowner's Association Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association Colonial Point Homeowner's Association Pat Pavelko, 7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President 7203 Frontier Trail Chanhassen; MN 55317 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 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 Lotus Lake Betterment Association at Colonial Grove Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 Lotus Lake Estates Mr. William Shimp 155 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 M A L K E R S 0 N GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER 9 0 1 M A R Q U E T T E 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 MAIL 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, Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile) 39562 MALKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER 901 MAROU ETTE AVENUE ��`_�� M I N N EAPOLIS, M I N N ESOTA 55402-3205 i/U/,'1�J TELEPHONE 6 1 2- 3 4 4- 1 1 1 1 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 JUN 19 2000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699 June 16, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL 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: 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 from 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 concerns through minor changes to the plat, even though those changes are not required by the City's ordinances. Very truly yours, gruce�-W�autivl Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile) 39562 0 CITY OF CHOWSEN June 15, 2000 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9371900 GeneralFax 612.937.5739 Dear Residents: F,ugineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.252<i 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 MCI) 7:00 p.m. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ve Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner The City of Chanhassen, A �roiviw community with clean lakes, analittl schools, a clxn7nilIF downtown, thrivinv bttsinesses, and beautiful Parks. A Preat place to live, work, and Pfau Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 7 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON H & JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IROBERT J THIELGES & 7208 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ISUNRISE HILLS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS 7210 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ISTEVEN & 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 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKA 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 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 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 55317 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 I'RL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS 7333 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSO 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ^n Smooth Feed SheetSTM DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 7228 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL C14ANIIASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSE 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN H HARMER & 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 51600 'ise Hills Homeowner's Association Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association Colonial Point Homeowner's Association Pavelko, 7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 201 Frontier Court thassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tus Lake Homeowner's Association . Eric Lavanger, President )0 Brule Circle anhassen. MN 55317 rontier Trail Homeowner's Association rs. Peg Kirkvold 09 Frontier Trail anhassen, MN 55317 Lotus Lake Betterment Association at Colonial Grove Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 Lotus Lake Estates Mr. William Shimp 155 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 JoAnne & Leonard Lipe 1345 Lexington Court • Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone 952.448.5187 • Fax 952.831.8946 June 26, 2000 ECFJVVon LLB JUN 2 0 2000 CITY OF COANHiASSEN 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: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I sent to Jerry and Jan 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 manipulated into signing the letter by Mr. Paulsen. In fact, it is pretty likely that Chris didn't even sign the letter sent to you dated May 7, as he was at the hospital all day that day, with many friends 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, JoAnne Lipe 1 June 26, 2000 Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paulsen, 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 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. U 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, I just 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 of 75. 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? If so, 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 Rachel Igel. 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 front 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 front 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 of the 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 [gel: 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 '/2 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 plan 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 I 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 '/2 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 '/ 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 effect, 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 staff has 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. Rachel Igel: 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? 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 neighborsto 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 if you study your history. And we have our own 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 vas 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 determined by DNR because it's 2 feet above the lakeshore. The normal 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 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 Qf land but is owned by 1 or more private parties. So we're saving 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 100 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 100 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 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 of 20,000 fora lakeshore and 15,000 for a non -Lakeshore, 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 15 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 normally 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 from 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: if I can make a point of order. That's your job and that's the City Council's job 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 I 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. 1 1. 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: Noway 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 Citv 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. If they are able to split this lot, you're going to have considerable runoff from their driveways, the roof areas. Double what would be normally put into the lake, and that's a serious concern of the DNR. I 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. E 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 I just 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 determined 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 coming 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. U 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 permitting 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... y 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 Hills, 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 in, 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 fee(. Its 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 tlx:: 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. [just 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'm just 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 11 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 of a child. And what matters if family and Urn a survivor of cancer. I've been in remission for 3, 2 % 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 I gave a lot of hair. And by the way celebrating it so, whatever's done I just want it to be the right thing. think you know how I 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 information'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. I 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 information 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 lakeshore. 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 property. 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 beachlot. 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: If we 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 staffs 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's just 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. I just 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 15' 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 4"' of July will be in a month so what would be my recommendation to try to keep this item moving is June 20"'. Peterson: Okay, thank you all 13 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 July 8, 2000 RECEIVED JUL 1120M 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 15`s and June 6'h to discuss splitting this lot on Lotus Lake into two lots. The issue was tabled at the June e meeting until the July 18t' meeting because a series of deficiencies were raised. Staff responded to the Planning Commission in a Memorandum from Bob Generous dated June 8''. Attached is the Memorandum with our responses to the staff responses. We contend that staff has 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, l i Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 e-mail paulseng,@iiuno.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 from 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 (4120/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJ: Response to Two Lake Shore Lots 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: 01. Lot wiatn. variance request is Tor to teet iaKesnore 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 uonciusion: ueveloper actually requires two variances, 15 ft for each lot. Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting the 15 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 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. See.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. %.UncIusion: I-ot Z (soutn lot) must ne yu tt 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 from 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. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 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 building 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. #3 . A 60 x 60 buildable pad is required on all RSF lots. Lot 2 south lot tails this requirement. 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 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. 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 fe, would a 40x90 pad be equivalent? Would a 10x360 pad be equivalent? If the code were intended to be 3600 W, 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, sixty -foot by forty -foot deep building pad, and a thirty-foot rear yard area. The wetland pad is also 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 60x60 pad is required for RSF zoning. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 #4. The terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, private drive, and shared drive are used s non mouse . Sec. 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 accessea 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 front building setback line. Remarks: Compare the current Staff Report (June 6. 2000) with the previous Staff Reoort (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. I DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 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 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 frontage 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 1 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 1 at the front 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% 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, 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 storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to gravel driveways parking area, buildings 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 from 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. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 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 ft2 of maximum impervious surface coverage. The intent of the ordinance is to discourage long private streets. V. The entrance street requires a 10-foot setback from the (north) property line, but has only 8 ft Sec. 20- 84. 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 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 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 from 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 N11VOLU ruau. 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 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. Conclusion: The private road on these Dlats does not traverse the perimeter of the nronertv 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 07/08/00 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 private street: Sec.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 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. "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 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 from the 90 foot width at the building line, since this requirement is in Section 20480 (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. G DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT (4/20/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat) 07/08/00 Private Street: The terms "private street", "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 confirmed 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 100 ft 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. i ne Miming -winaow- is inaccurately aetmea on the plat. 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 by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways 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 permitted subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter. Conclusion: Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is accessed by a private street. The lot width must be -1 uu rt at the Duilaing sethacK 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 "windovP 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 attorney for the developer has one reference (letter of May 9, 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 90-feet of frontage (not shown on the plat). DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT (4/20/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat) 07/08/00 #2. Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is located in "shoreland". The building `window" requires a 20 ft setback from the private street "streets not ciassinea- . 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) Right-of-way line of town road, public 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 10 ft 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 50 x W building pad is required on all K5t- lots. both lots tail 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 intruding into required 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 ft2 with allowable coverage of 5438 ft2 (onlyl8 ft2 difference). #5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights -of -way. This impacts the 25% ervious surface requirement for Lot l ( non laKe snore Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area --the area of a horizontal plane 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 —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 preceding requirements. Article VII. Shoreland Management District Sec. 20-485. Storm water management. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area... 2 DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT (4/20/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat) 07/08/00 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, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings 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 right-of- way from lot area calculations (not private right-of-way). We disagree with that interpretation. The definition for a street includes public and private right-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 rp otect the integrity of the natural environment through 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, protection and increase of property_ values, protection of privacv. etc. L,onciusion: Kemovai of :� 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. V. Preservation of views is not adhered to. Sec.20-110. Standards (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through 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 -neighboring land uses. Conclusion: Removal of 33+ mature trees includinn oaks unto 15n vaarc nlri nh is many nthcr 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. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Additional item for 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 The east -west lot line between Lot 1 (north lot) and Lot 2 (south lot) 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 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 separating a lot from a street fight -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 irregularly 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 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. 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 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Remarks: The front 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 front lot line. Lot 2 is an irregularly shaped lot. The rear lot line must be the lot parallel to and most distant from the front 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 f} required by code. The building "window" for Lot 2 must provide the required 30-foot setbacks from the front and rear building line. The resulting window does not accommodate a 60x60 $ building pad. n-7ino/nn r-rom: uonn unc aune--junn.sune�c—vunr.sra►e.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; 1 am responding to a letter that was sent to Kent Lokkesmoe, DNR Waters Director by Representative Workman on May 23, 2000. 1 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 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 aftematives exist. If no aftematives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. B. 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, Rem B, must also be met. Hopefully, this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can do more to assist you. John Linc Stine DNR Waters Phone: 651.296.0440 Fax: 651.296.0445 Visit our new website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters M ALKERSON G I LLI LAND MARTIN SUITE 1 500 AT&T TOWER 901 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205 TELEPHONE 61 2-344-1 11 1 FACSIMILE 61 2-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699 E-Mail: bdm@m9mllp.com July 13, 2000 L L P Chanhassen, MN 55317 David and Rachel Igel for Preliminary Plat and for Variances as necessary to Re: Application by parcel into two single family lots subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore p gain b the Planning Commission on July l8, Case No. 00-2SUB - To be heard a� Y 2000 Our File No. 1392.001 Dear Chairperson Peterson and Commission members: introduction, at the meeting of June 6, 2000 concerning the above Thank listened to testimony g when somebody seeks to develop a parcel of Thank you for having p Process, application p referenced application. As we know sometimes emotions runs strong the Planning Commission, ration way, all issues that have been raised b by to address issues that property in an existing neighborhood. That is understandable. We have tried during this hog ever to address in hopefully a very oes pursuant to the code City staff and the neighborhood. My clients have drafted and redrafted the plans repeatedly his the neighborhood has asked them to address, even though those issues did not require chap, n lenient suggestions that the staff had at different in frontrne of Planning Commiss ontthan an and, of course, to i p lication has taken morein to do in this letter is respond parcel. Therefore, unfortunately, this app Mr. Paulsen at the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, ble application for a small developr�ions of by Mr. have taken. What e are did have the benefit of being specifically to the written objections our 2000. As you may recall, we requested that thismatter to that tabled meeting. lWe did not think it was a beneficial use of } to review the objections that Mr. Paulsen had prior to read his written materials, analyze them taff s time or the neighborhood's time to debate thoortunityse es that were raised for the first tmue this matter time, the s one having had a pp g, gain, thank you for granting our request to continue Paulsen at that meeting without every pursuant to the code and then respond in writing Again, to the above -referenced meeting. • of the Application before you as of the prior Planning Commission meeting on June 6, il. Ov et view 2000. the Planning to subdivide a 1.1 acre As you may recall from the staff report, at the June 6, 2000 Planning Commission meetm„ application for preliminary plat with variances as necessary Commission had before it an ro ert zoned RSF. The request for subdivision a roval had lakeshore parcel into two single family lots on p p Y 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 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. 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-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact erth the site. of tree removal, The place vent oif the hone is canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-two (22) percent outhwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern closer to the abutting home to the s proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the of development along the street. Finally, the two lake, vis-a-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. hi addition, a lot is 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 ivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management of lakeshore width have been subd district regulations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 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 lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet. 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 form 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-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 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 he neiglborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart property in a way that blends with t downward from them. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-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 alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore 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. In addition, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Finally, 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 strict regulations. These lots all meet the 75 foot lakeshore lot width. adopted the shore land management di In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills st Addition subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 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 neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. land or improvements in the The City staff mead the following 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 granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area. The lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be proposed lots continue the pattern of barely be visible from the street. 6. 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. The City staff made the following finding: 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or ublic streets. Requiring the subdivision to meet all substantially incase the congestion of the p 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 pattern of lot 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. The 75 foot line is shown on the enclosed map at location number one. ot Mr. Paulsen's second Qunelfor thesouthth lot must be t the ed to where do youdetermine d ng which 0 is751feet from the e ordinary t the 90 foot width at the buildm- 11 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. 39519 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 6 This issue is identified generally as number two on the enclosed map. The staff s 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 You the same once again ►ny clients, in attempting to address the concerns of the neighborhood, are amending their application to move the lot ]me slightly 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 rased by the neighborhood my clients have modified their plat slightly to move the line so that even under Mr. Paulsen's mte retat►on 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 1 or Lot 2. As noted correctly by staff, a private driveway does not and therefore, Mr. Paulsen's arguments are not relevant to this fact provide public access to either Lot 1 or Lot 2 situation. As staff correctly points out, Mr. Paulsen has misread the sections of the code relating to lot Nvidths 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 ontage. The southern lot has no street frontage and must therefore separate driveway at any point on the street fr 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 1 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 slight] to the west the lot width is no longer 106.1 feet but is 100 feet which still is in coin Nance in the event that Zu accept Mr. Paulsen's interpretation of the 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 fully pointed out that the City's ordinances only excludes maximum 25% and impervious surface, City staff has right 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 1 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 1 and the driveway for Lot 2 would both be located on Lot 1 at the cul-de-sac. This is allowed by code. The driveway for Lot 2 would then swing immediately from Lot 1 into Lot 2 and extend down to the building site on Lot 2. However, Mr. Paulsen did not like that because lie did not avant 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 mmission to have us do that somehow my clients should be penalized doing something that he asked the Planning Co 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 Nvay 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 of a 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 July 13, 2000 Page 8 any way. However, as discussed above, that is not a realistic option. My clients ask you to approve the plat as it is now before you with two lakeshore lots for all the reasons discussed by staff, and rny clients in the past. If the Planning Commission is not willing to recommend approval, then we ask that you recommend approval oft e 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 hey would be the first to say that it is far preferable to grant the without any variances with the lot to the rear, t minimum variances necessary to allow the two lakeshore lots in lieu of having a non-lakeshore 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-lakeshore 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 wiry 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 subdivide the property by the City and by the igels. As you can see from 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'rt s Planning Depament that numerous calls have been made by Mr. Paulsen to members of the 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 information 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 order to approve the plat with the two lots on the lakeyou 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 information 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. Very t yo Bruce D. Malkerson Enclosure cc: David Igel 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 9 Rachel Igel 39518 JoAnne & Leonard 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 ieiter thai i sent io Jerry and J:an Paulsuil today. i did not learn of the letter with Chris Baird's signature sent tr! Ms. Aanensun 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 alone. 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 even signed by Chris. That letter is dated May 7. On May 6, Chris's wife had a baby and the entire family was at the hospital on May 7. I'm positive Chris was not signing letters for Mr. Paulsen on that day. The Baird family has no desire to stop you from doing whatever you want with the property. - You bought it, it's yours, and if the City of Chanhassen 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, QQN) JoAnne Lipe P.S. On 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, Chris has 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 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. 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 Rachel ]gel r aFRQPOSAL; �it�€ gl� �lUCATZOlY. " I�ot,, flack Upl�cl ��c Tr APPLICANTi Eder ee= Clia�h��sen CITY;. ,Glynn Dr Coulter Blvd ke Dry'/ Court �1 Park F Drive 1 Essex Rd 2 Suffox Dr .3 Burlwood Dr 4 Rosewood Dr rs Place- r Dim .`5 A Am®m- Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 71h SPR July 18, 2000 Page 1 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a 100,000 square foot office warehouse building. The site is located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7rh Addition and has an area of 14.5 acres. It is zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, and is bordered by Upland Circle to the east and Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific Railroad to the north. Access to the site is gained via a driveway off of Upland Circle. The building is designed as a two story office/warehouse facility. Loading docks are located along the north side of the building, facing the railroad tracks and hidden from views. The applicant is proposing to utilize a combination of pre -colored rockface block, smooth finish insulated precast concrete panels, and glass curtain walls as the main materials on the building. A dark brown rock face block is used along the base of the building and to frame entrances into the building. The entrances into the building are projecting, mainly glass, and are capped by 4 tiers of metal flashing. Each tear is proposed to project 1.5 inches. A canopy further defines each door. The design of the building provides variation in form through stepped back elevations along the south and east. The overall design provides variation and detail on the facade of the building. Parking surrounds the building along all sides with the exception of the southwest portion of the building. This area will be utilized by employees as an outdoor seating area and will contain a plaza and a gazebo. The site is surrounded by ponds and wetlands and does not lend itself to having meandering berms around the parking lot. The applicant is providing landscaping and the site is located a distance of approximately 700 feet from Lake Drive West, which will minimize views of the parking lot area. Site landscaping must be increased to meet minimum ordinance requirements. A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style, height, and photo -metrics. Also, a detailed sign plan, which includes lighting method, has to be submitted. The applicant explained that trash dumpsters will be located inside the building. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. In summary, with the incorporation of staff recommendations the proposed site plan application would meet ordinance requirements, and staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 2 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed office/warehouse building, with an area of 10,000 square feet, will be situated on the northwest corner of Upland Drive. The site is bordered by Upland Drive to the east and Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific Railroad to the north. Access to the building is proposed from Upland Drive. Parking will be located around the building. Screening of the parking lot can be improved by incorporating additional landscaping. The building is designed as a two story office/warehouse facility. Loading docks are located along the north side of the building, facing the railroad tracks and hidden from views. The applicant is proposing to utilize a combination of pre -colored rockface block, smooth finish insulated precast concrete panels, and glass curtain walls as the main materials on the building. A dark brown rock face block is used along the base of the building and to frame entrances into the building. The entrances into the building are projecting, mainly glass, and are capped by 4 tiers of metal flashing. Each tear is proposed to project 1.5 inches. A canopy further defines each door. The design of the building provides variation in form through stepped back elevations along the south and east. The overall design provides variation and detail on the facade of the building. The applicant explained that trash will be located inside the building. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste, collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. The building is located 140 feet from the north, 240 feet from the east, 280 from the south, and 340 feet from the westerly property line. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 3 (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through 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 neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. The building is attractive and harmonious with the approved development for this area. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 4 GRADING In conjunction with the development of the plat improvements for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition (CLBP 71h), the developer rough graded all the building sites in the development and installed the public utilities and street improvements in Upland Drive. Only minor grading is anticipated to prepare the building site. Grading does not impact the two wetlands on the site. Overall the plans propose to develop the site in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by section 20-109 (5) of the city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 71h, actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. The trees shown on the westerly portion of the site have been designated to be removed in conjunction with previous wetland mitigation for CLBPK 71h and/or grading activities. The contractor and or developer shall perform an inspection of the existing utility lines on the site prior to construction activities commencing and notify the Chanhassen Engineering Department of any issues, i.e. dirt in lines, damage to manholes, etc. Once construction commences, the applicant shall be responsible for any or all damages to the city's utility system on the site as a result of development. Erosion control fencing is already installed on the site from previous site grading activities. Rock construction entrances are proposed at both access points. DRAINAGE Storm water runoff from the parking lots will be conveyed via storm sewers into the existing regional storm water pond south of the site for pretreatment. The storm sewer system on the site will be constructed and owned by the applicant upon completion. No additional storm water ponding is necessary with this proposal. Staff recommends that the storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required to determine if there are sufficient catch basins being provided to convey surface water runoff to the pond. The drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event and be submitted to the City for review and approval at time of building permit application. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7`h SPR July 18, 2000 Page 5 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available to the site from Upland Circle. The developer will be responsible for extending the utility improvements from Upland Circle to serve this parcel. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site (i.e. storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water) will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. STREETS/PARKING The plans propose to utilize the two existing access points from Upland Circle. The parking lot drive aisle widths and turning radii appear to be designed in accordance with the City's ordinance. Industrial driveway aprons with pedestrian ramps have been constructed with Upland Circle. A concrete sidewalk is proposed from the building to the existing 6-foot wide sidewalk in Upland Circle. The parking lot appears to be fairly well laid out. The city's parking ordinance requires 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of office (320 stalls) and one stall per 1000 square feet of warehouse area for the first 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and one space for each additional 2,000 square feet (15 stalls). The total parking spaces required by ordinance are 335. The applicant is providing 335 spaces. WETLANDS Ag/Urban Wetlands There are two ag/urban wetlands located on the site. The first is an elongated basin that lies to the northeast of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. This emergent, seasonally flooded wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, with stinging nettle, alder, ash and box elder. The second ag/urban wetland is located in the southern portion of the property. This wetland is designated as a "pond" on both the preliminary plans and the architectural drawings. The designation should be changed to "wetland" to reflect the basin's regulatory standing. The wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails, with duckweed and water plantain. The applicant is not proposing wetland impact. The applicant will be required to re -seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. A wetland buffer area should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 6 (one buffer sign per 300 feet of wetland edge) under the direction of City staff prior to construction and will pay the City $20 per sign. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Storm Water Quality and Quantity Fees All fees were paid with the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. Minimum requirements for landscaping include 2,370 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 9 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along Lake Drive , as well as neighboring property lines. Applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 9,458 s . ft. 9,458 s . ft. Trees/ parking lot 38 overstory trees 24 overstory trees 10 understory trees Islands/parkingIslands/parking lot 11 islands or peninsulas 6 islands/peninsulas The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for trees or islands/peninsulas in the parking lot area. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the number of trees and islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to meet minimum landscape requirements. LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. SIGNAGE The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 3% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 240 square feet. Staff is recommending the following criteria be adopted: 1. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on one elevation only. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7`" SPR July 18, 2000 Page 7 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Building Height 4 stories Building Setback N-10' E-30' From Property Line S-10' W-10' Building Setback N-40' E-NA' From Wetland S-NA' W-40' Proposed Building 2 story N-140' E-240' S-280' W-340' N-105' E-NA' S-NA' W-85' Parking stalls 335 stalls 335 stalls Parking Setback N-NA' E-30' N-60'- E30' S-10' W-10' S-200'- W-30' Hard surface 70% 29% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 14.5 acres Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 71h SPR July 18, 2000 Page 10 collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 12. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. 13. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 14. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by section 20-109 (5) of the city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 7th, actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. 15. Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type III erosion control fence. 16. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. 17. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 19. The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow, which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. 20. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 21. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7`" SPR July 18, 2000 Page 11 22. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 24. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. 25. The storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond shall be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application & Notice of Public Hearing and mailing list. 2. Memo from David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated July 12, 2000. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated July 11, 2000. 4. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official, dated July 11, 2000. 5. Plans dated June 2, 2000. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Review #00-8 IN RE: Application for Eden Trace Corporation for a 100,000 square foot office warehouse building On July 18, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Eden, Trace Corporation for a site plan review for the property located at Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7"' Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The 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 Industrial Office Park. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for an industrial office park. 3. The legal description of the property is Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7t" Addition 4. Section 20-110: (1) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Is consistent with this division; (3) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 7th SPR July 18, 2000 Page 2 (4) Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through 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 neighboring land uses. 5. The planning report 00-8 dated July 18, 2000, prepared by Sharmin Al-Jaff is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan review. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of July, 2000. Lot 5, Block 1, CLBP 71h SPR July 18, 2000 Page 3 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION D ATTEST: Secretary .:\plan\sa\chanhassen lakes business part:\Data Link Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ede �"CG lr,Y'� ADDRESS: 17h aloe Or VIf ex C 0AAaSTenI n'1i✓- 5531-7 TELEPHONE (Daytime) OWNER: F6 AC_&VIS1Tro#/s° .T'#,jc. ADDRESS: 1 to �o�dCn�rt�i a} !7� . IQ Ede„ rirai✓e , MN SS3�{y TELEPHONE: (743- 8'778 C`i�i= Gil; /So+1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _. Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign _K Site Plan Review` Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" 0 UP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes X EsC($5Bounds,$400 Minor SUB) Subdivision" TOTAL FEE $00. 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 W/i' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. — Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME lba+, L t o LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION �o+ 5 Nock I Cko h , L- Rite s & Pa 7 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING O I' REQUESTED ZONING �— PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION �it CIW S�riu I REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 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 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 applicant 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 request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 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 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. Signature of Applicant C- ?ignature -of-Fee-Owner Application Received on Fee Paid (0-1-oo Date G - - do Date 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. 1 q;fi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 189 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an APPLICANT: Eden Trace Corporation Office Warehouse Building LOCATION: Upland Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Eden Trace Corporation, is requesting Site Plan Review for a 100,000 sq. ft. office warehouse building (Data Link Corporation) to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition on property zoned IOP, Office Industrial Park and located west of Upland Drive and north of Lake Drive West. 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 dosed 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 Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. Smooth Feed SheetSTM L 5 ,6 I CAP VsRdmp(ate for 51600 LAKE SUSAN HILLS 7600 PARKLAWN AVE SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55435 DAVID A STOCKDALE 7210 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 OSMONICS INC 5051 CLEARWATER DR HOPKINS MN 55343 CHAN CONGR JEHOVAHS WITNESS C/O RICHARD TAYLOR 7227 BREN LN EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 DUKE REALTY LIMITED PTRSHP 1550 UTICA AVE S STE ST LOUIS PAR MN 55416 RAY E JOHNSON 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVE BLOOMINGTO MN 55438 GARY F GOLL 1455 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FLENINGE PTRSHP C/O LARS E AKERBERG 121 3RD ST W PO BOX 158 CHASKA MN 55318 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHE 690 CITY CE DR PO BOX 147 CHAN SEN MN 55317 MONK PROPERTIES LLC 9671 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MONK PROPERTIES LLC 9671 MEADOWLARK L CHANHASSEN 55317 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUS. PARK 3 1711 LAKE DR W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MCROI LLC 11475 VALLEY VIEW RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 TRADEN LLC C/O MARK UNDESTAD 1711 LAKE DR W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TRADEN LLC C/O MARK UNDESTAD 1711 LAKE DR W CHANHAS�S MN 55317 STEVEN ROBERT SHIPLEY JILL LOUISE SHIPLEY LLC 261 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FLENINGE PTRSHP TRADEN LLC C/O LARS E AKERB C/O MARK UND 121 3RD ST PO BOX 158 1711 LAK W CHAS MN 55318 CH�aDi SSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN------ C/O SCOTT BOTCHER C/O SCOTT BO)�GHEER 690 CITY CEN PO BOX 147 690 CITY.CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHA N MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 t 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner CHMNSEN FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 690 Cio, Center Drive, PO Box 147 DATE: July 12, 2000 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Phone 612.937.1900 Park 7th Addition Land Use Review File No. 00-13 Genend Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fix 612,937.9152 Public Sa fen, Fax 612.934.2524 Upon review of the civil plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated July 20, tt''eb ii iuro.c;.cha» hasseri.»"r.us 1999 and site plans prepared by RSP dated June 2, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING In conjunction with the development of the plat improvements for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 71h Addition (CLBP 7th), the developer rough graded all the building sites in the development and installed the public utilities and street improvements in Upland Drive. Only minor grading is anticipated to prepare the building site. Grading does not impact the two wetlands on the site. Overall the plans propose to develop the site in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by section 20-109 (5) of the _ city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 7th, actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. The trees shown on, the westerly portion of the site have been designated to be removed in conjunction with previous wetland mitigation for CLBPK 7th and/or grading activities. The contractor and or developer shall perform an inspection of the existing utility lines on the site prior to construction activities commencing and notify the Chanhassen Engineering Department of any issues, i.e. dirt in lines, damage to manholes, etc. Once construction commences, the applicant shall be responsible for any or all damages to the city's utility system on the site as a result of development. Erosion control fencing is already installed on the site from previous site grading activities. Rock construction entrances are proposed at both access points. DRAINAGE Storm water runoff from the parking lots will be conveyed via storm sewers into the existing regional storm water pond south of the site for pretreatment. The storm sewer system on the site will be constructed and owned by the applicant The City of Cbanhassen. A pviving community with clean lakes, aualih, schools, a draining downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. AQreat place to live, work, and plan Sharmin Al-Jaff CLBP 7th Addition July 12, 2000 Page 2 upon completion. No additional storm water ponding is necessary with this proposal. Staff recommends that the storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required to determine if there are sufficient catch basins being provided to convey surface water runoff to the pond. The drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event and be submitted to the City for review and approval at time of building permit application. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available to the site from Upland Circle. The developer will be responsible for extending the utility improvements from Upland Circle to serve this parcel. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site (i.e. storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water) will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. STREETS The plans propose W utilize the two existing access points from Upland Circle. The parking lot drive aisle widths and turning radii appear to be designed in accordance with the City's ordinance. Industrial driveway aprons with pedestrian ramps have been constructed with Upland Circle. A concrete sidewalk is proposed from the building to the existing 6-foot wide sidewalk in Upland Circle. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by section 20-109 (5) of the city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 7th, actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. 2. Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type III erosion control fence. 3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's Sharmin Al-Jaff CLBP 71h Addition July 12, 2000 Page 3 drainage and utility easement. 4. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 6. The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow, which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. 7. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 8. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 9. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7- ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 11. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. 12. The storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond shall be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids. Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\eng\dave\pc\clbp 7thlot5bkl.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 11, 2000 SUBJECT: Request for a site plan review for a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse Building for Data Link Corporation to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7"' Addition, on property zoned IOP, Office Industrial Park and located west of Upland Circle and north of Lake Drive West, Eden Trace Corporation. Planning Case: 00-8 Site Plan Review. I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 2. Submit radius turn plans to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 3. `No parking Fire Lane' signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code and Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 4. Comply with Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. gAsafety\ml\pl rev00-8 CITY OF SEN _ CHANSSEN NT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE S GNAGE 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18". Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 NO Phone 612.9371900 PARKING 2. Red on white is preferred. General Fax 612.937.5739 FIRE Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade reflective Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 sheeting on aluminum is preferred. Web www.ci,chanhassen.mn.us 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire Appfove t— ire arshal The City of Chanhassen. A frowinff community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful narks. A oreat Place to live. work. and olas CITY OF CHANAASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612,937.1900 General Fax 612.9375739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www. ci. chanhassen. mn. us WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits No permit shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following: a) Engineering Department b) Fire Marshal c) Minnesota Department of Health d) Plumbing Inspector 2) Mechanical inspectors will do all installation inspections and witness the hydrostatic and conductivity tests. Call 937-1900 ext. 31 to schedule an inspection. Inspection and Test Requirements a) All pipes shall be inspected before being covered. Phone 937-1900, ext. 31, to schedule inspections. A 24 hour notice is required. b) Conductivity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to minimum 350 amp test for a period of not less than 5 minutes. c) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of 150 PSI for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed 1 PSI. d) Pipe shall not be run under buildings - NFPA 24, 8-3.1. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993 Date: 04/15/93 Revised: 4/17/96 Page l of 2 The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 3) Upon approval of the hydro test, the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of the inspection report to the utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note whether the system is ready for main flush and drawing of water sample for the bug test. 4) Water main flushing shall be witnessed by the utility superintendent. a) Watermain flushing may be scheduled by contacting the utility superintendent at 474-2086. A 24 hour notice is required. b) The utility superintendent shall obtain a water sample for a bacteria test after the main flush and deliver to a testing company. The contractor shall be responsible for testing costs. Allow two weeks for testing results to be returned to the City. c) Upon receiving approval of the water sample test, the utility superintendent shall submit a copy to each plumbing inspector and turn water on to the tested and approved sections of the piping. 5) An additional supervised flush and flow test will be required and witnessed by the Fire Marshal for services supplying fire suppression systems. The flush and flow test shall be performed in accordance with 1991 edition of NFPA 13, Sec. 8-2.1. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal at 937-1900 ext. 132. 6) Watermain installations shall comply with: a) Minnesota Plumbing Code, Chapter 4715 b) Chanhassen Engineering Department, Watermain Specifications c) National Fire Protection Association, Chapter 24 7) Only authorized city employees are permitted to operate city water control valves. For water turn on or off contact the utility superintendent by phone 474-2086. A 24 hour notice is required. AP', proved- Building Of icial I j � 14- Approv d re Marshal Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993 Date: 04/15/93 Revised: 04/17/96 Page 2 of 2 t* CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 MEMORANDUM Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612,937,1900 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior planner General Fax 612.9375739 Engineering Fax 612,937,9152 FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official Public Safety Fax 012,934.2524 DATE: July 11, 2000 �� Web www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us SUBJ: Site Plan review for an office warehouse building for Data Link Corporation, located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7"' Addition. Applicant: Eden Trace Corporation Planning Case: 00-8 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the plans for the above building dated: June 2, 2000 and received by the Planning Department on the same date. Following are my comments, which should be included as conditions of approval. 1. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Eight accessible parking spots must be provided and they must be dispersed among the various building entrances as close to the entrances as possible. 4. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. G/safety/st/menios/plan/chanlakesL5,B1,70 DataLink The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channinv, downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful Darks. A ereat Place to live, work, and Plan Lotus Lake A r 0 -11 [ —L 0 0 1 ca —FF McGraith Variance July 13, 2000 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-615 (5) a. requires a 30 foot front yard setback on properties zoned RSF. (Note: Front lot line is defined as "the lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way." Front yard is defined as "a yard extending across the full width of the lot between any building and front lot line...") Section 20-908 (5) a. permits decks to encroach 5 feet into a required front, side or rear setback. Section 20-72 (a) states that nonconformities shall not be increased except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. BACKGROUND According to Carver County records, the home on the site was constructed in 1941. The property is part of Carver Beach, platted in 1927. The existing home is 21 feet from the north property line (Broken Arrow Drive, an unimproved right-of-way) and 40 feet from the east property line (Lotus Trail). The setback along Broken Arrow Drive is nonconforming because the home is only 21 feet from the property line and the ordinance requires a minimum of 30 feet. Broken Arrow Drive is partially bituminous surface, gravel and unimproved due to steep grades. The unimproved portion directly abuts the subject site. Sanitary sewer and water extend through the right- of-way to Lotus Trail. The applicant's "horse shoe" shaped driveway utilizes part of the unimproved right-of-way. ANALYSIS The applicant would like to construct a deck on the north and east elevations of an existing home to serve as the access to the front door. The proposed deck meets the required 25 foot front yard setback along Lotus Trail, but the portion of the proposed deck along the right-of-way of Broken Arrow Drive encroaches 8 feet into the required setback and is only 17 feet from the property line. (Decks can encroach 5 feet into a required setback, thus the variance is from the 25 foot setback.) 6900 Lotus Trail from the east ... and from the intersection of Lotus Trail and Broken Arrow Drive McGraith Variance July 13, 2000 Page 3 Numerous variances have been granted to properties in Carver Beach; however, that fact does not justify this variance. The property directly to the west received a variance for lot area, but the house meets the required setbacks. Currently, a single family home is present on the site so the applicant has use of the property. An entrance can be constructed on the front of the home (the east elevation) that meets the required 25 foot front yard setbacks (see Attachment 4). A landscape path can be installed on the north side of the house to connect the driveway to the deck. A hardship is not present to support this variance request. Furthermore, this variation will expand a nonconformity, since the setback on the north does not meet the current required setback. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship; therefore, staff cannot recommend approval. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council 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 from them meet this criteria. Finding: A single family home exists on the site, so the applicant has use of the property. It is not a hardship to be without the specific deck design the applicant is requesting. A sizeable deck can easily be constructed that meets ordinance requirements. 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: There are many properties located at the corner of two public rights -of -way that are required to meet the required setbacks. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Staff does not believe the sole reason for the request is to increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Since the cabin was constructed in 1941, the applicant is not responsible for the nonconforming situation. However, the fact that the applicant is proposing a design that does not meet ordinance requirements is creating the hardship. McGraith Variance July 13, 2000 Page 4 e. 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 is located. Finding: Although the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, it will permit a front yard setback that is less than those within 500 feet. f. 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 diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property nor increase congestion or danger the public safety; however, it will permit a front yard setback that is less than those within 500 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-10 to permit a deck to encroach 8 feet into a 25 foot required front yard setback, based upon the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of a variance." Attachments 1. Application 2. Applicable regulations 3. Survey 4. Buildable Area 5. Public Hearing Notice gAplankMoa\mcraith 00-10 vandoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: _?Can car _ d,,,,rl 1 ar ml D ADDRESS: _�OgDO L_,-4U5-T,.j C l/lav��na� t �i 5 TELEPHONE (Day time s �1 4-1 Q -1 S5 � ►M �t t h� CITY OF CHANHASSEN JUN 13 2000 CHHIVr1MJJCI4 rLnwiva.V uCPT OWNER . �a6 , r � atj ADDRESS: -pGrn TELEPHONE Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development` Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ ' OD A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11"reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each- application. PROJECT NAME 1 lecL LOCATION �cPoG LoIU.S l ray Ci/l0.tn�tcs3ty� 1h LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTALACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES J NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST '\JaV L avx L 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 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 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 Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I 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 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. Jate .z I cc) Date Application Received on t� Fee Paid 4_7c� 00 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. June 12, 2000 Dear Planning Commission, CITY OF CHANJHASSEN J U N 13 2000 We, Patrick and Debbie McRaith are requesting a variance to build a deck off the front of our house. We need the variance due to a ungraded/non-constructed road. We still have approximately 17 feet clearance from this non -constructed road which is non -useable. The placement of our deck is so we can enter from our front door. Our house design doesn't allow for deck placement elsewhere. Our proposed deck is well thought out, with a detailed plan and will have no effect on our neighbors. We thank you for your consideration of approving this variance. Sincerely, Patrick and Debbie McRaith 6900 Lotus Trail Chanhassen MN. 55317 (952) 470-1853 § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note —Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. 'RSF" SINGLE-FAMLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No._80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses., \` The following uses are permitted in an "RSF' District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State -licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State -licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. § 20-615 (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference —Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. 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: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lot* Where Frontage Is Measured At 8etbaok Dine �• L (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (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 one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Neck / Flag Lots Fronj Lot Line 1 1 i 1 100Lot Width L-- L ....... �_ ._.! (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways 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. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one -hundred -foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note —Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. "114" 1V=D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 ZONING § 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measurements shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject to the following qualifications: (1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed. (2) Ayard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another building. (3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided, however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks. (4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street. It (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five () fi-ef and shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit. b. The above -named features may project into any required yard adjoining an interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above. C. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten -foot minimum front yard. d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are permitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one-story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet. Supp. No. 10 1233 § 20-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12.15-86) Secs. 20-61-20-70. Reserved. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon- forming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20.72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relo- cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (c) No nonconforming use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. *Editor's note —Section 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20-73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§ 20-71-20-78, which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp. No. 4 1164 tI ISURVEY k-01 �o si�. c FotuJOhTw � t�> 32Z\ Lo s` �LK 190 AA O'• o -I^ CjQJ nn f � � `-� gE�lUGS htRE AsS11,h1EO o OSKME.C> C' Jer a2, F0DU6 1 Mrz Mwxmr-t�T, Sue.s�CT To EitSL-MEIJT$ OF` REC.OR.'b, U 0 t nch= Rk I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries 0-WVER ofLtrt$31836--3nokuu3ZO63ZZ3'EQ V'm(,V1I County, Minnesota as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County. That I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. r / Dated:��PfEWIF�ER13t Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 212 East First Avenue Suite No. C Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 612 445 4027 tz U LI �j / 046) Jr CIO t o 406 � o a - "2D\ / s 20 L. a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Variances for Construction APPLICANT: Pat and Debbie McRalth of a Deck LOCATION: 6900 Lotus Trail NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Pat and Debbie McRaith, are requesting variances to construct a deck located at 6900 Lotus Trail. 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 dosed 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 Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. tv, :. 0., „ a -7 4 I,.,) Smooth Feed SheetSTM M&Qc +"se template for 51600 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT IAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA 650 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL T EIDSNESS 630 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ED GROESS 6890 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES W TALUS 8350 RED ROCK RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 MARK W & VALERIE NELSON 6890 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLARENCE & FLORENCE KEEFER PO BOX 192 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELLEN JANE CRANSTON 695 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELLEN JANE CRANSTON 695 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD D PETERSON 6896 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT PACIEZNIK 6891 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D JR & LISA F LENSEGRAV 6880 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK L & ANDREA L PATTERSON 600 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LANA L MATSON-GALVIN & 6893 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK L & ANDREA L PATTERSON 600 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN C & SHARON L ASH 671 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN B MEZZENGA 33316 MEZZENGA LN CROSSLAKE MN 56442 DANIEL & BARBARA SIEGEL 621 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & MARY E RHATIGAN 599 BROKEN ARROW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & MARY E RHATIGAN 599 BROKEN ARROW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIRK N FRIEDLINE 620 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICKI LEE HALE & 600 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDY SCHLUETER 580 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK T & DEBRA JO MCRAITH 6900 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH G III & BARBARA C BETZ 6940 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 e "?A,* r r 2 r ury M �iy Lotus Lake ., _of _1( 2Q�U LAND J% PLA-N: _ --- 4pprove dC This is t Future Street -- 2 4 Au�mn Ridge 1 5 Aut mn Ridge L 6 Aut mn Ridge V .-%0%%'keja d Bob Generous July 12, 2000 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The applicant must comply with Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards adopted July 28, 1998, amended July 26, 1999. Telecommunication towers and antennas are permitted by conditional use permit only. Conditional Use Permits: Sections 20-221 through 20-237 and Section 20-256. Site Plan: Section 20-106 through 20-116. Towers and Antennas: Section 20-1500 through 20-1522. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to install 12-five foot tall panel antennas on top of the City of Chanhassen water tower located within the Arboretum Business Park. The panels will be located on the safety rails on the top of the tower. There will be no lights or signage on the panels or equipment building. The ground equipment will be located within a 17 foot by 17 foot, eight -foot high brick face structure with an asphalt shingle roof. BACKGROUND On July 26, 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the Arboretum Business Park Design Standards permitting church facilities as an interim use. On July 12, 1999, the City Counci,i approved Site Plan #99-13, for a 59,990 sq. ft. office warehouse building (Building I11). On February 8, 1999, the City Council approved site plan #99-1 for a 5,737 square foot Kwik Trip convenience store and gas station with a drive through car wash. (This project was later taken over by Mike Schlagen as a Citgo Store.) On June 22, 1998, the city approved a site plan for a 55,911 square foot building (All About Lights) and a 52,956 square foot building (On The Level) within Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. On June 22, 1998, the City Council approved resolution 98-58 for the acquisition of the site for the water tower. On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition consisting of six lots and the right-of-way for Water Tower Place, formerly known as Coulter Boulevard, and a site plan for a 113,600 square feet office -industrial -warehouse buildings (Steiner Building 2). Bob Generous July 12, 2000 Page 3 On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved resolution 98-48 awarding the bid for the water tower project. On April 13, 1998, the City Council approved resolution 98-32 approving the plans and specifications for the water tower. On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #92-6 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. On June 9, 1997, the City Council approved site plan #97-6 for Heartland America, a 101,600 square foot office industrial building (Steiner Building 1) on Lot 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park. LANDSCAPING The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan for review as part of the proposal. Staff believes that the applicant should provide conifer trees, in various sizes, around the equipment building and parking area. Such trees should be similar to the conifers on the property to the west. GRADING No site grading is proposed, however, staff is recommending additional driveway/parking lot areas be created to facilitate this use. The purpose of this recommendation is not to burden or restrict the city's ability access to the water tower. Staff is recommending that a bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. UTILITIES It appears no municipal services are required. The contractor and all sub -contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. a minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. DRAINAGF The proposed building will have little or impact to the existing drainage pattern STREETS Access to site will be via a private driveway through Lots 1& 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2°d from Water Tower Place. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, Bob Generous July 12, 2000 Page 4 which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE There will be no additional lighting or signage proposed for the project. MISCELLANEOUS The applicant and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division prior to applying for a building permit to discuss plan review and permit procedures. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; _ - (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 2 and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through 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 neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed project complies with the development design standards for the Arboretum Business Park and is consistent with the City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, comfort, convenience of general welfare of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed project is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 3 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed project is adequately served by public infrastructure. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The project will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The project will not depreciate surrounding property values. Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 4 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The project meets the standards for antennas as well as the design standards for the Arboretum Business Park. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17' x 17' equipment building in the southwest corner of the site subject to the following conditions: 1. The antennas must be painted the same color as the water tower. 2. The applicant must notify the City of Chanhassen Utility Department at least 24 hours prior to needing access to schedule an appointment to enter the water tower. 3. The applicant must enter into a lease agreement with the City of Chanhassen for use of the site. 4. The west and south walls of the building must be of one -hour fire -resistive construction if located less than 20 feet to the adjacent property lines. 5. The antennas and their attachment must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division prior to applying for a building permit to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City of Chanhassen approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. 9. The contractor and all sub -contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. a minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 5 10. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties." ATTACHMENTS 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Development Review Application 4. Letter from Paul A. Harrington to Planning Commission and City Council 5. General Information — Sprint PCS 6. Photocomposite Image of Antennas 7. Reduced Copy Site Survey Plan 8. Reduced Copy of Enlarged Site Plan 9. Reduced Copy Structure Plan and Elevation 10. Reduced Copy Shelter Plans and Elevations 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 12. Development Plan Referrals 13. Memo from David Hempel to Bob Generous dated 7/12/00 Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Sprint PCS for a Conditional Use Permit to install communication antennas and an equipment building. On July 18, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Sprint PCS for a conditional use permit for the property located at 2953 Water Tower Place, Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. - The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use was preceded by published and mailed notice. The 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 PUD. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial. 3. The legal description of the property is Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2„ d Addition. 4. Section 20-232: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 7 C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Sprint PCS July 18, 2000 Page 8 k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. 5. The planning report #2000-4 CUP dated July 18, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, David Hempel and Steve Torell is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of July, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary 66/15/00 10:33:22 612-937-5739-> Page 002 CITY of CHANHASSEN 090 COULTER DR" CHANHAMN, MN s8.11T (612) 03T-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION �i APPLICANT: ! ./it OWNER' 1, ;2 = OfADDRESS: /�l/� �/ `20 ADDRESS:,. C:)Od 2 TELEPHONE (Day On*) �(.� ' �,C Gj - % TELEPHONE; (;21.:�' A list of all propdrty owners within BOB feet of the bounder appNoation. laa Of the property must be Inpluded with the Building material Oamplee must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty -elk full wlas I19 coplea of the Plana must be submitted, Including an IMP, X I V rsduoed copy of transparsngy for.each plan shsst. " 0scrow will be *Clulrsd (or other applications through the development contrsat NOTE - When multiple applications are prooessad, the appropdate fee shall be Charged for each appilration. ✓�C Cf�r�'� /�/>r E'= i' l L C G) i`es12(' 06/15/00 10:33:42 612-937-5739-> Page 003 PROJECT NAME r LSS �TL�vn/i9 j LOCATION 1, 7 Zc z----- ✓ LEGAL DESCRIMON TOTAL ACjRE el ! ► ETLANDS PRE6gNT �--- YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTEp ZONING/10 PRESENT LANs 66S LiESIGNAMN D REQUEMt) LA Dil,(86 DESIGNATION Y REASON FOR TH(S kEbUEST itlN� fit.///-r ,Q /_ - -C7i✓ i7t� ernndisp�baNanmdst be'ccmpteted In full end bs typewritten or oleartyr printed and moot be a000r �i by► slpblioabla City Ordlinanoe prcvt$Icns. Beforo Nln ihls "nled by all Information Departrite^t tb datsh>ilna the specific ordinance end procedural APAOtlon, YOU Should confer with the Planning requiraments applloable to your appllctrtlan, A determine of QoMpletOnese of the application shall bs made within ten business days of applioatlon sutxrtltlai. A tiyrt(t8n notice Of applloatbrf daBolanoiee shall be melted to the appl►cant within ton business dada or appticatbn, This tot* 00r* that I am'making aPPlkation for sll City ulromantg Vygh ro0ard to this the dsaafbed action by trio 011y and that I am ras . the Cityggid oc regtrost This aPPiktatbn should be prncessad In Ponsible ;�Iylpn,(eithr brictplp anyrtl matter pertainiothsappppllcatn. I have atta0ed a wand1aYsDu oate ownsaterofTitl9,Abstract ofTltla orpurchgre@ agment), or I amfaedtomake this appllca n and thefedownerhaoalso signedthaapp8cstion.erson I wi11 keep myself Inllomied of the deadlines for submission of material and the proarm of this understand that addltlo^al is*$ may be charged for consulting fee$, feasibility studies, etc. with an etlmato prior to any authorization to prodebd with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are: true and •oornlot to the best of my knowledge, The crcy hereby notlAes the aPArtoant that deve , requlrsmants snd agency r+sview. Therefore, t City Is notlkinp thg oppli completed that th thin 8oily e days due to public hoarinp extanpion br develt0 taht review. Development review shall be completed wfthln 12 days ioan a n ass addltbnlUtOme al review 60 p�sPpMvbd by the applicant. 1 Signature of Appli ate Signature of Fa! umor lists Applloatlon Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The sppllcant should contact staff for a cgpy of theMalled sdtff report if not contacted, a copy of the report will be with st trio Whleh WRI be aysllsbfa on Friday prior to the mooting. PplIcit # address. ***END*** 1 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. June 15, 2000 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council 6o Robert Generous, Senior Planner 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit to allow Sprint PCS to attach Personal Communications Services (PCS) Panel Antennas on the Chanhassen Water Tower, 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard, Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Sirs and Madams: Sprint PCS is requesting that the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow Sprint PCS to locate panel antennas on the Chanhassen Water Tower located at 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard. The approval of these applications is being requested in order to complete a portion of a national PCS infrastructure network being installed by Sprint PCS. The Chanhassen Water Tower was selected for antenna installation based on its geographic location within a Sprint PCS defined "search ring". The ability of Sprint PCS to provide seamless and complete service coverage is dependent upon the location of antennas within the defined ring. Radio Frequency engineers from Sprint PCS conducted a drive test of the area and determined that the Tower meets the requirements necessary for operation of the Sprint PCS network. The Chanhassen Water Tower proposal is illustrated on the enclosed photo simulation and construction drawings. The five (5) foot tall panel antennas would be located a minimum of two (2) feet above the reservoir portion of the Water Tower. The panels (of which there are 12) would be attached to the safety rail on the top of the Tower. The proposed antennas and related equipment will meet or exceed all requirements of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. There will be no lights or signage (except small warning and information signs) on the panels or on the related ground equipment. The location of the ground equipment is provided on the enclosed Site Plan. The ground equipment is proposed to be located within a 17'x 17' brick face structure with an asphalt roof. The location of the proposed structure was selected with the input of the Chanhassen Public Works Department with security and aesthetics in mind. Sprint PCS will landscape the site per Planning Commission and City Council direction. Sprint PCS will resolve any potential technical interference problems with other equipment located at the site prior to installation. The PCS system operates on a specific set of channels licensed exclusively to Sprint PCS by the Federal Communications Commission to provide high quality mobile service for the benefit of the public good. Sprint PCS is currently licensed to operate in over 29 major markets nationwide with thousands of antenna installations. Attached for your review is the following information: 1. Development Review Application and check for $400.00; 2. Site Plan and Elevations (26 copies); 3. Photo Simulation of Water Tower with Antennas Installed (26 copies); 4. Narrative about Sprint PCS and general PCS services (26 copies); 5256 45TH AVENUE SOUTH I MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 1 TEL [6121729-9356 1 FAX [5611325-8317 5. 8 %" x 11" Transparencies of Plans. Please address all questions/comments/etc. regarding this application to: Paul Harrington Carlson & Harrington, Inc. 5256 45"' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 612.729.9356 (Phone) 1.561.325.8317 (Fax) Thank you in advance for consideration of this request. Sincerely, Paul A. Harrington Carlson & Harrington, Inc. Enclosures General Information - Sprint PCS and Personal Communication Services (PCS) Introduction Sprint PCS is a participant in the Personal Communications Services (PCS) market. Sprint PCS' purpose is to provide consumers with a variety of telecommunication services including local telephone service, long distance service, wireless communications and cable services. PCS is the result of a growing demand for improved wireless telecommunication services, and a new infrastructure is needed to meet this growing demand. Background In early 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned licenses for the 1850- 1990 MHz band of the radio spectrum within the 51 Major Trading Areas (MTA's) of the United States for use by Personal Communications Services. Sprint PCS purchased licenses within 29 of these 51 defined MTA's. These licenses, in combination with the licenses awarded to its affiliates and other providers, will enable Sprint PCS to offer seamless Personal Communications Services virtually anywhere in the country. What is PCS? PCS technology combines voice and data services using digital interfacing equipment. This facilitates a higher quality transmission with greater voice clarity than currently used by cellular technology. PCS will give consumers more freedom with respect to their telecommunication needs. PCS will offer enhanced service features such as portable phones, pagers, facsimile transmission, and wireless voice service at a lower cost than existing cellular service. PCS is on the cutting edge of the wireless revolution. Services of PCS include: • Local and long distance telephone services and cable services; • All -in -one Wireless Communication Services; • Portable phones, pagers and fax transmission; • Numeric paging on the phone's screen; • Interactive paging (two-way paging that allows the sender to track where the message is sent and when it has been received); • Voice -mail service; • Caller ID; • International roaming capability; • Reduced power needs (allows smaller units and longer battery life); and • In the future, PCS will allow computer use and video imaging over the PCS network Benefits of PCS over Cellular PCS has several advantages over existing cellular telephone service, including better service quality through the use of digital technology, more compact radio equipment, increased mobility, enhanced service features and price. Digital Technology: Digital technology facilitates cleaner voice quality, but more importantly, clean data communication. A PCS customer will be able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their handset. PCS technology also provides less static and fading, and there are fewer dropped or lost calls. Improved Security: Calls in digital format cannot be overheard with the kind of simple scanners currently used to eavesdrop on cellular calls. Although it is technically possible to eavesdrop on a digitally transmitted call, the effort would require special equipment and an advanced technical knowledge of the system. Improved Equipment: PCS will utilize smaller antennae and handsets along with a more advanced telecommunication technology that will result in favorable rates to consumers. Handsets will be lighter and use longer lasting batteries than the current cellular "flip" phones. Because of Sprint PCS' assigned radio spectrum, there will be more antenna's. However, every effort has been made to locate equipment on existing structures rather than building free-standing towers. Increased Mobility: With PCS, mobility means seamless roaming across existing cellular and landline service areas. A PCS handset can be taken anywhere and be expected to function the same as in the coverage area of the original service provider. One Telephone Number: With PCS, one Personal Communications Number (PCN) will be assigned to each individual user. Today, when a person changes their residence, the old landline telephone number is frequently lost because these numbers are assigned and based on geographic area. Cellular telephone numbers are also lost when carriers are switched because cellular service companies are provided a limited range of numbers, and the numbers have to be recycled or reused. A PCN associates a telephone number with a person, regardless of where. he or she is located, and regardless of who is the service provider. Lower Cost for Service: PCS will be cheaper in the long term because it will utilize digital technology. Initially, the cost for the service and handsets will be similar to that of cellular. However, with increased demand, both carriers and manufacturers will be able to lower their price significantly. Eventually, PCS service will be less than cellular and will be close to the cost of wireline telephone service. Increasing Demand Today, cellular telephone systems in the US are expanding at the rate of over 28,000 new subscriptions per day, far beyond the growth rate of new subscriptions for wireline telephone service. The popularity of cellular telephone service is due to the freedom, mobility and enhanced productivity that it provides. No longer are people tied to fixed telephones or pay phones. Yet cellular telephone services are just one step toward another type of service, one expected to revolutionize telecommunications. The next rung on the evolutionary ladder is PCS. 4xa ^ —.—.—._.—.— —. —. — — - HIGHWAY—N 0, 4 1 — — — —STATE z; ga co Y= N D s z $ H 8 O M r r R x n b < z _ o a m N + � a i D A a Q Q�� • w a k ctc u +o1+'D 000 9 � n x D z x D Cm wz m� z m � " o 10 ➢ -i m m nD m Z A 0 ------------ i Im w nN C: (A LO n > mCTJ .0 0 zM z r M —4 Lno ,Z6 > m mR.n :E )> < DSO r m 2 t � I ' I� 3 m 1 m m M Z c n. �., -•�_ �a �� rig k • •. N � o } t .r f x • u - � uu - S --- -_ ; f� �� N; � #` i � $ ^� �i $�1F �•y�C •S�Y iG � n i F ^� p�� Vo�;4 -as g i alga€f "6 a and a°a €Eg y F J'J'R g 9 a z n�F PR a *' A eR R a N g n _ s 1 a€ � Y Fa " a A sI mix � iy �s € aA a€� N� p " =gd$`�'1EY R� Q i y 'R ; € a "a� " sQ ^qq� R b d�S _d�jiY a i!¢fyR'' ggg�sb 9 Ls s3' lid it s) o ° B piRIP gp a i � PEI _Z.m =�� a z DrVI - ■■� ff OZ;�Z f • t Y Y � _ � t Y ► } ► M M >• • ".� t'Y ;N .�.. Y N.- @ z D a 8 E A F €A aY � sa A� RIJI� � � ■' z- � D aI R•m r k• ggky ; 3 qq a g �� t R, z F. cc m jr {' -4 Z lix Y $ f I a 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUIESDAY, JULY I By 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Sprint PCS for Communication Antenna LOCATION: 2953 Water Tower Place NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting a conditional use permit to install a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17' x 17' equipment building on property zoned PUD and located on Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, 2953 Water Tower Place. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. Future Street 1 r7 /I /. 0091s aasel sp �-1 J- slagel ssaippV @AU3Atf 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHE 61__DR CH SEN MN 55317 COEUR TERRA LLP 3610 SOUTH HWY 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CORD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 WATERTOWER PARTNERS LLC PO BOX 265 WACONIA MN 55387 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CORD 101--- WAYZ MN 55391 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 67M0'KCl�T1_TER-DR CHANHA N MN 55317 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CORD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)93 7-1900 Date: 6/28/00 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a conditional use permit to install a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17' x 17' equipment building on property zoned PUD and located on Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, 2953 Water Tower Place, Sprint PCS. Planning Case: 2000-4 CUP The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on June 19, 2000. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed fixture utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on July 18, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July 7, 2000. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments fa. 8. Telephone Company City Engineer (US West or United) b. City Attorney c. City Park Director 9. Electric Company C/nFire Marshal (NSP or MN Valley) e Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator 10. Triax Cable System 0. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County a. Engineer 4. MN Dept. of Transportation b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Other -City of Chaska 6. Minnegasco (lam MN Landscape Arboretum 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources :4 Assistant City Manager 9 CITY OF CHANNASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.9375739 Engineering Tax 612.937.9152 Public Safer, Ea.v 612.934.2524 It eb rouu. ci. chmhassen. nrn. rrs MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engincg��.-- DATE: July 12, 2000 SUBJ: Site plan review for Sprint PCS, Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2" d Addition - Land Use Review File No. 00-14 Upon review of the site plans prepared by AEC Engineering dated June 6, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING No site grading is proposed, however, staff is recommending additional - driveway/parking lot areas be created to facilitate this use. The purpose of this recommendation is not to burden or restrict the cty's ability access to the water tower. Staff is recommending that a bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. UTILITIES It appears no municipal services are required. The contractor and all sub -contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. a minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. DRAINAGE The proposed building will have little or impact to the existing drainage pattern STREETS Access to site will be via a private driveway through Lots 1& 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2°d from Water Tower Place. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. The City of Ganhassen. A ovivinP community with clean lakes, vitality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful barks. A great Place to live, work, and Plan Bob Generous July 12, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. 2. The contractor and all sub -contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. a minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. 3. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. Attachment — Easement agreement c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent g:\eng\dave\pc\sprint pcs outlot a abp2nd.doc EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the PZ9 4 day of J-;� � e- 1998, by and between Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Grantor") and The City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Grantee is the owner of real property located in Carver County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the 'Benefited Property") and incorporated herein by reference; and B. Grantor is the owner of real property located in Carver County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto (the 'Burdened Property") and incorporated herein by reference; and C. Grantor has agreed to grant to Grantee the permanent, nonexclusive driveway easement and the temporary, nonexclusive driveway easement granted by this Agreement, but upon and subject to the terms and conditions of this Easement Agreement, and Grantor and Grantee are entering into this Easement Agreement for the purpose of stating their agreement concerning the conveyance by Grantor of the easements hereinafter described for the purposes specified herein for the benefit of the Benefited Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and of One Dollar, other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and the terms, covenants and conditions of this Easement Agreement, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: Rapid Recordings c:V-11c\chasWeasement.cha 1 10873 Mississippi Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 1. DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS. Grantor hereby grants, bargains and conveys onto Grantee the following easements: a. Permanent Easement. A perpetual and nonexclusive easement for driveway, access, ingress and egress purposes (the "Permanent Easement") over and across the permanent easement area legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. b. Temporary Easement. A temporary and nonexclusive easement for driveway, access, ingress and egress purposes (the "Temporary Easement") over and across the temporary easement area legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Temporary Easement shall terminate, and shall be released by Grantee, upon completion of driveway improvements within the Permanent Easement providing driveway access from the Benefited Property to Coulter Boulevard. In addition, Grantor shall be entitled to terminate the Temporary Easement prior to completion of driveway improvements within the Permanent Easement, provided Grantor, at the time of such termination, shall grant reasonable, temporary alternate access to a public road and provide temporary access improvements therein to the Benefited Property pending completion of permanent driveway improvements within the Permanent Easement. Such temporary, alternate access improvements may also be located within the Permanent Easement. In the event such temporary, alternate access improvements are to be provided by Grantor, Grantor and Grantee shall each pay one-half (1/2) of the reasonable costs and expenses of completing temporary driveway improvements. The Permanent and the Temporary Easement are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Easements". The Easements are granted and established solely for the benefit of the Benefited Property. The Easements shall run with the title to the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property and bind all persons who now or hereafter have any right, title or interest in the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property, their successors, assigns and mortgagees, and shall inure to the benefit of all persons who now or hereafter have any right, title or interest in the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property and their respective successors, assigns and mortgagees. The rights of Grantee and its respective successors and assigns in and to the Easements shall be as set forth in this Agreement. At such time as the Temporary Easement is terminated in accordance with the terms cArile\chaska\easement.cha 2 and conditions stated in this Paragraph 1, Grantee shall execute and deliver to Grantor a Quit Claim Deed or Release, in recordable form, releasing the Burdened Property from the Temporary Easement. 2. USE, EFFECT AND ENFORCEMENT OF EASEMENTS The Easements are appurtenant to the Burdened Property and the Benefited Property and may not be transferred, assigned or encumbered except as an appurtenance to the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property. Upon a conveyance of all or any part of the title to the Burdened Property or the Benefited Property the Grantee, by accepting such conveyance shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Easements are nonexclusive easements for the benefit of the Benefited Property for driveway, access, ingress and egress purposes and may used for such purposes by the owner(s) of Benefited Property and their successors and assigns, in common with the owner(s), successors, assigns, tenants and invitees of the Burdened Property. The Permanent Easement is also granted subject to the utility and drainage easements dedicated in the recorded plat of Arboretum Business Park Second Addition. The Easements are granted solely for the benefit of the Benefited Property, and no provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted as a grant of any part of the Burdened Property for use as a public street or right-of-way. Grantor and Grantee agree, on behalf of themselves and their respective successors and assigns, that the rights and obligations of Grantor and Grantee and all subsequent owners of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property may be enforced by an action in law or in equity, and that equitable remedies, including injunctive relief, shall be available to enforce obligations arising under this Agreement. The prevailing party in any litigation to enforce rights or obligations arising under this Agreement shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and c:MekhasWeasement.cha 3 disbursements. Failure on any one occasion by any party to enforce rights created under this Agreement shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 3. DURATION. The Permanent Easement is perpetual in duration and the rights and obligations of Grantor and Grantee, and their successors and assigns, as stated in this Agreement, shall also be perpetual in duration. The Temporary Easement is temporary in duration, and shall terminate as stated in Subparagraph 1, b. of this Agreement. =1. CONSTRUCTION, VIAINTENANCE. REPAIR AND RESTORATION OF DRIVEWAY IMPROVEVIENTS. All costs and expenses for repair and maintenance (includinc snow removal) of an,,- driveway or access impro\ emc nts \\"ithin the Temporary Easement shall be paid b\ and be the sole respollsibilit% of Grantee. At SLIC11 tulle as Lots 1 and ', )3i0CIC -,, A!"DO CtUill BL1SIness Parl� Secol1C: :\dClit1011- are developed by the construction of permnn�nt inlprots thereon. Grantor shall cause perma:,ent dl'I\'e\\"a\ 1III p1'0\`e111111IS IO lie C011tit!'LICt Cl \\"!thln fl LC P l'illallellt EaSell]tll:. at GralltCi'S \henSC or the e\;pense of the party or parties ui. , eii,(, _�T', 1 •."0�"iCl-Cl Grant;;_ s'.,:i11 !L% t for all costs of collstl'Llctloll 01`any additional Inlpl'O\'enlelltS 1'egl11I'eCl t0 1?1'0\'1Cle aCCI'SS t0 the Benefited Property which are not included \within the parking lot or driveway improvelllents required for the development of said Lots 1 and 2. All costs and expenses for repair, maintenance (including, but not limited to, sweeping, resurfacing or snow removal) and driveway improvements completed after initial construction of driveway improvements within the Permanent Easement shall be paid as follows: i) Grantor shall pay all such costs and expenses with respect to the driveway improvements required to be constructed in connection with the development of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park Second Addition; and ii) Grantee shall pay all costs and expenses for c:lfilekhaska\easement.cha 4 such repair, maintenance and improvement of driveway improvements within the Permanent Easement that are not included in the parking and driveway improvements required to be constructed in connection with the development of said Lots 1 and 2. Under no circumstances shall Grantor be obligated to pay or reimburse Grantee for any snow removal, maintenance or repair work performed by Grantee within the Permanent Easement unless Grantor has given its prior written consent to so reimburse Grantee. The foregoing obligation to pay repair, maintenance and capital improvement expenses shall run with the title to the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property and bind all present and future owners of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property. Each owner of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property, by accepting a conveyance of such Property, whether or not it shall be expressed in such conveyance, covenants and agrees to pay the foregoing costs and expenses in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 4. Such agreement to pay said costs and expenses shall be a personal obligation of each and every person or persons who are the legal or equitable owners of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property at the time the repair, maintenance or improvement costs are incurred, and shall be enforceable by each owner of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property who has paid his, her or its share of such costs and expenses. 5. AMENDMENT. This Agreement and any provision herein contained may be terminated, extended, modified or amended, only with the express written consent of all of the owners of the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property. No amendment, modification, extension or termination of this Agreement will affect the rights of the holder of a mortgage constituting a lien on any portion of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property at the time of such amendment, modification, extension or termination unless such mortgagee consents to the c:\MckhasWeasement.cha 5 same. No tenant, licensee or other person or entity that does not own an interest in the fee title to the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property will be required to join in the execution of, or consent to, any action of the parties subject to this Agreement. 6• INDEMNIFICATION. Each owner of the Benefited Property or the Burdened Property (as the case may be) shall be solely responsible for, and shall protect, indemnify and hold the owners of the other Tracts harmless from and against, any and all costs, expenses and liabilities arising in connection with the construction of driveway improvements or other improvements constructed in the Permanent Easement or the Temporary Easement without the prior written consent of the owners of the other Property, including any mechanic's liens asserted in connection therewith. 7. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement is intended to be interpreted in accordance with Minnesota law, represents the entire agreement and declaration of Grantor and Grantee with respect to its subject matter and shall run with the title to the Benefited Property and the Burdened Property and be binding upon Grantor and Grantee and their respective successors, assigns and mortgagees to the extent herein provided. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership By Steiner Development, Inc., general partner By T Its c:V11e\chasWeasement.cha 6 City of Chanhassen By 1 U t; i� Its Mayor By Its City Manager/Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L`t 4"'day of��-- 1998, by fi �,the ' of Steiner Development, Inc., the general p; er of Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. xMVVH��+nnNvvVV •rr•�„�:.:,:,nnnnnnnnM�Mn* i'it NOTAP' Puri..)•:-MINNESOTA 7ASHINGTON COUNTY 2000 Pl n ... ... .. ...'..V."'*./L b STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CARVER )SS COUNTY OF RPWReN ) Notary Public j `J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .-74't� day of -� 1998,by Nancy K. Mancino and Don_7�Rworth ' the Mayor and City Manager/Clerk ,respectively of the City rp Chanhassen, a muncipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the muncipal corporation. c:lfilelchaskaleasement.cha 7^,� KAREN J. ENGELHARDT �� NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY My Commisalon Exoss Jan. 31, 2000 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Vesely, Miller & Steiner, P.A. 400 Norwest Bank Building 1011 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 c:lfile\chaskMeasement.cha 8 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITED PROPERTY Outlot A, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. cAfilekhaskaMegal.ben EXHIBIT B LEGAL DPRCRIPTION OF B 1RDENED PROPERTY Property subject to Permanent Easement: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Property subject to Temporary Easement: The South 100 feet of that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23, described as follows; Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds East (assumed heuruig) along the South line of said Northwest Quurter, a distance of 1,410.72 feet; thence North 0 degrees 52 mWute'.a 20 seconds West a distance of 245.6 feet to the actual point of beginning of land to be described; thence continuing North 0 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds West, a distaueo of 300 feetl thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seeon& Eost, along a Tine parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 457 feet; thence South 0 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds bast, a distance of 300 fret; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West, along a line parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 457 feet to the point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. O IekhaskaUegal.bur EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS A. Permanent Easement Area The east fifteen (15) feet of Lot 1, Block 2, and the west fifteen (15) feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. B. Temporary Easement Area A 20 foot wide temporary easement for ingress and egress purposes over and across the south 100.00 feet following described property: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence on on assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds East, along the south line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1410.72 feet; thence North 0 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 245.60 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 0 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 300.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds East, parallel with said south line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 457.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West, parallel with said south line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 457.00 feet to the point of beginning. The center line of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the above described property; thence northerly along the west line of the above described property a distance of 72.00 feet; thence northwesterly, deflecting left 80 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of the center line to be described; thence southeasterly, deflecting left 180 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 314.00 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting left 25 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 105.00 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting left 13 degrees 00 'minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 150.00 feet and said center line there terminating. cArilckhaskaVegal.eas Document No. OFFICE OF THE A230787 COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA �rinq cee: S 30.550 C^eci� 10104 Certified filed and recorded on 07-08-1998 7-08-98 IIIII!II!Il11lllllil�lilll,11llllillilll!Illlilll, at 01.30 ❑ AM I PM -ari '. Hi-nson, Jr. �- -I V Z � tom-- (4 -J--111 v j z P Ic z z Z z 0 a g Op a �,o 2P 1I UA 0 CM �d LU kij C4 lei A A ..zg4z." 9, so' 7 to � AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATION Section 20-714 of the zoning ordinance permits commercial towers as regulated by article XXX as a conditional use in the BH zoning district. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an 80 foot monopole with antennas and a site plan for a 336 sq. ft. equipment building for a wireless communication facility. The zoning ordinance permits towers and antennas as a conditional use in the BH, Highway and Business Services District. The tower is proposed to have three arms mounted at the top of the pole that can support up to 12 antennas. The applicant has stated that only nine antennas will be installed initially. Also, the monopole has the capacity to hold an additional three arms at the 55 foot elevation that can accommodate up to 12 antennas. The monopole and building are to be located to the east of an existing commercial building (Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and Master Collision) that abuts TH 5. The monopole and equipment building will be accessed via an existing drive aisle and cul-de-sac. The site plan does not indicate any landscaping, however, the applicant intends to plant shrubs around the equipment building. The entire site is elevated approximately 8 feet above TH 5. The existing landscaping along TH 5 will screen the equipment building. The tower is north of the TH 5, west of the pedestrian bridge, east of an existing commercial building (Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and Master Collision) and south of the Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in this report. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to install a 77 foot monopole with 3 arms at the top containing up to 12 antennas that are approximately 4 feet in length, 1 foot in width and 6 inches in depth. The monopole is designed to hold an additional three arms with up to 12 antennas at the lower, 55 foot elevation. The monopole and equipment building are to be located on a 46 foot by 19 foot concrete island 12 feet from an existing commercial building and directly abutting an electrical transformer. As shown on the following table, the tower complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of the setback from the south property line. The ordinance requires it to be one- half the height of the tower, including antennas. The setback that is shown is from curb to curb, not from monopole to the property line. AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 3 TABLE 1 Proposed monopole compared to ordinance requirements Ordinance Proposal Tower Height 150 feet/maximum 80 feet including antennas Tower Setback TH 5 40 feet/minimum Not Shown East property line 10 feet/minimum 45 feet The tower is to be painted blue. This color is consistent with the tower and antenna design in the zoning ordinance. However, staff would like to specifically recommend the brand be "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion." This is the same color used on the water tower in the Arboretum Business Park (southeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41). In locating a telecommunication antenna, the applicant must demonstrate that the antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -mile search radius. However, towers less than 80 feet in height are exempt from this requirement. Since the monopole is only 77 feet, this applicant does not need to comply with this requirement. The applicant has contacted NSP about locating a wireless communication facility on the existing power lines. This placement does not work for either party for safety reasons. EQUIPMENT BUILDING A 336 sq. ft. equipment building is to be installed in conjunction with the monopole. This proposed structure is 10 feet in height, 12 feet in width and 28 feet in length. It is to be constructed of prefabricated concrete and painted a color to blend in with the existing building. However, the HC-1, Highway 5 Overlay District prohibits painted brick. Thus, staff is requiring that the equipment building be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the existing building. TABLE 2 Equipment Building compared to ordinance requirements Ordinance Proposal -Building Height 1 story/maximum 1 story -Building Area 400 s . ft./maximum 336 s . ft. Building Setbacks South East 25 feet/minimum 10 feet/minimum Not Shown The equipment building is shown to be 16 feet from the existing building. The building code requires the minimum setback to be 20 feet based upon the building classification. As additional antennas are installed on the monopole, additional equipment buildings will be required. All structures will have to meet zoning ordinance requirements. AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 4 PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The existing parking will be used. No additional parking spaces are required for this use. The site plan does not indicate the number of parking stalls that will be impacted by this application. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant demonstrate the number of parking stalls being impacted by the installation the monopole and building on the site plan. LANDSCAPING The applicant has indicated that shrubs are to be planted around the base of the equipment building. Staff recommends that a landscape plan detailing the species and site location be submitted to the City prior to installation. Existing landscaping includes a continuous staggered row of evergreens that screen the equipment building on the south. Currently, there is one dead evergreen near the proposed monopole and building that should be replaced. The mature evergreen and deciduous trees obscure views from the properties to the north. LIGHTING Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower specifically requires such lighting. SIGNAGE The applicant has not shown any signage plans. No signage, advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities. FINDINGS The City of Chanhassen finds it necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size, and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities be controlled. Further, the City finds: - 1. Towers and antennas have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of the community; 2. The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of towers and antennas affects the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community; 3. A reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless telecommunication must be provided to serve residential and business needs; and AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 5 4. Uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and aesthetics of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth. Finding: An 80 foot high tower at this location should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding property or substantially diminish property values. The Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad separate the residential property to the north from the proposed monopole and equipment building. Mature, existing trees should help to partially screen the monopole from properties to the north. Further, so long as the permit and building code requirements are adhered to, the proposed tower should not, endanger the public health or safety. Staff finds that the applicant has met the general standards for all conditional use and the design standards for towers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Condition Use Permit #2000-5 to permit an 80 foot monopole and a site plan for a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.) equipment building for a wireless communication facility as shown on plans prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on June 16, 2000 and stamped received June 19, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The monopole and equipment building shall comply with article XXX. Towers and Antennas of the zoning ordinance. 2. The monopole color shall be the brand "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion." The applicant shall demonstrate that the monopole meets the required 40 foot setback from the property line abutting TH 5. 4. The setbacks from property lines shall be shown on the site plan for the equipment building. 5. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage for the monopole. 6. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, including the replacement evergreen tree along TH 5. 7. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, and so long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is not disruption to the service provider. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co -located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 6 9. The equipment building shall be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the existing building. 10. The site plan shall indicate the number of parking stalls that are impacted by the installation of the monopole and equipment building. 11. The island around the antenna and equipment building shall be B-612 concrete curb and gutter consistent with the existing parking lot. 12. A building permit is required to construct the building and monopole. The monopole must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 13. The equipment building must be a minimum of 20 feet away from the existing building to the west. The west wall must be one -hour fire -resistive construction; opening or penetrations are not permitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet from the other building, at a distance of 30 feet, openings are permitted without restrictions. 14. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures and also the code requirements for the buildings based on the separation distance. ATTACHMENTS 2. Application and Letter 3. Site Plan and Elevations 4. Memo from Steve Torell dated July 5, 2000 5. Public Hearing Notice AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of AT&T Wireless Services Conditional Use Permit On July 18, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of AT&T Wireless Services for a conditional use permit for the property located at 275 West 791h Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use was preceded by published and mailed notice. The 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 BH, Highway and Business Services District 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial 3. The legal description of the property is: see Exhibit A 4. Section 20-232: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. AT & T Wireless Services July t 2, 2000 Page 8 C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. AT & T Wireless Services July 12, 2000 Page 9 5. The planning report #2000-5 dated July 13, 2000, prepared by Cynthia Kirchoff is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18 day of July, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary 06/15/00 15:21 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Z 002/003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' hT'yWC� i NHASSEN ,wr) LJUN 19 2000 , CHANHASSEw rLmi4nll w uG'T OWNER: _V fI ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: — Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" Land Bounds, $400 Minor U/Metes S) TOTAL FEE $ 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 W/i' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each, application. 06/15/00 15:21 FAX 612 937 5739. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Z 003/003 PROJECT r LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION �T �%� 25 n%3 070 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION l��vt�yttt P'C� r4--( , REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST vC--_4_- It-) 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 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 applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certity 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 request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I 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 studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the e 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. f pplicant We Fee Owne Date Received on �q ' �y Fee Paid 'O� Receipt No. 7 7 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. ANT June, 1 2000 WirelessNetwork Services AT&T Wireless Services Real Estate 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406-1218 Ms. Cynthia R Kirchoff 612 721-1660 Planner I FAX 612 844-6604 City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Application for a Conditional Use. Permit for a Wireless Communication Site in Chanhassen, MN Dear Ms. Kirchoff. AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc., (ATTWS) desires to provide coverage to their customers as they travel Highways 5, 101 and throughout the community of Chanhassen. In order to establish a strong signal within these areas, it is necessary to locate a wireless site which would provide signal to all of these areas. The proposed site is located behind Brown's Tire and Auto. This property is zoned BH (Business Highway) which according to Chanhassen's city code, section 20-1500 towers are allowed with a conditional use permit. In addition to the enclosed application form, the following supplemental information is provided. In order to provide the necessary signal to the previously described area, ATTWS needs to erect an 80-foot monopole to which our antennas would be attached. The monopole is a steel -tapered pole and is placed approximately six feet from the equipment building. This height would provide the necessary signal strength for our customers and the residents of this area, and connect to the surrounding ATTWS sites. By providing such service to the community, ATTWS believes they are enhancing the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Locating a monopole at this site would be compatible in appearance with the existing character of that area and will not be hazardous to the existing uses in that area. The proposed monopole and equipment building is an unmanned structure, only requiring power and phone service to be brought to the site. Both of these services are located in the immediate area and will not require any additional public facilities services. USA ow PROUD PARTNER LION This proposed site will not generate excessive traffic, noise, trash or any other condition that might be detrimental to any person or property in the area. The vehicular traffic to and from this site will be very minimal since a technician is only required to show up once a month unless there is an emergency. This site will not result in any destruction, loss or damage to any historical or natural features in the area and it is ATTWS's opinion that this site would be aesthetically compatible to the area. There have been numerous independent studies on property value throughout the country, and it has been determined by these studies, that surround property values do not depreciate. The equipment building is a prefabricated concrete building which can be painted to blend into the color of the existing structure on this parcel of land. The building is 12' wide, 28' long and 10 feet high, providing a 336 square foot print. We propose to plant shrubs around the base of the building to soften the building's appearance and meet landscape requirements. The pole will be painted a blue color as required in the City Code. Please find enclosed the following: • 26 copies of the site plan with one (1) reduced to 81/2" X 11 ". - • 26 copies of a photo showing the proposed equipment at this location. • ATTWS check in the amount of $400.00 for the application fee. • A list of property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel. ATTWS believes that this application complies and conforms to the City Ordinances and Comprehensive plan. ATTWS requests that the City Council and Planning Commission approve this Conditional Use Application for the 80' monopole and equipment shelter at the Brown's Tire and Auto location. If you have any questions, please contact me at (612) 868-1668. Very truly, i Warren Dunlap Consultant for AT&T Wireless Services o''r ra'r^'^^^'^' a nxri• ivm'W`i• inn l SNOI1VA313 ONV A3A!lf1S 9911-1a fcgzl xyd 009Z-lL9le9Ll3NOHd ..,.,, :wow,. �/lOS3NNIW N3SSVHNVHO MISS YlOS3NN9Y Sl7OdY3NN/,Y " h�— : sae aims 311S Ot ONV S AVMH•JIH L—z- r OYON S3Ars 1SV3 IOU ;� � •ONI �0 t 'JNl '6�/33NNaNa7 0131m R' " "'° S301AM38 8831381M 1RiV .° ,"� Z 0 a 3m� E CGw CB\, 0 ALPHA GENERAL ANTENNA LAYOUT ELEV= TOP OF POLE DESCRIPTION AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. ACTIVE SCALE NONE HWY 5 AND 101 SITE, MI-121B LIBRARY SCALE ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. DRAWN M. MILLER REVISION 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD www.ultelg.com DATE 11 JULY pQ DRAWING NO, SUITE 308 �"�"� MINNEAPOLIS, >NINNESOTA 56421 Ej 00-5840 CHECKED J. SCHMIT PHONE f7831 571-2500 FAX 1763) 57i-1188 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937-5739 Engineering Fax 612.9379152 Public Safety Fax 612.9,34.2524 Teb wnvwci.chanhassen.rnn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner II FROM: Steve Torell, Building Official DATE: July 5, 2000 SUBJ: Review of a request for a conditional use permit by, AT&T Wireless Services, to construct a 12' x 38' equipment building and an 80-foot monopole. Planning Case: 2000-5 CUP I have reviewed the request for the above project and have the following conditions: 1. A building permit is required to construct the building and monopole; the monopole must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 2. The equipment building must be a minimum of 20 feet away from the existing building to the west. The west wall must be one -hour fire -resistive construction; opening or penetrations are not permitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet from the other building, at a distance of 30 feet, openings are permitted without restrictions. 3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures and also the code requirements for the buildings based on the separation distance -:safety/st/memos/pl an/at&I.275w79th The City of Chanhassen. A -mowing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful Darks. A vreat Place to live. work. and Play. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: AT $ T Wireless for 80' Monopole with Antennas and Equipment Building LOCATION: 275 West 79th Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, AT & T Wireless Services, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 12' x 28' equipment building and an 80 foot monopole with antennas to be located at 275 W. 79th Street. 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 dosed 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 Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. III V'51Md I�C� .A-- _' Pn J 71�1%fo Smooth Feed SheetsTM pf-rr Use template for 51600 WILBAR PROPERTIES INC C/O AL KLINGELHUTZ 8600 GREAT PLAINS CHANHASSEN MN CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY EiF DR PO BOX 147 55317 CHANiTASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN HRA 690 CITY CENTER D 147 CHANHASS MN 55317 BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC PO BOX 730 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE 3499 DABNEY DR LEXINGTON KY 40509 GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK 225 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD 7791 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GRACE DEVELOPMENT LLC 18202 MINNETONKA WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN HRA 690 CITY CENTER D PO'BOX 147 CHANHASSE MN 55317 G L B PROPERTIES LLC GERALD SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTH CHRUCH 1831 KOEHNEN CIR & MARY GOETZ 275 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 225 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AMERICAN LEGION-CHAN POST 580 7995 GREAT PLAINS CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT 200 EAST RANDOLPH M C 2408 CHICAGO IL 60601 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER' 690 CITY CENTER -DR PO BOX 147 QiANH2�§"SEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR--Pb BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER_ DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J SORENSEN 25648 200TH ST BELLE PLAINE MN 56011 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT 8201 MAIN ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL G EIDEM & ANDREA F GRIFFITH 7727 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA 21101 OAKDALE DR ROGERS MN 55374 CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX 222 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS 220 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY L BROWN 1831 KOE14NEN CIR WPO BOX 474 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC 4567 80TH ST W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 4 urt Witt Appeal July 5, 2000 Page 2 On June 28, 1999, the City Council approved a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home with an enclosed porch and deck, with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall install lakeshore plantings to act as a buffer. (Note: The DNR was notified for both of the variance requests and recommended the City deny the proposals because they felt the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship.) While staff did not propose the above condition be attached to this variance request, a City Council member did to protect the water quality. It is staffs' job to enforce the condition of approval. To date, staff has worked to follow up on this condition. The zoning ordinance allows conditions to be imposed in conjunction with the approval of a variance "to ensure substantial compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property" (Section 20-58). Furthermore, Section 20-57 of the zoning ordinance states that a violation of any written condition of a variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning ordinance, which is a misdemeanor. Currently, manicured Kentucky Bluegrass is installed up to the water's edge. A boulder retaining wall is also installed along the shore. The applicant is requesting relief from this condition and is appealing staff s interpretation of this requirement. The zoning ordinance permits the Planning Commission "to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city employee in the administration of this chapter." ANALYSIS Staff believes the intent of the condition of approval is appropriate since the variance was from the required 75 foot lakeshore setback. Lakeshore plantings consist of natural vegetation, such as Woolgrass, Swamp Rose and Marsh Marigold. The purpose of the condition is to protect the lake's water quality, which is directly related to the required setback. The impervious surface within the required 75 foot lake shore setback justifies this condition. A buffer zone restores ecological functions that are reduced or eliminated by traditional lawns. A buffer zone on this lot would help to: • Protect water quality; • Provide a natural means of erosion protection; • Filter nutrients (such as fertilizers) that could otherwise enter the water; • Preserve the natural appearance of the water body; • Provide privacy from neighbors and recreational users; • Screen development to protect scenic vistas; Witt Appeal July 5, 2000 Page 3 • Provide a natural frame for viewing the lake from the residence; • Attract butterflies and birds; • Reduce the amount of needed yard maintenance; • Enhance fish habitat through shading of shallow water; • Discourage, invasive or exotic species from invading the property (geese or purple loosestrife); • Reduce algal blooms by filtering runoff and shading shallow water; and • Diminish noise of motorboats and personal watercraft. At the June 28, 1999, City Council meeting, the motion called for staff to work with the applicant and/or landscaper to install proper lakeshore plantings for a water quality buffer. In an effort to clarify the condition for the applicant, staff prepared three designs for the buffer plantings (see Attachment 3). All options allow a minimum of a 5 foot wide access to the water and dock. The vegetation buffer can meander and does not have to completely abut the landscape rock or water's edge. This will allow for a canoe access to the lake. It is recommended that the landscaping extend 25 feet beyond the boulder retaining wall. The plantings selected are all native species, so exotic vegetation will not be introduced to the area (see Attachment 3). The applicant reviewed Alternatives A and B and rejected both options. This situation provides an excellent opportunity to discuss a potential ordinance amendment concerning lakeshore plantings. The zoning ordinance requires a buffer strip for wetlands. It is reasonable to expect that lakes should be buffered as well since both humans and wildlife use them. The applicant has full enjoyment and use of the lakeshore property. The requirement that lakeshore plantings be installed does not interfere with this enjoyment and, more important, it is directly related to the quality of the lake on which they live. The planting alternatives that staff presented the applicant are reasonable. The Planning Commission can either affirm staff s interpretation of the condition of approval or recommend to the City Council the condition of approval for lakeshore buffer plantings be eliminated. Attachments: 1. Letter requesting the appeal 2. Survey 3. Alternatives prepared by staff 4. Recommended plant species 5. Letters to the Witts from City staff 6. Minutes from the June 28, 1999 City Council meeting 7. Public Hearing Notice g:\plan\ck\boa\witt appeal to pc 7.00.doc 6-20-200 4:21PM FROM LTC INSURANCE ADV. G12 403 0B3B P.1 CITE' OF CH+ANHASSF- Pcrr_iNrGD JUN 2 0 2000 CHAwnMOOC14 rummitiNu urPT June 20, 2000 City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Commission: This is a notice to request a meeting to discuss a specific variance requirement for our property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.' Full realization of the Property was not taken into consideration at the time of the requirement. BENCHMARK 877.8 \ STA / NW CORNER OF s7a.1 873.8 x a73.s °y LOT 42 N LINE OF LOT IRON MON. UNDER EDGE OF BITUMINOU �/� 873.2 BM/HpVs Si/RF,q I UMINOUS _ /--- - 1,690 WOOD WALL / .a� . $ °:�, 4� eM/NpU x 872.8 Lot PRp a7s.2 3'4: �� 3 ��Fr P 3. 8j E S Rg ��NO 875.111 TOP OF IRON s7a.z 872.1 ELEV.=872.24 Z'' (877.2 72.7 72.2 01434,3 ! 873.7 OTC872. 4 7 873.0 /. ` ' / / n �) 9872 872.3 ) N 2? , d p�o00 72.5 74V. / 1 L 873) $7 12/ ��i3.s N c9�QgG oo Gw o o j x x 872.9 F Str 062 1 rn872.0 4.) C/ TOP OF IRON LIJ Z N -_/ \o° x 872 5 ) es '/o ./46� ELEV.=870.82 871.4 x - 1 nh o 872.2 o�Qpp s�o / 8717 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. 1 3 p0 y0(ls� 72.6.x x 870.6 2.6 TORy 5.6) 472.E 870.7 �� APPROVED �• TOP OF IRON BY: -- s x 871.3 2.00 r s �\� DEPI-P ELEV.=870.79 = 7 o. /'00 `° 871.3 ti DA O ° c o o tyo a71. \ BY: Z DEPT: EK7 x 868.7 `o of `rs 871.5 (a�0 DATE: 6 - 9 LL m Aso °' l4 BY: s 870.7 DEPT: % SP z I N°e ��ass. 869.4 6 TOP OF IRON DATE: z8 z ass.5 / °Cv0 ELEV.=868.83 T If 1 866.7 = i c _ L/ / `/ / B + 867.g ,� 868.2 (D � I � x 867.7 �J x 867.6 oN W �� 3 �`��ie hereby certify i FND IRON MON. ' J J F 1 L\OVA ;POP PKl)(representation of c N 6S �0 �►7 s7 Rip /RpH �r�( the land above de: N x 4 / #i1 Mp/V all buildings, if any 866.4 29 1 �\ 3 866.3 866.a Dated this I5th d( 866.4 865 \ `"��11tit!'!l11lII'1►!!ry//j 865. 866.4 N O�.`� ORDINARY HIG p SUNDE LA ; D S R 866.3 WATER LINE EDGE '� LAKE ELEVATION--'- ` OF 865.3 865.3 x 865.4 LAND y.=.�'_----- MAY 14, 1999= WATER Sass.3 SUR1'= i =! John K. Barr T 864.3 FEET ONE WA�� 1 N� 16456 op 99- / 0 / 487119 T. l l7, R. 2 /, S.28 99 / 0 / 003. DWG DBP I / " � Z.0 I APPre-nv. bftr- LOCAAQ10 i Af�S��X Dnc�C �ncav�r�ni /1 L'TE Q.N p'f I V E N G 2ASs /"=zo h LY a9O-O t D00C. Q'fq& COVIAU %Q 7 #S 2= 0(AP- LEAP 6fkGr)JIA u-- uaG- prv, irlrcb w= RoAtef muE&) �; SwAm@ 2otL r Q. a & O =&&5&r& N A I'P2ok, DOCK I,OLA7/^AJ AL-FC-Lk.IATWL L F MAL?sfk llW.i�,OLt I` TALL RE LLf--L.OWF- K� V✓AT{:(C (3) VJODLG2fiSS (7) RLJ1 JT <-PiiCEP-0.5,44 ' RbG B I QC t' (3� Attachment 4 Recommended Species Marsh Marigold Woolgrass Tall Bellflower Blunt Spikerush Water Smartweed 0* CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937,1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612,937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 11%b imuc ci, canhassen. mn. its July 5, 1999 Bob & Brinn Witt 8572 Cardiff Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Witt: This letter is to inform you that on June 28, 1999 the City Council approved a 13, foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home with an enclosed porch and deck with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall install lakeshore plantings to act as a buffer. Your variance is not valid until it is recorded at Carver County. The fling fee is $50.00. Please remit this fee to me. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900, ext. 117. Sincerely, Cyn is R. Kirchof Planner I CITY OF CWHSSEN September 8, 1999 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Mr. & Mrs. Bob Witt General Fax 612937 5739 8572 Cardiff Lane Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Eden Prairie, MN 55334 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Issues Dear Mr. & Mrs. Witt: Upon inspection of your property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, I am concerned that your contractor has filled more on the lot than permitted. The Certificate of Survey does not indicate filling beyond 15 feet from the rear of the foundation. In addition, the erosion control fencing was down along the lake and must be restored as soon as possible and no later than September 13, 1999. Currently, you have Type I erosion control fencing Q oalong the lake. Y Y YP � Type III erosion control fencing was required and must be maintained along the lake until the lot has been fully revegetated. I have enclosed for your convenience a copy of the City's Detail for Type III erosion control fencing. Upon review of the planning and building file for the property, it appears that in a letter dated January 14, 1999 from Ms. Cynthia Kirchoff, a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan with 2-foot contours was required at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. Upon review of city files, this document has not been submitted. It is necessary to submit this plan to ensure that neighborhood drainage is being maintained in conjunction with development. This area is very sensitive to changes in drainage patterns. It is important to maintain them given the close proximity of the lake. Drainage along the westerly property line is being adequately addressed with the incorporation of a drainage swale to direct runoff towards the lake versus the adjacent property to the west. The same type of swale needs to be employed on the easterly property line to divert water towards the lake and not the adjacent property owner to the east. All drainage swales must be located on the property. I could not find the back two property corners (lakeside) to verify if the swale was on your property. Please have the missing property corners replaced by your surveyor. The swales and all property corners must be in place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Please submit the required grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a professional engineer to my attention as soon as possible. In addition, there is an I Mr. & Mrs. Bob Witt September 2, 1999 Page 2 existing sanitary sewer manhole on your property near the lake that will need to be adjusted by you and/or your contractor to finish grade due to the amount of fill Placed on the site. Please contact me for an inspection of the adjustment of the sanitary manhole when the work is completed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms Enclosure c: Anita Benson, City Engineer Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I Steve Torell, Building Official \"cfs I\v012\en8\daveVetters\witt.doc Recommended Toe —In Method Set Posts Firmly (Post Shall Be Oak i or Steel) and Mount Hog Wire to Posts. r i Mirafi 100X. Fasten / �w/ Hog Rings, Nails or Staples. OA Dig or Disc Trench © La F Steel Fence Posts Shall be used to Support Snow Fence Steel Fence Posts Shall be used to Support Snow Fence (Woven Wire may be Subsituted for Snow Fence) Silt Fence 6" Min. Depth y in abrlc & 6aCkflll EROSION CONTROL FENCE - TYPF 1 EROSION CONTROL FENCE - TYPP' 2 mom EROSION CONTROL FENCE - TYPE 3 CITY OF CNAIMMUSSMN av or "traw Iles Two rebcrs driven through bale 1.5 to 2.0' into the ground. Bales to be recessed 6" below grade and wired to snow fence. Bales are to be tied with c Non—Decradcble Material. Hay or Straw Bales Two rebcrs driven throuch bale 1.5'to 2.0' into the around. Sales to be recessed 6" below grade and wired tc snow fence. Scles are to be tied with a Non —Degradable Material. SILT FENCE REVISED: 2-97 DATE: 2-9 _ ^ 7 PLATE NO.: 5300 FILE NAdAE:.:93 _�jCO L y CITY OF May 3, 2000 CHANHASSFN 690 Cjty Onter Drive, P0 Box 147 Mr. & Mrs. Bob Witt Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Phone 612.937.1900 Chanhassen, MN 55317 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Re: Landscaping and Final Grade Inspection Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Dear Mr. &Mrs. Witt: This letter is a follow up to our meeting today regarding grading issues and front yard tree placement in conjunction with home building. As discussed, the boulders along Lake Riley Boulevard need to be relocated back to the property line which is approximately two feet from the current position. In addition, the drainage swale along the easterly property line near the lake needs to be regraded to extend the swale along the property line to the lake. Currently, the swale ends approximately 25 feet from the lake and discharges into the neighboring property to the east. Along the west side of the property, the drainage swale also needs to be extended up along the garage side to convey the runoff along your property to the lake and not the adjacent property to the west. Once this work has been completed and front yard tree planted, please contact us for a final inspection. Upon compliance we will release the landscape escrow and erosion control escrow. If you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist Daniel R. Remer, Engineering Technician II Steve Torell, Building Official g:\eng\dave\letters\witt landscaping.doc City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 14 FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FT. LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DECK/PORCH• LOT 42, SHORE ACRES; BOB AND BRINN WITT. Public Present: Name Address Fred Potthoff 9231 Lake Riley Blvd. J. F. Jessup 6350 Minnewashta Woods Brinn & Bob Witt 8572 Cardiff Lane, Eden Prairie Joy Smith 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. Steven Williams 9391 Kiowa Trail Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Cindy Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and denied at the June 10h Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. In January of this year the applicant was granted variances from the minimum lot size requirement, minimum lot width and RSF district. Minimum lot width for a lake access for a dock. Staff supported all of these variances so the applicant - could make reasonable use of the land. In addition the applicant was granted a 10 foot front yard setback variance, a 3 foot western side yard setback variance, and a 4 foot lakeshore setback. Staff did not support these variances. After a survey was completed for the site it was determined that the desired home footprint does not fit within the setbacks permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore the applicant is requesting an additional 10 feet, thus a 14 foot variance to accommodate a screen porch and deck. Staff believes the applicant can make a reasonable use of the site with the variances granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and also makes comment that there is buildable area to the east of the proposed garage that is under utilized. The problem is the home footprint, not the setbacks that were permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore staff recommends denial. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of staff from council at this point? Councilwoman Jansen: If I could, a late question came up actually from a phone call from the residents as to the actual drainage from this property. Has this gone through the engineering department to take a look at the whole drainage issue from the lot to the circle and to the lake. I think we lost Dave didn't we? Cindy Kirchoff: The survey does show the drainage direction and maybe Anita might want to comment on this. If you want to. Anita Benson: Not having specifically looked at the survey, we do review it when it comes in for a building permit application so if you approve the variances, we'll be reviewing it with the normal building permit. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, great. Thanks. Councilman Labatt: Are the arrows on this mean the flow? On this map. 73 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Anita Benson: Correct. They should indicate flow. Councilwoman Jansen: Does it? Acting Mayor Senn: Cynthia, you had referenced the buildable area to the east of the garage. Am I getting my directions right there? Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Acting Mayor Senn: Help me out there. My understanding was that however if you use the buildable area to the east of the garage, and take it back so you don't need the variance on the lake, you exceed the hard surface area coverage. Now they're in a different kind of variance so I mean either way, it's kind of like you have a variance here or you have a variance there. Cindy Kirchoff: What staff is saying is that they have buildable area that they're not utilizing. There's a 20 foot by 20 foot area that is under utilized that could be used for buildable area for living space to push that up to the, closer to the street and they could have a deck that met the 71 foot setback on the lakeshore. Acting Mayor Senn: But we're not saying different things, but what I'm trying to get at and understand is, if you make the adjustments to do that, I mean you've got an 800 square foot floorplate which isn't a real large first floor, or main floor floorplate. Yes, I mean I understand that doesn't include the decks and the garage and stuff but if you eliminate, if you slide everything forward and eliminate the deck variance. My understanding was that then caused, you know an exceed on the 25% hard surface coverage. Is that correct or not correct? Cindy Kirchoff: They would have to design the homeprint to maintain the 25% impervious surface. Acting Mayor Senn: Which means they could not even maintain 800 square feet on the first floor is what you're saying? Cindy Kirchoff: I don't know that for a fact. They would just have to redesign the footprint of the home so they met all of the setbacks that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved back in January. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, other questions from council? If not, is the applicant here? Would you like to say something? Bob Witt: Bob Witt. I live at 8572 Cardiff Lane in Eden Prairie. We are the applicants for the lot at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'll kind of clarify again a little bit about what we're asking for. And it was in the plan that we were asking for 10 feet, but in fact we're asking for 6 feet. The original plan had, it looked like this and this of course is the footprint of the plan so showing the first level of the home. And when we submitted this plan we had an extra 4 feet of wood deck that was going over, that would have taken us to the 61 feet. Now we have since adjusted that and are not asking for 10 feet. We're asking for 6 feet on the plan and so we've taken that, and you can see that we've taken that off of the deck and screened in porch which gives us 10 foot by 10 foot screened in porch and 10 foot by 10 foot deck. And that's what we're asking for, just to kind of clarify that. We did have, after the last meeting that we had, we did go to our architect and have him do some work. And first of all I wanted to thank all of you for coining out and looking and all of your time. I really appreciate that. We did go back to our architect 74 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 and have him look at building to the east side of the facility and one of the hardest issues for us was keeping within that 25% impervious surface on the lot. It was very difficult to get a garage that you could park a car in and still maintain a reasonable sized home where you could actually put furniture. When we did go back to him and we said we needed to look at the potential of building out into this, and this is the east side next to the garage, into that area. He said once he went into there he said well, what happens Bob when we shrink everything up and move things up into this area and then also move up into this area to maintain that 71 feet, we go past the 25% impervious surface and yet I can't, he said I can't shrink the garage any more otherwise we'll end up leaving you with no place to park your car because right now we're sitting at 17 feet of area within the garage of where you can park a car without running into the stairs that go up into the main level. So we're at a big of a dilemma there. When we did try to shorten, he did try to shorten it up, he said we ended up with somewhere in the neighborhood of a 6 foot kitchen which makes it extremely difficult to build with that. So that was kind of our issue there. We did take a look at it and had him spend some time on doing that. One of our biggest issues here has been Jim Jessup who's the landowner, was given an approval and this was dated actually, hold on a second. Let me get you this here so, maybe you can give these to them. But this, I guess there's been some confusion. I guess it's my confusion maybe. This looks like it's dated 3/28/91 and I guess this variance was maybe given in 1989 or something like that. I'm not sure but there's several places on here that say 1991. I don't know if that means anything or not. It doesn't to me unless it does to you. But in the variances that he was given on this facility, he was given 68 feet from the lake, and 16 feet from the road. And his impervious surface coverage on this lot was 36%. We again are maintaining the 25% impervious surface. We are asking for 17 feet from the street, which happens to be the same exact amount of space that we have within the garage to park. Now we understand that that's not a lot of space and there's been some discussion that you know a Suburban's not going to be able to park in this driveway. And that's a fact. It won't be able to park in this driveway. It won't fit. But it also won't fit in the garage. So a Suburban owner isn't going to own this property at any time unless of course he doesn't want to park his vehicle anywhere near this. It's just that small of a facility and that's what we had to do. My wife's car and my car both are 15 foot cars. We measured some vans, some mini vans. You know pretty standard things that most, a lot of people are driving today. SUV's and those types of things. And they're anywhere from 15 feet to 16 feet is what we've found as normal footage for those so they would, and in both cases they would fit in the garage and they would also fit in the driveway. Let's see. Brinn Witt:... Bob Witt: Right. As we've gone up, we kind of took a tape measurer and kind of measured off some of the other driveways going up the street and found some at 18 and one, the Olson's is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 16 feet. And as you go up the, well I mean you've looked, you've all seen Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a variable potpourri of variances. I mean everything in there has needed a variance at one time or another almost. But again the garage and the driveway we believe is going to fit our cars fine and the majority of cars that would purchase a facility like this. The back variance. We're looking for probably to move the facility you know 3 feet to each end, which would leave us with 68 feet in the back and that's what Jim Jessup was approved for. Now the home itself, the footprint of the home, the foundation will be at 78 feet so that's as close as the lake as the actual house will be. The only thing that will be encroaching will be the wood deck and the porch, of which will be on stilts so there will be area there for water to flow into those areas and then however the drainage will be set up. However it's going to need to be set up by the city engineer. One of the questions I guess I had heard is that somebody was concerned about the look and the foundation of the actual block work that was going to be in the back. What we have, and I think I might have a picture of this somewhere in here. This is a look at the front of the house. And as you look at the back of the house, right at first we had had this slotted for siding along 75 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 the back of the home, but what we're planning on doing is continuing the fieldstone, or cultured stone across the back to kind of blend in with the front of the house as well too because the, on a lake like this I think actually the back of the house in most cases is actually the front. On a facility like this and we want to make it look as cottagey and as nice as we can make it look. Right? We have done some, we did take these last few days, actually the last 3 days, 2 days, 3 days, we've been out at the facility kind of talking to neighbors to try to get their opinion on what we've done. We've shown them our plan. We've talked to them about what we're doing and what we're planning for this lot and just asking them what they think of it because they're the ones that are going to have to live with us in that area and live with this home in that area. And we went around with a petition and it's in the packets that we just handed to you there. And I'll let Brinn go with that but they'll written some letters to us and just about everybody that we had talked to, some felt were indifferent to whether we did it or not. They said they just didn't, it didn't really concern them so they didn't really care if we did it or we didn't do it. It wasn't really any concern to them. But a lot did sign the petition and that was, and I'll let Brinn go over that. Brinn Witt: Two of the people that had signed the petition that live along Lake Riley Boulevard that you don't have in the packet is, one is Scott Johnson at 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen and he's a developer with Acron Development. And he wrote a letter to the Honorable City Council members. And this letter is to express my support for the proposed home and variance request for Brinn and Bob Witt. I've examined their proposal and feel that granting the request would have no measurable negative impact to either the environment or to the neighborhood. To deny the request would only result in a less desirable home being built on the lot and less tax income to the city, neither of which is positive for the neighborhood or the taxpayers. Granting the request would not exceed conditions for many of the existing homes in the immediate area. Please approve the variance request. Thank you. Sincerely, Scott Johnson. The other one that had signed a petition that you see in your package there is Alan Dirks and he's at 9203 Lake Riley Boulevard and his additional comments were, there are numerous variations to the setbacks in the neighborhood. These variances appear well in line with others that have taken place. Bob Witt: Those are ones that you haven't seen yet. They're not in the packet that... Councilman Labatt: We did get some. Acting Mayor Senn: We have them. We have like Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Dirk's. Bob Witt: Oh you do, okay... Acting Mayor Senn: We have him too. Brinn Witt: I'm just going to go through a couple of the variance request petitions of neighbors that had signed it that, neighbors that might not be here at today's meeting. They're probably at home sleeping. Where we all should be. Judy Potthoff at 9231Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. And her letter of support is attached to that as well. Mr. Fred Potthoff is here and he has ... in support of. Joy Smith is here and wrote additional comments in support of the variance and she is here this evening. Mark and Pam Mortenson at 9381 Kiowa Trail. I believe they're at home sleeping right now. Mr. Helbert Smith at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. He's probably watching MASH or something. Beth Ytzen, 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. Ron Ytzen, 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. Bruce ... at 9411 Kiowa Trail. Renee Williams at 9291 Kiowa Trail. Gordon and Casey Alexander express their support at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. Scott Johnson, which who's letter I just read to you. Signed the variance request petition. So all these people have seen the front, back side, exactly what we're showing you as well on here. I think I've gone through all of them there but I just would like the council to know that my husband and I 76 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 have been married for 14 years. We don't have any children. We are, we've spent over 30-35 years up in the Boundary Waters. We pack in. Pack out. We're nature lovers and we sail in the Apostle Islands. Ski in the mountains. We go on long walks. Pick up trash and garbage that we see along the way. Wherever we are. Wherever we go. And we just ask if you would consider our request. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions? Councilman Engel: None. Councilwoman Jansen: No. Councilman Labatt: No. Brinn Witt: I would like to pass out, I'm sorry. I would like to pass out some documentation of the Lake Riley Boulevard, up and down the street of, pictures and addresses of variances that are meeting what we are asking. Or you know along those lines. Councilman Labatt: Are those the same ones you showed us as we came out? Brinn Witt: There's quite a few here. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who wants to be heard on this? Come on up. Fred Potthoff: I'm Fred Potthoff at 9231 Lake Riley Boulevard and I'd just like to say that our neighborhood has always been a non -conforming neighborhood and I would like to see the proposed home built because there was already a home there once upon a time in the past. And looking at the plans, I feel that the variances requested are reasonable. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Steve Williams: My name is Steve Williams. I live at 9291 Kiowa Trail. And I wonder why I'm sitting here tonight at 11:30 on an issue like this, but I'm a passionate person when it comes to, when I see laws passed by cities to really make neighborhoods look nice, and I think those laws as we've learned from our prior mistakes, they develop into, there's something behind each of those laws. But I also think, in a situation like this where there's a neighborhood like this, where there's a lot like this, it scary to see these laws be used to prevent what I would consider a nice couple, and even taking the personal side out of this issue. Just seeing a house being built on this lot. I'm glad Brinn didn't read my letter, because I want to read it with a little bit of my passion behind it. And you guys all have it in your packet. I just think shame on all of us if we can't grant this simple request to allow a house, instead of a tree fort on this unusually small but buildable lot. We need to come together as a neighborhood and a government to help all individuals build their dreams. And I remember the first day I bought our lot on Lake Riley and overlooking and dreaming about the house that was going to be built on that lot. And I, when they asked me to, for their support, I have a passion to have other people feel the exact same way I felt when I bought that lot and I want to see them build on that lot and this ... simple request. It's a small and it's a tiny lot. And what it needs, I'm going to keep on reading here. I fear laws that are passed for this very reason. Laws become too rigid in cases where common sense becomes secondary and power to enforce becomes primary. I've looked at Bob and Brinn's request. These requests are very consistent with what has been granted in the past. You look up and down Lake Riley Boulevard. They're not breaking any 77 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 ground here. New ground. There's houses within 40 feet of the lakeshore property. All they're asking for is 68 feet. This house on this dead end street will affect no one and will be in better compliance with current rules and most houses on that street, in my opinion. You guys can probably see ... come to that same conclusion. Where is the sanity? Please let common sense rule and be a people's positive influence. Grant them the simple request and let them build a house. That's simply all I have to say is, it's a small lot. All they want to do is build a deck. Now I'm also a neighbor so I'm here sitting here taking a chance of alienated myself with, I think there's some people here that are concerned, and rightfully so of this house being built on this lot. And ... I kick myself for not really meeting them sooner. But the first, and Bob and Brinn can attest to this. The first question I asked Bob and Brinn was, is the deck that you want to build on the back of your house going to affect the sight lines of Don and Kitty Sitter. And they said, no. They won't see it. And Don and Kitty have also, or at least Don has agreed that they won't see the deck and so me and my libertarian views, if they can't see it and they cannot, and they're not affected by this deck on the back of their house, by all means I want them to have a deck on the back of their house. It's 800 square feet. I know what 800 square feet of living space is. It's tiny, and to snake them go to 700 or 600 really makes a difference and that's why I termed my letter, allow this tree fort to become a house because it really, as Bob put it, it really becomes a tree fort and who wants ... tree fort. I don't think anybody does. It's a buildable lot and I hope you guys see the wisdom behind being flexible. Having government being a little bit flexible when it needs to be, and especially if there's precedence in this neighborhood, to grant such that you approve of this law, thank you. Or this plan. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else here who'd like to be heard on this? First one there wins Peter Pemrick: Peter Pemrick, 9251 Kiowa Trail. I live next door to Don Sitter to the west. I'm also a business owner in Chanhassen so I've got a lot invested in this community. I've lived here for 21 years. Don has lived by me almost that whole time. And so we've got a lot of feelings for each other. And the discussions the Witt's had early here, there seems to be an awful lot of problem involved with shifting things around when the lot is so small and I guess I'm on record from one of the meetings previous, that I think the lot is too small to be built on to begin with. And for other reasons, of drainage and everything, this lot is not a very good lot and probably shouldn't be built on. That's been my feelings all along. No disrespect to these folks but. And the other things that have been brought out is by moving the house closer to the lake, it affects the environment and I'm sure the planning commission took that into consideration when they voted 5 to 1 against approving these additional variances. I think right now they already have six approved, and they want two more and I guess I can't understand why they didn't bring those up from the beginning. So I want to go on record as, they want to build their house the way it's been approved, why not do that and be happy with that and forget these other two. Because they affect both the traffic on Lake Riley Boulevard and also affect the environment. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else? Joy Smith: I'm Joy Smith. I live at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard and I've been on Lake Riley for 20 years. And there isn't a house on Lake Riley Boulevard that hasn't had variances and it seems that with this particular lot, which is a problem one, but the drainage is better than it used to be since the work has been done with the surface water. And I really would like to see the lot approved for a home. It's been sitting there full of weeds for a long time and we'd like to see something nice for our neighbors. Thanks. 78 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Don Sitter: I'll try and make this short. I'm Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm the adjoining property owner to the west. We would like to see a home here built also. We're sick and tired of the weeds that have been there for a long time but back in January we did support the granting of the six variances. They have the variances that they need to build their house and we'd like them to get on with the building. The additional request in your packet is for a 14 foot towards the lake. There's been no hardship established to justify this request and approving it would put considerable impervious surface towards the lake, which is an environmental concern. Your question Councilman Senn of square footage. There is no reason why we can't take the square footage off the front of this house and put it in the east side. That does not change the impervious surface so there's no reason we can't keep this within the 25% and stay within the variances that have already been granted. There was evidently an error somewhere in the surveys or the architects but that's immaterial. They still have this additional space with the boundaries of the current variances to get everything they want in the home and I think all they need to do is adjust their plans and we can have this thing done. The petitions that you've seen are for a different request. They want 3 feet more to the lake and 3 feet more towards the road. They've already been granted 10 feet to get closer to the road. If they get the additional 3 feet, that makes it 17 feet. And as the Witt's have said, well they don't have a vehicle longer than 17 feet. This is not an issue with the Witt's. It's not a personal issue at all. It's whether that's right for the property and whether we're going to have a problem with that in the neighborhood, and they're going to sell their home some day and somebody might move in with a longer vehicle and that is a very, very small turn around and that is going to present a problem. One of the commissioners spoke very strongly against any driveways less than 20 feet, and I'd echo that opinion. They also want to be 4 feet closer to the lake. Actually they've been granted 4 feet. They wanted 3 more and they brought up the variances in '89. The variances that were granted in '89 also had a condition on them that there would never be an enclosure nor any roofs, which keeps it out of the impervious surface situation. They're asking for a three season porch or an enclosed deck, which has a roof, which is impervious surface so this is not the same variances that were granted back in '89. And we've also learned a great deal of how to protect our lakes in the last 10 years so what was granted 10 years ago and never built I believe is immaterial for today's discussion. The issue is not whether they're nice folks. We've gotten along good up until the I guess the Planning Commission meeting here. What's at hand is, if this is the right house for this lot. It is a tiny substandard lot. We believe they've already been granted enough variances to build a nice home. We would like to see a nice home. In conclusion. City staff has recommended denial of this request. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny this request. I would expect City Council to need a very strong and compelling reason to overturn these recommendations and so far I've not seen any such justification. So I would ask you to please deny these additional requests and let's move on with the project. Thank you for your time. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks. I'm James Jessup. I own the lot currently. Had those original variances that were granted back in '89. The lot, the home that was planned at that point in time, I think the city's calculator had about a 35 or 36 coverage of the lot. This is a much, much smaller home. I had a 12 or 1,300 square foot main floor and a 20 x 20 or 21 x 22 garage planned for this site. It was approved and we started construction for this site. The Witt's have come to you with a very minimal sized home. Without a deck, if you look around the lake, there's not a home on the lake that doesn't have a deck. It drives the lake. It's very consistent with the neighborhood. The Sitter's have an enclosed deck. Three season porch. It's very common. It's very, very common. And so when you think about trying to live on a main floor of 800 square feet, and then shrinking it further to accommodate the need for a deck that was overlooked by accident, you really don't end up with a home that's very consistent for the neighborhood. 79 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 You need a larger home on that site. And that's why the City Council back in '89 granted those variances. The situation was prior to that there was a single story home on that site that had a garage that encroached on the Sitter's property. That was removed in the process of being the new home constructed. For that reason it made a lot of sense. There were some great trade off's made about getting rid of an encroached situation for a garage that improved the site. And so for 10 years this property sat with weeds on it, which is not a good situation. But because, and most of you don't date back far enough to know that this was a contaminated site. We were digging footings for the site, and maybe you've read, seen it. That things just went astray on October the 13"' of'89, which was a Friday. ...and it took a long time, there were a lot of issues with the clean-up. Those issues are now behind us and it's now time to move on. And so I would ask you as a citizen of Chanhassen, as a business owner here in Chanhassen, to approve these variances for a reasonable home. They're not asking for a lot. They're not asking for anything that should have already been built there. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Anybody else? Brinn Witt: ...letter that is in the package that you guys have in front of you... Back in January we supported the granting of enough variances. Six in total. And my feeling on this is that the lot requires variances. Let's get the job done. Let's grant the variances that are needed to build a house on that lot. To deem the lot actually buildable for a residential home. All the other issues on there was self created hardship and not wanting to make further design modifications. Goodness gracious. We've worked hard at this. Over nine months. Trying to make this all work out. The other issue here in this letter, what was granted 10 years ago to someone else with five extensions and never built is immaterial for this decision. That's wrong. The lot has never changed and neither have any of the city variance requirements. These are just a few things from the letter that... deserved to have comment on. Acting Mayor Senn: I'll bring it back up to council. Comments? Councilperson Jansen. And I'm going to ask people to be brief because we're getting dangerously close to our 12:00 blow up hour so. Council policy says we adjourn at 12:00. Councilwoman Jansen: This one's, it's a tough one. It doesn't seem like it should be if all we're talking about, as a few people have alluded to, is just simply putting a deck on a lake home and if the only variance we're talking about is putting a deck on. I can hear what the neighbors are saying who are cognizant of the other six variances that are already approved for this property. But if we're going to build on this lot, it's going to have variances and I keep coming back to okay, what are we trying to accomplish? If through our ordinances what we're trying to accomplish is a real focus on the lake quality and the runoff and the water issues, because this is towards the lake. That's what the 75 foot setback is for. If there are other things that we can do as we're granting maybe a 6 foot deck variance out into that 75. If we can put a condition in here per where staff has noted lakeshore setbacks. The city has been working with lakeshore owners throughout the city encouraging landscape plans that are "lake friendly" and stressing the importance of the lake impact zone. If within the variance we were to put the condition that the applicant and landscaper, and/or landscaper, works with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for water quality buffers. We're on the other side protecting that water quality by protecting some of that runoff. And the other issue that I keep hearing from the neighbors is that there's a tremendous amount of drainage that crosses this property period. If that's going to continue, what else can we in fact do to help buffer that flow as it's going down directly into Riley? Whether it's the plantings or how we're affecting the rest of that drainage issue. And Anita had said, staff had said that this will be coming into the engineering department as they're going for the building permit so I'm assuming you're looking at the drainage and addressing those issues that the neighbors have expressed. 80 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Anita Benson: Correct, and if I could add. Much of the drainage issue was addressed when we reconstructed Lyman Boulevard and did the watermain installation on Lake Riley Boulevard. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that's all I asked. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I look at this lot, and I was originally thinking about buying it and I would have come with a heck of a lot bigger plan than this one. I've just got more kids and I figured it wouldn't fit so when I looked at it and I've walked out on that property before so when I looked at your plan the other day, I'd be willing to wager if you sat back at your home, anybody around that place, sat on your deck or your roof or wherever you pick your perspective from and stuck a stake in the ground and said here's where the deck's proposed and took it and moved it and had you close your eyes and move it and here's where it's supposed to be, now you'd have a hard time telling the difference where the stake was. From your point of view. It's not a material difference. I'll wager there's not a lot on that road that doesn't have some sort of variance. And in my opinion property owners rights prevail on issues like this. If you went and looked at every single lot on that lot, and I mean every single one of them that's around that lake and you ask yourself whether a porch or a deck on this little piece is going to make a difference. I had a hard time buying that one. I'd approve it. Councilman Labatt: I concur with Ms. Jansen's comments on the landscaping. Spent an hour or so with Bob and Brinn out there and deck, it's not the actual building foundation that's encroaching. Footings. I don't have a problem approving it. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, could we have a motion please. Councilman Engel: Move approval of the request for the 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home with screened porch, deck based upon findings present in the staff report. Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if it'd be considered a friendly amendment but didn't they change that to where they're asking for a 6 foot variance, not a, a 6 foot variance not a 14. A 6 foot versus a 14. Councilman Engel: The staff report says 14. What are we doing? Councilwoman Jansen: But they got up and changed it. Councilman Labatt: They changed it to 6. Councilwoman Jansen: That's what they said, I'm sorry. Councilman Engel: That's fine. I'm punch drunk now. I'm too busy reading. Okay, 6. I accept. Councilwoman Jansen: With the landscape condition. Working with staff. That the applicant work. Cindy Kirchoff: Are you just approving the lakeshore variance or is this the front yard also? Councilwoman Jansen: That might be a better way to word it. 81 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 I Councilman Engel: Do we need to break these two up and delineate them to make them clear? Acting Mayor Senn: Steve, your 68 feet from the lake, then you are going to be what, a 7 foot variance from the lake? Councilman Labatt: Right, 7 foot. Acting Mayor Senn: okay, so we have a 7 foot variance from the lake. And from the street, if you're at 17 feet, you are asking for a 3 foot variance from the front, correct? Councilman Labatt: 3. Councilwoman Jansen: From the existing. Councilman Engel: Hang on. Let's keep this clear. We're talking a 7 and a 3? Acting Mayor Senn: I want to make sure us and staff are understanding this together. Councilman Engel: Is that what you're understanding Kate? Cindy Kirchoff: So they'll be requesting a 13 foot variance from the front yard setback. Councilwoman Jansen: Because they already have a 10. Cindy Kirchoff: Yeah, they already have a 10. Councilman Engel: Okay. ...so you're asking for a total of 13. From the original 30. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Have we got that straight then? Do you want to restate the motion? Councilman Engel: Yeah, maybe I should just do that. Be ready to amend here. Lord knows it won't come out right. City Council approves the request for a 7 foot variance on the lake side. 13 foot variance from the 30 foot setback on the street side. And I'll leave it at that. Councilwoman Jansen: With a friendly amendment of the condition for the applicant and/or landscaper to work with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for a water quality buffer. Councilman Engel: So noted. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, accepted? Councilman Engel: Yes. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second to that? Councilman Labatt: I'll second it. Acting Mayor Senn: Discussion? 82 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement and a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck with the condition that the applicant and/or landscaper work with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for a water quality buffer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott Botcher: Say Mark? We also have those two you pulled off consent. Acting Mayor Senn: I understand. Folks if you could please. I would appreciate if you have stuff to do, go outside and do it because we're really trying to get done here. Okay? Thanks. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A 1999 SKATE PARK, CITY MANAGER. Acting Mayor Senn: Skate park is just an administrative deal. So there's really nothing to be done on that. B. HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. Acting Mayor Senn: Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant deal is also just administrative, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I just want to make one clarification and that this is our program agreement that we are anticipating ... $60,000.00 allocation. We were hoping ... to let you know this spring and they did raise it up to 75. More than likely we're going to be in the consolidated pool because we don't be over that... so we'll be competing with the other communities in Hennepin County for that dollar amount. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and the Executive Session is here cancelled for two weeks. And coming back to. Kate Aanenson: We need to vote on the resolution that was attached... Acting Mayor Senn: Can we have a motion to approve the resolution please. Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to approve resolution. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution #99-56: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the resolution to authorize execution of a joint cooperation agreement stating that the City of Chanhassen will participate in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in Hennepin County for the years 2000-2002. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUED: 83 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 1 So 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Appeal Stafra Interpretation APPLICANT: Orin and Bob Witt of Condition of Approval LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Brinn and Bob Witt, are appealing staffs interpretation of a condition of approval of a lakeshore setback variance, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 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 Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. Smooth Feed SheetsTM (� �.+— Use template for 51600 TODD W & JILL PORTER JAMIE & STEPHANIE HEILICHER RONALD P LILEK & '9261 KIOWA TRL 9280 KIOWA TRL MARY M BENNETT-LILEK CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9155 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD W & KATHRYN N SITTER CITY OF CHANHASSEN ROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD C/O SCOTT BOTCH 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 690 CITYC�A1� DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANH SSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN ROBERT W & LISA K BORN C/O SCOTT BOTCH 9260 KIOWA TRL 9163 SUNNYVALE DR 690 CITY R DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 C44ANHASSEN MN 55317 BARRY A & HARRIET F BERSHOW TODD T & KRISTI LYNN WODEK JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 9271 KIOWA TRL 295 SHOREVIEW CT 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR & JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE WENDY L EGGERS 301 SHOREVIEW CT 9171 SUNNYVALE DR - 9251 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN THOMAS J & SUE A SUTER 9283 KIOWA TRL 9151 SUNNYVALE DR 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON HAESEOK CHO & GORDON L ALEXANDER JR 9283 KIOWA TRL JIEUN CHUNG CASEY G ALEXANDER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9170 SUNNYVALE DR 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & RENEE A WILLIAMS THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH RONALD YTZEN 9291 KIOWA TRL 9166 SUNNYVALE DR 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT A & SUSAN M BABCOCK MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & 9351 KIOWA TRL 9162 SUNNYVALE DR JUDITH C POTTHOFF CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD J FRIGSTAD LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION DEAN SCOTT JOHNSON 9270 KIOWA TRL 935 WAYZATA BLVD E 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 A,l ^Itie-turn AAA..^-- I . _.._., .i^np Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 W PAUL KENT OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LESLIE TIDSTROM 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOY A & HILBERT F SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT F & BRINN M WITT 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS 320 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAMELA N GUYER 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT M & NORA J MURRAY 360 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY 380 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK J RAMSEY & KARLA K MCMURRY 400 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT ALAN WIRTH TERESA A KELLY 361 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKELY 341 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J & LAURA B EVANS 331 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VALERIE D DAHLER 321 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE B & DIANE KUTTER 301 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LESLIE TIDSTR_Ol_.. ---- 340 DEERF04T TRL, CHANHkSSEN MN 55317 3 � SE U V4.; i =Flan Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 18, 2000 Page 2 SUMMARY The Park and Recreation Department is proposing to build a new maintenance building at Lake Ann Park. This building will replace the existing building. The building, which is 10,080 square feet, includes an area for the Waconia Ridgeview Ambulatory services. The building is in the Highway 5 overlay district and meets all of design standards. The building is proposed to be constructed late this summer and be occupied by the first of the year. A color rendering and material samples will be available for the meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan. BACKGROUND When the Highway 5 corridor study was prepared and the location of the frontage road was approved it was determined that the existing park maintenance buildings would have to be removed. The old buildings consisted of an old barn and a pole shed with outdoor storage. The total storage was 3,4000 square feet. The new building will be 10,080 square feet and includes ambulatory services for Waconia Ridgeview. This service is currently housed at Fire Station 42 at Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway. The site is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the 2020 Land Use is Park and Open Space. The building and use are consistent with the zoning district. Private Parks and Open Space is a permitted use and storage buildings are a permitted accessory uses. GENERAL SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURE The exterior of the building is made of mortar less brick system. There are three different colors; reddish brown, gray and light brown. The roof has green asphalt shingles. The height of the building is 27 feet to the top of the pitch of the roof. The roof is 126 feet over the park portion of the building and 20 feet for the ambulance portion. Additional interest to the roof could be achieved by adding copulas to give a rural look to the building. Because the building is primarily a storage building, glass block windows were added to provide the look of window while providing security and giving architectural interest. The entire hard surface area is approximately 25,000 square feet. Because the use is part of the larger park which is 102 acres, impervious surface was not calculated. All parking will be behind the building. There will be separate driveways for the ambulance and maintenance building and the parking via the park road. The fenced storage area is setback 170 feet from the frontage road and 65 feet from the trail on the north side of the frontage road. The building is setback 60 feet from the park road. All refuse will be stored in the fenced storage area. Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 18, 2000 Page 3 Landscaping requirements for the maintenance building include buffer yard plantings to the south of the building. This area abuts the proposed trail, frontage road and Highway 5. Requirements include the following: Required Proposed South buffer yard B 3 overstory trees 17 overstory trees 30' x 300' 6 understory trees 11 understory trees 6 shrubs 7 shrubs The applicant has proposed a chain link fence with vines around the maintenance yard. Staff recommends that this be changed to a wooden privacy fence to better screen the view of maintenance equipment from the trail, frontage road and Highway 5. The vines can still be added to the fence. Staff proposes changes to the plant schedule due to questionable hardiness or adaptability to soil conditions. Autumn Purple white ash and Pin oak should be changed to American linden and Red oak respectively. Given the site, these choices will do better than the proposed species. GRADING The site is proposed to be graded to prepare the building pad and maintenance yard. The site will be lowered approximately three feet to conform to the existing topography and future Trunk Highway 5/West 78th Street frontage road being constructed by MnDOT this August. There is a row of trees that will be removed as a result of grading activities. Erosion control fencing is proposed along the downstream side of the site as well as a rock construction entrance in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices. A watershed district and DNR permit will be required with this project. DRAINAGE The site sheet drains east and west. The proposed grading will maintain the pre -developed drainage pattern in the area for the most part. The plans propose to drain the runoff from the maintenance yard area into a storm sewer system that will convey the runoff down to the existing creek, which is a tributary of Bluff Creek. Due to the limited amount of runoff this site will generate it will not be necessary to construct a storm pond for pretreatment before discharging into Bluff Creek. However, it will still be necessary to pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the creek. Staff recommends that a sump catch basin with a skimming device be installed to collect sediment and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off site. The location and design of the storm sewer should also be modified to discharge at the creek to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 18, 2000 Page 4 UTILITIES Municipal utility service is indirectly available to the site. Water service is proposed to be extended along the park road. The sewer line to service this site is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the site near Trunk Highway 5. The plans propose to extend the sewer line to the building underneath future West 78th Street. The utility improvements proposed to service the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. STREETS Access to the project is and will be maintained from the park access road, which is accessed from West 78th Street. Access to the park will be maintained during construction. The maintenance yard and drive aisles will have concrete curb and gutter except for the driveway to the ambulance bay. This driveway will be a standard residential type 20 feet wide. HC-1 OVERLAY DISTRICT The proposed development is located within the Highway 5 corridor and must comply with the design standards. The standards of the overlay district include: 1. Parking and building orientation: The site meets this standard. The parking setbacks in the HC-1 district are those established by the underlying zoning. The site parking meets this requirement. The building is oriented toward Lake Ann Park Drive. The side and rear of the building face Highway 5 Frontage Road. The parking and storage will be completely screened with landscaping and a wood fence. 2. The architectural design standards: The materials and details of the building are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. The project incorporates brick exterior with a well -designed landscaping plan. Building materials are of high quality. The roof is pitched. • The overall design and architectural theme is a mortar less brick system. • Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet for accessory structures. The proposal is one story or 27 feet in height to the top of the pitch of the roof. The HC-1 District would permit a 3 story or 40 foot structure. • The project incorporates the use of high quality materials in both the building and landscaping. Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 18, 2000 Page 5 • The building components are proportional and relate well to one another. • Building colors are harmonious and create a pleasant aesthetic experience. 3. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings: The applicant's landscaping plan is well designed and incorporates the use of native tree species as well as extensive buffering materials and the adjacent trial along the frontage road. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 2000-9 for Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building as shown on the plans prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. dated June 11, 2000 and subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Service Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The storm water runoff from the maintenance yard shall be pretreated prior to discharging into Bluff Creek. A sump catch basin with a skimming device shall be installed to collect sediment and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off site. The location and design of the storm sewer shall also be modified to discharge at the creek to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. 5. The applicant shall change chain link fence around maintenance yard to wooden privacy fence. 6. The applicant shall change Autumn Purple white ash to American linden and Pin oak to Red oak in the plant schedule. 7. A lighting plan shall be limited to security lighting only and shall be consistent with city ordinances. 8. Signs shall be limited to a monument sign only. Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 18, 2000 Page 6 9. The Fire Department has the following conditions: • PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the six-inch water main coming into the building. • A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e, street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. • Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department regarding premise identification. The building is required to be assigned an address number and numbers should be displayed per Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. • The Fire Department sprinkler connection will be required to be located on the east corner of the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. • "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required at the ambulance entrance. Contact the. - Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 13, 2000 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 12, 2000 3. Public hearing notice and property owners list 4. Site Plan dated June 11, 2000. g:\plaii\ka\parkiiiaitit.bldg.doc ■ 0 MEMORANDUM CITYOF TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director CHANNSEN FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer C" 6900Center Drive, PO Box147 DATE: July 13, 2000 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9371900 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building General Fax 612.937.5739 Land Use Review File No. 00-14 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Tax 612.934.2524 Upon review of the construction drawings prepared by William R. Engelhardt fiieb www,ci.chanbassen.nzn.us Associates, Inc. dated July 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations. GRADING The site is proposed to be graded to prepare the building pad and maintenance yard. The site will be lowered approximately three feet to conform to the existing topography and future Trunk Highway 5/West 78th Street frontage road being constructed by MnDOT this August. There is a row of trees that will be removed as a result of grading activities. Erosion control fencing is proposed along the downstream side of the site as well as a rock construction entrance in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices. A watershed district and DNR pernilt will be required with this project. DRAINAGE The site sheet drains east and west. The proposed grading will maintain the pre - developed drainage pattern in the area for the most part. The plans propose to drain the runoff from the maintenance yard area into a storm sewer system that will convey the runoff down to the existing creek, which is a tributary of Bluff Creek. Due to the limited amount of runoff this site will generate it will not be necessary to constrict a storm pond for pretreatment before discharging into Bluff Creek. However, it will still be necessary to pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the creels. Staff recommends that a sump catch basin with a skimming device be installed to collect sediment and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off site. The location and design of the storm sewer should also be modified to discharge at the creels to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. UTILITIES Municipal utility service is indirectly available to the site. Water service is proposed to be extended along the park road. The sewer line to service this site is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the site near Trunk Highway 5. The plans propose to extend the sewer line to the building underneath future West 78th Ae City of Chanhassen. A QroivinQ connnunall with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming, downtown, thriving, businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building July 13, 2000 Page 2 Street. The utility improvements proposed to service the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. STREETS Access to the project is and will be maintained from the park access road, which is accessed from West 78th Street. Access to the park will be maintained during construction. The maintenance yard and drive aisles will have concrete curb and gutter except for the driveway to the ambulance bay. This driveway will be a standard residential type 20 feet wide. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pen -nits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Enviromnental Service Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The storm water runoff from the maintenance yard shall be pretreated prior to discharging into Bluff Creek. A sump catch basin with a skimming device shall be installed to collect sediment and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off site. The location and design of the storm sewer shall also be modified to discharge at the creek to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer g:\eng\dave\pc\I.ake Ann Parkdoc CITY OF CHMII " SE MEMORANDUM 690Cit Center Drive, PO Box147 TO: Kathryn R. Aanenson, Community Development Director Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax612.937.9152 DATE: July 12, 2000 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 SUBJECT: Site plan review for Lake Ann Park maintenance building lxeb www.ci.chanhassen.inn. its I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, 1 have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the six-inch water main coming into the building. 2. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e, street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department regarding premise identification. The building is required to be assigned an address number and numbers should be displayed per Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 4. The Fire Department sprinkler connection will be required to be located on the east corner of the building, Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 5. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required at the ambulance entrance. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 6. The PIV shall be equipped with an electronic tamper device. gAsa(ety\ml\plr",mainlbIdg The City of Chanhassen. AQrowiq community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charminw downtown, thrivinv husine ses, and heauti&I wrkc. A armt ularr to litw. wnrk, and tdav NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for Park Maintenance Building APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen LOCATION: Lake Ann Park NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, City of Chanhassen, is requesting Site Plan Review for a 70' x 120' park maintenance building to be located in the southern portion of the park near the entrance, City of Chanhassen. 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 Todd Hoffman at 937-1900 ext. 121. if you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000. 0091S .1asel slagel ssaippV ®AM 3AV CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHE 690 CITY CE R PO BOX 147 CHA SEN MN 55317 STATE OF MN -DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND B MAILSTOP 631 ST PAUL MN 55155 CHANHASSEN PARK PLACE PARTN 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN C WILLETTE C/O LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT 7851 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ECKANKAR PO BOX 2730 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENT -DE1-PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TWO S PROPERTIES INC 601 LAKESHORE PKY STE #350 HOPKINS MN 55305 PEERLESS INDUSTRIES INC 1969 W CO RD C2 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 GERALD J BOWEN FAMILY TRUST C/O STEVE NOSEK & R KARLSON 701 4TH AVE S STE 7 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 p Lake Ann 1 KIMBERLY LANE 2 Kelly Court 3 Nicholas Way V V - `=78th Road C6- 0 Kris & Dawn Knox 'Atit So . war"z:_ �;Butcti ��lnsty Y �' = Ste fan_iVladkh Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kurt Schwarz: Good evening. My name is Kurt Schwarz. I live at 925 Ithaca Lane in Plymouth. I am a custom home builder. I build 2 to 3 homes a year. Very custom. Very in existing neighborhoods and very well aware of the ramifications of working in existing neighborhoods. And plan to build three very nice homes in this neighborhood. I photographed a couple houses that we had just done in similar situations and I'd be happy to hand those around, if people would like to see them. Peterson: Sure. You certainly can do that. Any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton 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. Harry Dunn: I have a presentation here. My name is Harry Dunn. Peterson: Please come forward to the microphone. Harry Dunn: Sure. On that map that was up there, I'm at the. Aanenson: Right here. Harry Dunn: I'm exactly in the center of this whole thing... I'm right in the middle here. Aanenson: Across the street on Leslee Curve? Harry Dunn: Across the street, 3920 Leslee Curve. Kirchoff: Here's another map that might work out better. Harry Dunn: What I'm saying is, I'm facing all of these three new houses. Right in the middle. Now I face one, the big one that's going to be destroyed. We have already submitted to the council there that we would agree to a two house situation, but. Peterson: Why don't you stay by the microphone sir so more people can hear you. Harry Dunn: I'm really prepared for this. Get hit in the head with a microphone. I'm trying to get a little sympathy here. You'll have to forgive me, okay. I'm 76 now and I've lived in Leslee Curve now for 30 years. My wife, Elaine and 1. Elaine's from Illinois originally and I'm from Iowa. We finally got accepted in the State of Minnesota because we've lived here longer in Minnesota than Iowa. I had one question to start off with. I've got your council. No where on here I see anything that would indicate the legal end. Do we have, does Chanhassen have a City Solicitor or an Attorney or what do you have? It's not listed on here. What is your legal situation? Peterson: We have a City Attorney, yes. Harry Dunn: And this works strictly for Chanhassen? Peterson: He's with a private firm that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Harry Dunn: Oh, you contract. Peterson: Yes. Harry Dunn: All the business. So nothing's been said about, did you receive some kind of a report from him stating that all of the things on this thing are legal? Everything on there is legal? And you received a letter informing you of this? Peterson: We did not formally receive a letter. I think what we have in front of us tonight is something that, this is a normal and customary subdivision that does meet all of our city statutes and ordinances. Kate. Harry Dunn: Every one is identical? I mean that's it? Peterson: Yes. Harry Dunn: Everything on there has been approved and we have no problem as a taxpayer? Peterson: That would be my understanding, yes. Harry Dunn: Well is that true? Peterson: That's my understanding. Harry Dunn: Is that everybody's understanding? Saccliet: We'll discuss it. We're getting your input here and we haven't started discussing it. Harry Dunn: Oh, you're not at that stage yet? Sacchet: if you were asking us, that's what our purpose is. Aanenson: Let me answer the question real quickly because I don't want to confuse him further, if that's okay. Let me just explain the process. The city staff reviews it to make sure it meets city ordinance. We have prepared a staff report. Our recommendation is that it does meet city ordinances. Harry Dunn: But you're not a lawyer? Aanenson: No. The City Attorney gets a copy of the staff report. If there is any question of whether or not it meets the city ordinance, we consult the City Attorney. Harry Dunn: And we have a contract with the city. Aanenson: The City Attorney does not review every subdivision, every plat. It's impossible. So the City Attorney, that's what the staff is hired to do is to review these subdivisions to see if they're consistent with the city ordinance. The staff s opinion is that it is consistent and again the City Attorney receives a copy of every staff report that goes to the Planning Commission. So he's received this entire packet. Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Harry Dunn: Now this City Attorney, does he have a background in all this business? Aanenson: Yes. He's been with the city probably 15 years, correct. Harry Dunn: So he's been through all this before. Aanenson: That's correct. This is again. Harry Dunn: You're confident. Aanenson: Correct. This is very, as the Chairman has said, this is pretty consistent with other subdivisions we've done in the city. Harry Dunn: Okay. I just had a couple things and then I'll move on. I can eliminate all my notes here. Just picture me and Elaine here in this little pie shaped thing. We're down at this end. And all of these garages is going to be built, will be facing us. All three of them. 1 have one now. And I made a list of all of the things that I've seen in the neighborhood that's happened. We'll have 3 three car garages. And that takes care of 3, 6, 9 automobiles. If they can get then in the garage. Usually the third one is a junk yard and Ave all face that so we have to, we can two in there for sure and then one more that might be used for storage. Or cars. Listen to all this stuff. You've got snowmobiles out there. You've got water mobiles. You've got large motorboats. You've got fishing boats. Small and large. You've got pontoon boats. There are not a lot of these. 1 can, we've got 3 right in front of me in our neighborhood. And they're all outside. Sailboat. I think I only see one. Trailers are a problem. You know the kind that you pull behind your car. You've got big ones and small ones. Motor homes. Now is it my judgment that You're all allowed only one motor home on your property? Is that correct? Aanenson: Yes. Harry Dunn: So if you have two you can't do it huh? Aanenson: What the ordinance says is all outdoor storage has to be in the side or the rear property. In this case it's actually a double fronted lot so it'd probably be in the side yard. But it wouldn't be inconsistent with anything else in that neighborhood. Harry Dunn: Sailboats. I've seen too many of those. Trailers, small and large. There are all kinds of trailers so, everybody probably has a trailer, right? Motor homes. I talked about that. Car motor homes. You've got pick-up trucks. Everybody has a pick-up truck. Seen a lot of them. Commercial vans, trucks. I can't read my own writing here on this one. Okay. My only point is that, we're not only looking at all these garages. We're going to have all this other stuff in-between. We all have to have room for something and it's storage is a big problem. That's why I'm trying to say, take it and put it around the other way. Put it back down on Minnewashta Parkway. I'm still paying for Minnewashta Parkway. I did purposely because I wanted to pay once a year in my taxes. I think I'm all through paying now for Minnewashta Parkway. This is the last day. I think I might have a celebration now once I get through that one. But if you turn the whole thing around, I wouldn't have any garages. And you have access. You have two accesses now. Pete Warhol has in and out on two. On down the highway, I'm going east. Let's see, I'm going north and the next one has two. You know big arch and he has two accesses. So we're only, we would be only losing now one. Pete has two now so they're gone. So 4 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 you're putting three back instead of two. I don't understand the access problem. I can understand it but that's about it. Thank you for listening. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Harry Dunn: Sorry, I get confused at times. Peterson: No problem. Any other comments? Please. Steffan Madsen: My name is Steffan Madsen and I live at 3830 Leslee Curve, which is just across the street. And let's see here. The property that we're talking about is right here and my house is right here. I made a point at my house of putting it to the side. It's brand new construction. I spent my life savings to get this place and I bought in this neighborhood to have the large lots. To have an area where there were not a lot of houses. Everybody one has large lots and now with three houses going in here, all of a sudden we've got the mentality of make it the other developments in the city. And I like the older style of development where you've got room for some of these things that Harry was mentioning. I sympathize with Harry. He makes a good point that all the stuff. All you can see is garages and that's a real valid point. A lot of cars. A lot of garages. From our side, we all purchased our homes because of the view of the lake. At this point in time my house sits right here. I orientated my house to this side of the lot. I am as close to Harry's house, which is right here, as the city will allow. I did that for the purpose of being able to have view of the lake at certain points of the year. When the foliage is froze and there's a lot of trees and stuff in here which will all get wiped out and there will be a house sitting right here. I built my house around my game room which sits right here at this corner here, and so basically I'll be looking at garages and houses probably all the way across here. Had I known that the City was going to cram three houses into this area, I wouldn't have spent, I know I've spent at least $10,000 extra on my home to push my house all the way over here. I've got about, close to 100 foot long retaining wall between my property and Harry's property. I also, when I bought my house, Mrs. Anderson was very concerned about my house being too tall. And that my house needed to fit in with the neighborhood. So I designed my house a couple times and I got to the point where it blended in. It has modern amenities on the inside, but it fits with the neighborhood. So I know that was a concern with some of the neighbors that these houses may not. We haven't seen any plans. We don't know what style of houses these are going to be. The point I'm making is, I've spent a lot of money on this retaining wall. Pushed my house down as far as I possibly could to protect the view of the lake, and it does get minimal because as you get further away from the lake, but I know that was a big concern for Mrs. Anderson and so I met that. And I have all those restrictions and now as soon as I abide by those, and three houses go up in front of me. The other issue I have is this frontage space. These ladies here mentioned that at a corner lot they've been known to average you know the frontage of one side and the frontage of another side. They did not however state that they could average basically from one street all the way to another one which is probably 194 feet away. Okay, they didn't get an estimate of that so at this point I assume that they don't do that. I do know that in building my own house in Chanhassen, being a builder myself, that Chanhassen abides to the building codes as picky as any city, probably the pickiest. I've built in many cities. Very picky. When I went to move into my house, I ordered a Maytag washing machine. Top of the line Neptune washing machine. I could not move into my house until I took the washing machine and placed it on the other side of the street. Because the City said it didn't meet building code. The only city in the whole United States that would not allow a Maytag washing machine into their homes. If they're that picky, could not move into my house because of a washing machine. You don't need a washing machine to have a house. If it was not on the site they would not have said nothing about it. But because I had it in my house, they said you can't have it because it doesn't meet some code. The only city in the whole United States. My point is, all of a sudden the city is real flexible and they're doing some Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 averaging here on something that the city ordinance. Why aren't they picky on that? I'm really wondering about that. I've built many things in Chanhassen. I've built in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Victoria. Chanhassen is very strict on their building codes. Another example that I can cite. When I put, got on my survey, just like what we're looking at here, and then put my house in there and my surveyor submitted it to the city. The signature on the survey, do you know of any blueprints. They draw up a plan, put their signature on there and they make all the blueprints. They send it off to the city. When it gets to the city, I think it's Dan Remer says I've got to have original signatures. It's right on there. Got to have original signatures. I said well come on. Nope, got to have original signatures. So we've got to send it all the way back. Then it comes back in. Oh, there's a little crack in here. So we've got to make another copy. So he sends that in. Original signature. I'm sure it cost me several hundred dollars... for this guy to fax the city because of signatures. So my point is, the city is very picky when it comes to abiding by all of the codes and the rules that they have. And now they're fudging here. They never showed me evidence of fudging. I spent a lot of money, my whole life savings and for the next 30 years to live at this house and have a neighborhood that has fairly large lots. Especially in front of me. I spent a lot of money. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Dale Menten: I'm blind as a bat. Let's see. We're here. We're on the north side of this property here. The Menten household. We've been here since 1972. And my concern is that when we looked at this, having been here forever. First of all we came in early this morning to look at the plans. And then I asked, is this survey guaranteed to be accurate? Yes it is. I said so these are all red pine trees? Yes. Well they aren't. They're olive trees which then calls attention to, is this really the plat? Would you bet $100 that this survey is absolutely guaranteed to be within inches accurate? Anybody want to take me up on this? We've been here a long time. I say it's not totally accurate. Some came out with, well Kris did with part of the road. On an earlier survey that someone else surveyed who guarantees it was accurate, you've got part of the road you know, so that's the first concern. Second concern is that, we really say at best two lots. If you push it, 2 and a third or something, but do you then relax all the rules and regulations to make it 3, setting a new precedent for this whole area where these lots are not that way? Screwing up a lot of views of the neighbor who just built across the street. It's just a concern that we have. Now I was told, my wife and I were told, that this was a done deal. I wasn't going to show up because I figured it's a done deal. It's a slam dunk. A builder comes in. It's all greased and done. I decided to show up. This is from ... that it's a done deal, and maybe it is a done deal because when we checked this morning, this covers all of the regulations that the city has. The setbacks. The size of the buildings. 60 x 60. Ya de ya de ya de. And so maybe I'm wasting my time but I thought I'd show up just to voice my concern that our opinion, it's 2 lots. Or 2'/2 but that doesn't make it 3. It makes it 2 wonderful lots, which is what I think our lot is. Ours is a wonderful lot and the lots on all sides of this. Bruce's lot's a wonderful lot. Where we start making it smaller to accommodate a kind of a squeeze proportion thing, and that's all I have to say. It's not a big deal. Thank you for listening. Peterson: Thank you. Kris Knox: Good evening. My name is Kris Knox. My wife and 1, Dawn. We live in the corner of Leslee Curve and Glendale right here. I've met with the builder. He seemed like a very nice guy. I'm actually, I'm in real estate myself so I looked up some of his properties and found the Parade of Homes. It sounds like lie builds a very good product and that's good to know. I do have a couple concerns though. One thing that this map doesn't really lay out very clearly. Aanenson: That's not the survey. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kris Knox: That's fine. That's an orientation map. This map does show what the survey doesn't show is the orientation of the lots across the street as to the size, and this one does. Now this is my lot. I have a corner lot and it's large and it's going to stay that way. And I don't know if the camera can zero in on this... Aanenson: ...square footage... Kris Knox: Well I'm not interested in square footage. I'm interested in aesthetics. I'm interested in the real world. The way it looks. If I were to draw 3 lines right here and divide this into 3, you can very easily see, and I don't want to do this on your plan. Aanenson: Go ahead. Kris Knox: Well, we'll just eye ball this into 3 equal pieces here. It looks like 3 equal pieces doesn't it? And all of a sudden you can see that this, you know look at the frontages of every, literally every single house. The difference is makes down on the lake area. You know I don't know this messes up Kurt's economics or the fact that he needs 3 lots to make ... but from the neighbors perspectives, mine especially as well as all of us here, the 3 tiny little lots that turn out from this deal are quite inconsistent with the rest of the lots. The neighbors are just irrefutable. That is a concern of us. This lot would make a very beautiful 2 lots. Now I don't know if the economics of Kurt Schwartz' deal but certainly help fit with the neighborhood and how ... affect people like Steffan's very legitimate concerns on his views, is a big concern of ours. I don't know how slam dunkish it is. I also called the city and they said yeah, it seems to fit with all the rules. I wasn't aware that they did some averaging on the frontage versus the back because obviously there's more on the Minnewashta Parkway side. I certainly wouldn't want to see any fudging averages along, especially if there's other real strictness that the city expresses on other parties. And in general I guess the fact that you can see there's 3 little, skinny lots. There's going to be a big one next to us. There's going to be Dale's over here and every single other one in the neighborhood is like that. Steffan bought the last lot in this neighborhood. He spent a lot of money. It's taken a lot to ... for sale for a long, long time. He made it fit. He made the orientation just like he said... I just don't think that that's, I don't think that's the way it should go. The other idea is too, we've heard little about, I did meet with Kurt. We talked the property. And you know this whole thing about us neighbors being notified was also quite frustrating. The fact that we can get a 2 week notice for this hearing and in fact that's all the notice most of us had. It's also quite frustrating because if that's part of the process that we would have such a little notice on something so major to all of us. We all have very valuable homes. We've all spent lots of money and continue to-do so with home mortgages as you all know. And so it seems frustrating about not what's going on. The style of house he's going to build, and I talked with Kurt. When I first heard the news, and I heard it through the grape vine and it's like oh my god, what's going on. They were supposed to be cottages. Now when I hear cottage, and then it was supposed to be half a million dollar cottages. Well to me that's almost..., in this neighborhood we have a house. On one hand that's great. On the other hand, well I don't know how much of my property got reassessed, which by the way the assessor came by last week. So I don't know if that's... things go up or back but the point is that I know what a cottage is. And I don't know what the economics whether it's 2 lots or 3 lots, of what a cottage would be to make a deal. When I talked with Kurt, it turns out that they may be 2 story walkouts. Well, you know I'm in real estate. I know that there's all sorts of variations of definitions but I don't think a cottage is a 2 story walkout. I don't know of a 2 story walkout that's going to fit on these little, skinny lots is ... this was originally her development. She, and I don't know what the arrangement... and in fact this house does fit in the neighborhood. The house that's next to them is a rambler. I have a walkout rambler. The house that's being torn down is a rambler. In fact I think all the 7 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 houses in this neighborhood, across the street here are ramblers until you get back over here to some of these which are splits which still aren't very high. So to have a 2 story walkout on a skinny little lot is just a double whammy to me as a neighbor. That would be my concerns here because we really haven't seen what's... really going to squeeze 3 lots in here, and I hope that you don't. And I don't know whether this slam dunk part of the thing really is a slam dunk, but if it were a consideration and Mr. Schwarz were able to make more on his end with only 2, that would be great and a different kind of house can go on 2 big lots certainly a lot differently than a cottage that's really a 2 story walkout that's going to sell for half a million dollars and fit on 3 lots. I think you guys all know where I'm going with that so my final comment would be that I heard that the, that part of the proposal is that the 2 curb cuts on Minnewashta Parkway be eliminated, and I guess I have a problem with one of that because as it turns out, the survey that was paid for by Mr. Schwarz, his surveyors did find the iron markers which do establish, from my experience, a definitive boundary and it turns out the definitive boundary includes one of the southern most curb cut which happens to now actually be illy property. So I don't want that curb cut removed because I have use for it. So that was the only other comment about that. The... established. The iron markers are there and what, for the 3 '/2 years I've been living there... other end of this loop into Minnewashta Parkway, it turns out from the survey is actually our property and I do not want that curb cut removed. So that's my comments. Thank you very much. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion for a close? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any comments on this one? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a question of staff. The average lot size is 17, let's see. 18,266 which appears to be similar to the average lot size of the neighborhood. What makes these 3 proposed lots unique is that they're long and skinny rather than short and fat. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Something I didn't do earlier today. I just did it right now up here is add up those numbers. They total 54,800 which is 1,300 more than what the lot size is as one lot. Kirchoff: Don't tell me my math's wrong. Kind: Sorry. Sorry to do it now too Cindy. I just thought you'd love that. I didn't even think of it until we were just kind of talking about this and I just added them up. Granted, even an adjustment of 1,300 would not reduce any of then to below the 15,000 minimum by the city but I just thought that was odd. And wondered if you knew about it or had an explanation for it. In situations like this, have we ever done averaging of building height on neighborhood building height to put a restriction on the infilling lots so that the character of the neighborhood. Aanenson: We've done it through the good will effort of the person subdividing. We don't have a requirement to do that. In the past we've gotten that just through cooperation with the developer. With the home styles. When it's a straight subdivision, we don't look at home styles. The only thing that we'd decide is the elevation based on grade that we've looked at. Dave maybe gave a comment. There's an elevation for sewer and water. Storm water. 8 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Hempel: Lots are relatively level in relationship to the neighborhood. They do slope off to the east towards the lake slightly but it would take a little bit of filling to raise the lots to make them a walkout in the front yard areas. Another way to do it would be to change the house style to more of a, all how would you call them. Kind: Multi -level. Hempel: Multi -level, right. Where you walk up more into the first level. That would reduce filling in the front yards. Kind: And what are the rules on filling? Boy, I sure would hate to see any house built there, whether it's 3 or 2, be built up so they can walk out off the back. Are there restrictions the city has on that? Hempel: We want to just really maintain the drainage through the property as it exists today. We don't want to burden the adjacent properties by altering the neighborhood drainage pattern in the area. Other than that they can pretty much alter the property enough to get the type of dwellings they desire. Tree removal would be another issue. With grading and the mass grading on the site. I believe there's a tree ordinance. They need to maintain certain tree canopy coverage on the site so that would prohibit mass clear cutting and grading of the property. Kind: Thank you. Cindy, could you? I know Craig asked you this at the beginning of the meeting and I obviously wasn't listening very well. The averaging of the front and the back lots, is that something that we've done before? Aanenson: Let me answer it? Did they meet the frontage requirement? We could put the driveways on Minnewashta Parkway. There is 2 access points there. Kind: And do we allow that on a collector street? Aanenson: Our preference is not to put them on a collector. There's 2 curb cuts there right now. We could put -it, and Mr. Dunn's question about storage. Even if the garage were on the front, more than likely the storage, if there is a boat, may still end up on that side or that rear yard. You know it may solve the problem architecturally of what you're looking at. Whether you drive down Minnewashta Parkway and it's the garage there. Our preference would be, while there are 2 curb cuts there, to try to eliminate those and not have conflicting traffic. There are curb cuts along Minnewashta Parkway when that street was redone. That was something that we looked at but these plats that are off of Kings Road, we limited the access points there. Kind: My recollection though is that we don't allow new curb cuts on collector roads. Hempel: We limit curb cuts. Kind: Got it. Hempel: Enough to provide access to the property if there's no other feasible means to provide access. Kind: But in this case there is another feasible means? Hempel: There is another feasible means, correct. Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kind: And speaking of curb cuts, Mr. Knox spoke about a curb cut that he sees that's on his property. Is that one of the two we're talking about? Because according to this plat that I've got in front of me, it looks like it's off. Aanenson: Right. But it's being used for the other property or both it sounds like. Kind: So since it's being used for both, it's reasonable that that one could stay? Burton: Excuse me Kate, it's not part of the subdivision because it's not part of the plat, we really can't remove it can we? Aanenson: That we may need a legal opinion on. Hempel: There may be some rights through adverse possession use that make take some of that driveway but it probably is a legal question. Aanenson: Or if it solves, I mean that's an opportunity to leave that driveway there for one of the other homes. I don't know. To keep that driveway in place with one orientation of the garage. Peterson: And then you've got potentially 3 houses, one of them. Aanenson: Facing the other way? Peterson: Yeah. Which would be. Aanenson: But the other ones are oriented that way already so. Kind: I'm trying to listen this time. So what was the answer to, do we typically average? Is that common? Aanenson: Most of the, where we had double fronted lots in some of the older areas of the community. Right. Kind: Right. Aanenson: So in this circumstance you could put them on Minnewashta Parkway. He could put the lots facing that way. Our preference is to put them the other way. Kind: Yeah, that part I heard but have we done the averaging to determine what the lot width is before? Aanenson: Sure. Sure. Kind: Okay, thank you. Goll. That's it. That's all. Peterson: So what are your thoughts on it? Kind: I'm concerned about the lot frontage on Leslee Curve. I agree that the lot sizes meet our ordinances and the building pads meets the 60 x 60 and all that. I am concerned about having 83 feet for F1i Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 lot width on Leslee Curve because that does not meet ordinance. And I probably will vote no because of that. Peterson: Okay. Any comments Matt? Burton: Well I think it does comply and all you'd have to do is put the driveways on Minnewashta and you can get it through. If he did that, he'd comply with all the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. And in the courts we couldn't stop him from going ahead and doing this and at the city's request he's moving the driveways up to the other street and that's the only reason, in my opinion, they're up there so I think he's accommodating the city and I think if this is going to happen like this, this is the best place for the driveways to be and it makes sense so. If we're going to be voting it down, he would go to court and have to have the driveways on Minnewashta Parkway and he'd win. Peterson: Other comments? - Sacchet: Yeah. I have some comments. So you're basically saying that even if we insist on that 83 not being enough frontage, we could not make it 2 lots. It would still be 3 lots but the only difference would be that there would be, have the driveway to Minnewashta which would be less side. Personally I agree with the neighbors in that 2 '/2 lots does not make 3 lots and I disagree with the staff report in that this is consistent with the neighborhood. I think it's not consistent. And at first it looked consistent but then when I looked at the lot layout where you have the different lot sizes. Well if you look at lots that are 80,000 square feet, that's consistent with the lots on the other side of Leslee Curve. If you look at the lots that are on the north and east of Leslee Curve, we have lots that are over 20,000. Each of them. And what I'm personally concerned about is the precedent we're setting. We have 2 lots in that neighborhood that are over 50,000 square feet. The one we're looking at subdividing and the other one across the street who butts the lake. If we allow those 50,000 square foot lots to be subdivided into 3 lots, we will have to allow the lots that are over 30,000 to be divided into 2 lots potentially. And that's a precedent I don't want to set. Because in that context to me subdividing this into 3 lots is not consistent with the neighborhood. But what you're telling me is, even if we insist that the 83 is not enough frontage, we can't prevent it from subdividing into,3? Peterson: I wouldn't say, and Kate reflect on this. We're not really setting precedent by making this decision. Aanenson: Correct. We're talking about the lot sizes of the neighborhood. We're also talking about does it meet city ordinance of 15. There are lots in that neighborhood with 15. A lakeshore lots have different standards as far as square footage. I mean looking at the circumstances that go into each lot split, in this circumstance the lot has to be removed in order to accommodate that. I would assume on the other lot that's 35,000, a home may have to be removed in order to split that lot. You have to be able to meet the setback and all that in order to get another home on there. This is going to be a consistent issue as the city evolves. People are going to try to subdivide. Unless there's an active homeowners association that has a different standard, that's the lot standard requirement of 15,000 square feet. Some neighborhoods have association widths or PUD's that cannot be further subdivided. But it happens up on Lotus Lake consistently. It's going to happen where there's a possibility. But again each lot is unique and based on whether or not you remove a home, but to say that all those lots that are oversized can be subdivided is not a true statement. You have to look at what the circumstances are. Peterson: The other tact we'd have to take is somehow being creative and putting a new ordinance in there that existing lots over a certain size have a different square footage requirement. I mean that's the 11 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 tone we've consistently heard over the years and it's something I think we need to consider as one of our discussion points ... go forward basis. Sacchet: If we look at lot sizes on that side of Leslee Curve, they are between 21,000 and 29,000, which to me if we split the 53,000 or whatever the exact figure is, if we split it in 2, it would actually be consistent with those lots. But that's not the city ordinance thing so that's the problem here. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: I would just make sure that the City Attorney believes we're, I'd like to have the attorney review it, not from the city standpoint. From the neighborhood standpoint. Not that we, I think we can grant this and it's very logical, but I'd like to see if the neighborhood has anything to stand on in terms of saying it doesn't meet the footage requirement. I'm not convinced it does or doesn't. It's obviously a place for 2, it's 2 houses, but it legally the ordinance says it can be 3. So somebody said it's a slam dunk. Obviously. If the ordinance says it, it is and that's what you'd want to govern your community. We're governed by the ordinance so. What we've got to make sure of is in this case with a double frontage, if there's anything that might protect you from the 3 lot deal, I'd sure like to have our city attorney take a look at that. But the ordinance governs. It's not us. It really isn't. That's why we have the ordinance. If we don't, if we think we should average properties in this city, you've got a real big problem coming. My neighborhood is being cut up and I won't cut my property up but my neighborhood is being cut up every day and come in 2 weeks from now and listen to what people are doing. So it is happening and it's not just happening in your neighborhood. It is legal and that's what we have ordinances to govern what can be done without taking rights of people away. So I'm not preaching but I'm just saying, if you feel that we don't have the right ordinances you should come back and tell us to do something. Or if the Planning Commission feels that we've got a lot of this stuff coming up, we should do something about it and start looking at average lot sizes where we should because you don't have any leverage. You really don't. You have an ordinance and we have to interpret the ordinance and that's what we're doing tonight. I think staff has interpreted it properly, but I want to make sure and so we'll make sure the attorney says it's, not that we can do it but that, you know I really want it interpreted from the neighborhood side. Can we stop it from happening? Can we say that because the access is on, not on the, can we say because it is going in on an 83 foot frontage, that they can't have 3? I need to know that. Other than that I think it looks legal to me. Peterson: Okay, thank you. My comments are not dissimilar to Ladd's. I guess, I feel the passion of the residents around and as the same passion that I would feel, but unfortunately I think that we have to abide by the zoning ordinances that are in front of us tonight. I think if we've accomplished nothing else, I think being here and sharing your respective voices is incredibly important for us to hear and as I've already said earlier, that we need to start looking at alternatives and whether or not that is lot size or averaging as Ladd said, but what we have in front of us tonight I think is relatively clear and I would vote in favor of that. So with those discussion points I'll entertain a motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat Subdivision #00-7 to subdivision a 1.2 acre parcel into 3 single family lots based on the plans received May 26, 2000 with conditions 1 through 13 and add a condition that the staff confer with the city attorney regarding this matter prior to it being presented to City Council. Peterson: Is there a second? 12 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Conrad: I would second that. But if I may, again I think my point was, for the City Attorney to see if the neighborhood has any, the neighborhood and the city. I'm not trying to divorce us from being a part of the neighborhood but I don't want to know that if we can allow it to happen. I want to know if it can be prevented from happening. It's a little bit different twist on that but that's real important. I don't need the attorney to say they can go ahead and do this. I need the attorney to tell me if there's a way to prevent it from happening. Peterson: Okay. Any further discussion? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I personally I'm inclined to vote against this on the basis that if there is a foundation that we can require the access to go to Leslee Curve and therefore it cannot be subdivided into 3 lots and 2 lots, I would prefer that as an option on that basis and I'm inclined to vote against the motion that's on the table. Peterson: Okay. Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat (SUB #00-7) to subdivide a 1.2 acre parcel into 3 single family lots based upon the plans received May 26, 2000, with the following conditions: 1. One 2 %z inch deciduous tree will be required in each front yard. 2. All transplanted trees shall be guaranteed for one year. Any trees that die will be replaced with trees that meet minimum ordinance requirements. 3. Tree presentation fencing shall be placed around any trees near the grading limits prior to excavation. 4. The proposed residential development of 1.2 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $976. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,415.60. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filling the final plat. 5. The existing home on Lot 2 will require a demolition permit and/or a moving permit, whichever applies. Tile removal of the home shall take place prior to final plat approval. 6. A final soils report and grading plan must be submitted for any filling or soil corrections. Each building must have it's own independent sewer connection. A detailed grading and tree removal plan, including driveway locations, garage floor elevation, proposed grades outside the dwellings and existing 2 foot contour elevations a minimum of 100 feet around the property limits shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to final plat consideration to determine the full impacts of the development. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. 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. 13 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 10. 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 applicant will need to provide the city with a financial escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee reimbursement for the service extensions. The escrow amount shall be $5,000. 11. The typical 5 foot and 10 foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. 12. 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 the city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 13. All driveways shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Direct driveway access from any lot onto Minnewashta Parkway shall be prohibited. 14. Staff shall confer with the City Attorney to address neighborhood concerns prior to going to the City Council. All voted in favor, except Kind and Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Peterson: Two nays. Motion carries and goes on to City Council on the 1 Ot" of July. So thank you all for your comments. They were appreciated and again this goes on to the City Council for their respective feedback on the 1 Otl' and by then the City Council will have received information from the City Attorney. Audience: ....so this means it's passed? Aanenson: No. It's a recommendation to the City Council. Peterson: They make the final decision. We're the preliminary kind of litmus test and we make our recommendation to the City Council. They make the ultimate decision. Audience: Thank you. Kris Knox: I have a question... but I hear comments about that curb cut ... with regards to whether the city can or can't take it out. If the survey establishes that it's my curb cut, is this the place, is this where I can kind of... say that I can't do something with my curb cut? Pete's been using it for as long as he's lived there. The fact that I didn't have a survey done when I bought the property I don't precludes me from owning it now that it's obvious that I own it. And so I just want to ... that the long term of use of it that I may in fact not have that and I want to know more about that if I could. I don't know if this is the place or time for that but I'm obviously concerned. Peterson: If you could take that off line and do it later on in the week. Hempel: I will consult the City Attorney on that matter as well and I would recommend the property owner as well consult an attorney. What his rights may be for that driveway. 14 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kris Knox: So even though it's mine, I have to pay for an attorney to talk about my own rights on my own property? Is that what you're suggesting? Peterson: You don't have to sir. Kris Knox: But if I want to know what my rights are with whatever. Who would make the decision and how would I know about it, hopefully not like the notice about this thing in 2 weeks? How would I know if someone has made the decisions that... attorney establish what I can do with my own curb cut? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. The city does regulate curb cut placements along public streets. I again want to consult the City Attorney. My first impression is the property to the north has been utilizing this driveway access for their own use. If the other property on the corner has an adequate driveway, it's been the city's policy to limit driveway access to properties to one driveway curb cut. Although there are probably many horseshoe type curbs in the city. New policy in the last 10 years anyway has been to minimize or eliminate or not permit horseshoe type or two access points to one common property so. Peterson: So would it be appropriate if you talk to Roger and Roger gives you his respected opinion, that then Mr. Knox is it? Kris Knox: Yes. Peterson: Could contact you directly and deal with it that way? Hempel: Yes, that'd be appropriate. Conrad: And Mr. Chairman could I? It's just really worth your time, you may want to talk to an attorney and that may be a cost but if I were you. If I were you, before this gets to City Council, I'd want to know. And if you feel satisfied from the City Attorney, that's okay. If you trust what you're going to hear. Kris Knox: ...we're not talking about addition and... but I do have a shop with a garage door 100 feet from that curb cut and I would be using that for access for that so... it would be accessible now which now I have my own curb to get to my other garage which is part of my house ... thank you very much. Peterson: Okay. Again, thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 3733 HICKORY ROAD, BRENDA BLAHA. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Cindy I'm sorry, I have another math question for you. I think your math's okay. The curb is 5 feet away from the front property marker line so you add the 9 feet plus the 5 feet and then you have a 14 foot driveway. 15 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kirchoff: There's no curb there. It's edge of the roadway. That's correct. Kind: But yeah. Pseudo curb. And you'd like, staff would like to see 4 feet added so that it is 18 feet. An 18 foot driveway. What is the shortest driveway we have approved? Kirchoff: I can recall one right now, 17 feet. Kind: Okay. The length of a Suburban. Kirchoff: Is 18. Kind: No, you're kidding me. Hence your recommendation for the 19 feet. Kirchoff: Well that's the minimum parking stall size. 8 '/2 x 18 so that's where we came with the rationale for the 18. Kind: In your table under B it says may, for con, you may lose a silver maple and then further down on that page is part of the rationale for recommending Option B. It talks about further it will allow for adequate length of driveway and may save the silver maple tree. Which is it? Kirchoff: We went out to the site and looked and it's close whether or not the tree can be saved. The applicant would like to save the tree. However the tree may have to be removed. Kind: It's a neat tree. I can understand that. Okay. That's it. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. As you said you made several options and one of the options is a single stall garage. Now I understand that the ordinance asks for double garage and however we're looking at a pretty small house. I mean the garage is almost going to be as wide as the house. And then also in the request letter from the applicant, the person's really asking not in plural vehicles versus asking to store her vehicle. Singular. So I'm a little confused. I mean it seems like based on the ordinances we define reasonable use of the property to have a two stall garage. But in this particular case he has a very narrow lot. We have a house that is not much wider than the 20 foot. I think the house is what, 24 foot or somewhat. And the applicant asked for space to store her vehicle, not vehicles ... get a chance to ask the applicant whether they want, or if they could be happy with a smaller garage because it seems like it would be much more consistent. In this location. Aanenson: Well we discussed that internally and homes are going to change with time. There may be a different owner and we looked at that. Looking at size of vehicles today. Obviously the garage is almost as big as the house, if you were to look at what a standard garage would be today. And we're looking at this homeowner may be gone over time. What happens to that? Would a single garage serve the interim? Possibly, but more than likely it's going to come back and become something else but that's generally we've seen the pattern through the history of these is that someone's going to come back and ask for something different. So we were trying to find, as it is we think it's kind of undersized anyway. I mean you've got to have a reasonable to swing your car doors open and get in and out and we struggled with that still have enough back-up space. We looked at taking the front picture and putting it on the side. We went through every iteration. Sure, a reasonable may be a single car garage but, that may suit her Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 needs but again we're looking at, it may work. It comes back in 5 years, 10 years. That may happen too. But it's an option, certainly. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Ali yes Mr. Chairman. Kate. How do we regulate, in this case architect? Because this should be part of the house, and I don't want a garage that's less than what the house should be. And you know I don't like to screw around with architecture. In this case I think I need to. Aanenson: It's a prominent feature. Conrad: I need to know that it is an improvement and obviously anything added is going to be an improvement but I think I need to see more than what's here. Aanenson: There is a drawing. Conrad: Yeah. I don't know that I can approve this. Aanenson: You can make it a condition of the variance certainly that's your prerogative to add conditions to mitigate the impact to the variance and that may be something you want to add as a condition... additional architectural details. We certainly have to be reasonable whether it be, I don't know if you want a window or some detailing... And maybe it looks more like part of the home. Sure, that's a good point. Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Brenda Blalia: Yeah hi. I'm the homeowner and I guess I was hoping... Peterson: Why don't you go up to the microphone if you would please. Brenda Blalia: First of all the findings or the recommendations here for the 6 foot setback, I had requested a 5 foot and they're requesting a 6 foot. Is that from the front or, my lot goes like this. Do that is the front here, not from this part? Kirchoff: Yes. Brenda Blaha: Okay. Then if the council okays a longer driveway, that'd be great. I mean I'd be happy to get any kind of structure. And as far as a single car, my comment would be, well what if I want toys? My Harley someday maybe... That's it I guess. Peterson: What are your thoughts on the architecture as far as placing a window or getting something that gives a more homey feel to it? Brenda Blalia: There is going to be one window placed... If needed I can do two. And the structure is small. Very small two stalls. I mean 20 x 20 is pretty much... new roof. So the structure of the garage will look and match... Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. 17 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kind moved, Burton 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. Motion to close? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chair, before we get into comments I have a quick question for staff. I'm assuming since it was not one of the options that a side load garage is just there's not enough swing? Aanenson: No. Kind: Swing room. Because that would be the best. Aanenson: And you'd be adding additional impervious too. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I'm really torn still. I mean I'm inclined to grant the variance with the hope that if the applicant is really serious about trying to save that tree, that maybe they'd be willing to make the garage a little smaller. To me it's just difficult to see that garage almost as big as the house. Brenda Blaha: What about, I'm sorry. What about if we went with the 6 foot this way. If that would move it probably this way. More. If we went with the 6 foot area back here where now this is probably 8. Because that gives me a couple more feet of root space for that tree. Sacchet: So you could move it over further basically is what you're saying? Brenda Blaha: Yes... Peterson: Cindy, what are your thoughts on that? Thank you. Kirchoff: I can't speak for the health of the tree, moving it over 2 feet. If it's going to save the tree or not. Peterson: Well the odds are it will help. What percentage we don't know but what's the negative impact? What's the opportunity cost of moving it over? Kirchoff: You'll have a smaller side yard setback. If you move it over 2 feet, they'll be down to, well. Yeah, you'll be 2 feet from the property line. Can you measure the setback when you're giving a variance to the eave and there are one foot eaves on this. The garage. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, my concern is two fold though. Not just the tree itself. It's also making the garage a little smaller so that in proportion to the house, you don't have this huge structure that's the garage which would almost dwarf the house considering the house is only a couple feet wider. And I do believe that's an architectural concern of it too. if it at a later point the use would change, I would expect the use would probably change for the house as well as for the garage so I'm inclined to look at the situation the 18 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 way it is now because I would believe that if there would be a different use in the future, that the use of the whole thing would be different. Aanenson: You mean like tear the house down you mean? Sacchet: Potentially yeah. Because for me it's hard to envision when you made that calling about that the use could potentially change in the future. Aanenson: I meant the owner. Sacchet: Yeah the owner. I don't know how big that house is, and it's certainly it's nice to have enough space in the garage. On the other hand, I could envision that in a place like that if the use changes, that somebody could potentially get several of those adjacent lots and then make a change that way as easily as the use changing just the one lot. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Ladd, anything? Aanenson: I've got shutters. Conrad: Modification was set up in the list. I keep going through this list. Aanenson: Well you know what this is characteristic of? This area? This is characteristic of Carver Beach. It's not an anomaly of that but these come up. They're part of the character of that area. Conrad: But Kate when I see the list and we sent it, you do have confirmation that. Kirchoff: Actually I had people stop in and tell me so I know that they were. Conrad: I don't know. Architecturally I really would have to see it or have somebody review this. It's got to be upgraded and be like it's part of the house. Not a garage and it's probably not a one window deal. It's probably some detailing and I don't know. I hate to do that but I think we need some kind of detailing that says it's consistent with the building of the house. That's it. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman. When I first looked at this report and I saw what the applicant was asking for I kind of chuckled because I thought this was, there's no way. But then as I read the report I agree with staff entirely that not having a garage is a hardship and the applicant is I believe entitled to have a garage and the size with the variance requirements. And I think a reasonable garage is a 2 car garage and I agree with staff that that's what the applicant should have. In fact I went back and looked at the letter and she does request a 2 car garage in her letter of May 24t'. So I don't have any problem with that. The only possible thing I could see is putting some architectural requirements on there. And even then I would only support it as long as they were not very onerous. I could see adding a little detail like a window or two, and a little bit more but it is a garage and I think she's entitled to have a garage and we shouldn't be too onerous in our requirements. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Deb, anything? 19 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Kind: Sure. The more I think about this, the more I'm kind of coming down to liking the option that puts the garage in the back and has the driveway going along the property line. How close to the property line can driveways be? Is there enough room to do that? Aanenson: When you're in the side yard easement. The thing with that is I guess the people that we had spoken to we haven't indicated, because now you're really imposing a different characteristic to the neighbor of having a car going back and forth. That also increases the impervious. We went through that option too. You are over an active easement which means they'd have to get an encroachment agreement if we had to get in and get into the easement. That was our first choice but. Kind: It'd be nice if there's a little alley. Aanenson: Yeah. Sacchet: Aren't some of the neighbors having their parking area behind it? Like just a house or two down? Aanenson: Yeah, a couple houses down they share a driveway. Sacchet: They share a driveway and then parking right at the houses. Yeah. Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I think that is a vacated right-of-way that they share. Brenda Blaha: What if I add, I mean. Peterson: Let's, we need to continue our conversations here. Sorry. Conrad: Let's Make a Deal. Kind: I'm the one who keeps straying here. I agree with Matt. I think that it is a hardship. The hardship has been shown and she deserves to have a 2 car garage. I like the idea of putting some sort of condition in there to, I don't know what the language would be though. Can we see it again? Aanenson: Sure. Kind: You know see some improvements made to the exterior of the garage so it's not quite so garagey looking. With some architectural detail and maybe table it for tonight and see another drawing of what the exterior could look like that makes it more fitting with the house. I guess that's probably the way I'm going. To table it so we can see it again. Peterson: When's our next meeting Kate? Not til. Aanenson: July 18"'. Conrad: Or you can trust staff to look at the details. Kind: Okay. Burton: We can put a condition in that they have some type of rendering for council to show. 20 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Peterson: It's not going to council, it's a variance. Burton: That's right. I'm sorry. Peterson: The buck stops here. Burton: I would trust staff. Kind: Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to put it off because I think this is a good summer project. Peterson: That's where I'm at too. I'm comfortable letting staff discern appropriateness of the architectural enhancement. Aanenson: If I could ... there are shutters on the front window. I'm looking at something like that. So shutters on the windows... some sort of treatment on the top with the peak. Pitch of the garage. Over the garage door. Conrad: Take a look at windows on the garage door. I'm not sure that that's what you want but. Aanenson: Yep. Thank you. That's what, I'm looking for some direction. Kind: I'd like to see windows on the garage door itself. Peterson: All right. Motion please. This is only our second one tonight folks. Let's get this thing moving. Kind: I'm writing a condition. Peterson: Let's have somebody start the motion and we can add the condition to it. Burton: I'll start the motion. I move the Planning Commission approves the request for a 18 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, the 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback, and a 6% variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a detached garage based upon the plans received May 24, 2000 and subject to condition l and perhaps what Deb adds. Kind: Okay. I'll make a stab at it. Ladd I'm sure, have you got something? Okay. Condition number 2. That the applicant shall work with staff to add more architectural interest in keeping with the house style. Good enough? Conrad: Yeah. Peterson: Is there a second to that? We haven't seconded it yet so. Kind: Oh, I said oh. And that's all the motion. I'll second that motion. Peterson: It's been amended. Any further discussion on the motion? 21 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a IS foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, the 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback, and a 6% variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a detached garage based upon the plans received May 24, 2000 and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor to the City at the time of building permit. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to add more architectural interest in keeping with the house style. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 60 FOOT SETBACK OF A NATURAL WETLAND LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTERLY PORTION OF LOTS 14,15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, CHARLES CUDD COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address Rick Denman 8747 North Bay Douglas Beck 8217 Iris Drive Susan Wilson 7630 Prairie Flower Blvd. Bruce Miller 7630 Prairie Flower Blvd. Richard Meyer 5504 Duncaster Way, Edina Alan Thometz 6690 Mulberry Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Thank you. Questions of staff. Conrad: Sure. So there were no monuments in the ground at the time? Signifying the edge of the wetland. Aanenson: That was some of the problem. Conrad: In the long run you're saying we will put that in. Aanenson: Oh yes. That's what happens but this problem was, you had one engineer that did the plat. Another engineer that did the lot survey. The engineer that did the lot survey showed a wetland and drainage buffer. It didn't call out what kind. We have a separate staff person that reviews these as an ag/urban wetland. Sort of a natural. That was part of the problem. Part of it was their fault. Conrad: So the way the staff report was, when presented. When the plan was presented to staff, the delineation was not there from the applicant and therefore it was approved. 00A Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: But it's typically, it's typically something we check. Aanenson: Correct. We missed it. They missed it. It was partially our fault too. Conrad: And what is the, from the applicant's standpoint, what is their liability? Aanenson: Well that's I guess what we're saying is part of the, what's the owner's or what seems reasonable to mitigate what has happened and that is to increase the buffer. So you're reducing the usability portion of the lot by increasing the buffer that you can't touch. That's what we believe would be a fair resolution. Conrad: I missed that so, okay. Aanenson: Increasing the buffer. Conrad: I thought we had a 20 foot typical buffer. Al-Jaff: That's the average. Aanenson: It has to average. You can go 10. We're saying this has to 20 through this whole area. Conrad: And then you need a 40 foot setback. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: Okay. So that adds up to 60. So to mitigate the problem, to me it would say we'd go beyond. What's the mitigate? Aanenson: No, that's fine. That's fine if that's the approach you want to take. That was our recommendation. It can be as small as 10 as long as it averages 20. So we're saying 20 but I mean certainly you can, and that's what Sharmin is saying... but certainly if you feel like what we're trying to do is preserve the natural, follow the wetland and that is best done by the buffer strip so we're saying we want to increase the buffer strip. And post it. Conrad: I get it. Aanenson: So you're right Ladd. If you want to go over 20, that may be, what was our recommendation was the 20 but that's certainly 25, 30. You know again, what we're doing is we're restricting the usable portion of that area. Conrad: Okay. I understand what you're doing. So let me go back. What is the liability of the engineer or whoever who submitted the plans to us? And what do we do to that? What do we typically do when somebody gives us a plan that's not accurate? Catch it. AI-Jaff: Catch it. 23 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Conrad: And nothing else? Aanenson: I'm assuming that the developer's resolving that issue too. Conrad: There's not a big penalty to pay. Aanenson: If you've restricted the house usability of their back yard. The size of their deck. Future, any future expandability of that home. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Ah yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, you mentioned that building permits had been issued for a deck but there presently are no decks built so this isn't really after the fact situation. Al-Jaff: One of the houses is currently under construction. The building permit has been issued for it. It's encroaching the required setback and the construction continues. The same is true for a deck. It is part of the overall structure. The building permit has been issued. Kind: But there's no deck that needs to be destroyed? Aanenson: Can we stop a deck, that's her question. Kind: Yep. Al-Jaff: But we've issued the permit already. Aanenson: Right. It's just that the deck wasn't constructed. Kind: But there's no deck that needs to be destroyed? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So that's the after the fact the part aspect. That's it for now. Peterson: Okay. Anything else? Would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Rick Denman: My name is Rick Denman. I'm with Charles Cudd. Do you have any questions for me I guess? Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? No. Rick Denman: Then I really, you know I have nothing to say. I think the staff covered it pretty well in their report. Peterson: All right, thank you. Sacchet: The restrictions don't cause a hardship for you? 24 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Rick Denman: You mean the way they're recommending the buffer strip? Sacchet: Yes. Rick Denman: I think we can live with that. Sacchet: You can work it, okay. Thanks. Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Sacchet 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. Alan Thometz: My name's Alan Thometz and I live at 6690 Mulberry Circle. It's the Willow Ridge neighborhood which is the property adjacent to these three properties. My house is the closest one to where the three come together. I didn't realize when you started this that this was coming after the fact issue. I thought you said the request for a variance of setback before the construction had actually taken place. That puts it in a new light. And causes me to wonder how such a thing could occur. I thought the city was more careful than that. When we bought our house in Willow Ridge 6 years ago, it was sold by Lundgren Brothers who built the neighborhood in an environmentally sensitive area. And we agreed to the setback. The wetland setback provisions that was included in the title of our documentation. The neighbors and I agreed to it. We wanted it in there and we were attracted to the area because it was in there. I've been a member of many environmental groups for many, many years... Wilderness Society, Friends of the BWCA. This is why we came to this community and we just expected that all of the other setbacks would be respected. In the first case tonight, you've got a situation where you can't stop somebody because the ordinance won't let you stop it even though there's some movement against it. The second case tonight you've got a hardship situation. Well, encroaching on the wetland isn't a hardship situation. The ordinance already there is saying don't do it. And yet it's been done I guess after the fact. It just amazes me. I guess I would wonder, is the wetland really the jurisdiction of the DNR? Do they have a case against the city? We're not protecting that setback. The builder and the owners knew about the ordinance, or knew about the requirements when they bought the property and they built it. Again, it just sort of stuns me that this could be missed. If decks aren't built, and that helps it, I think that should be something to be considered. There are ducks and geese in that pond. I think if you start building decks over that, can you assure me that they're going to stay there. That's one of the reasons we moved there. Because we wanted the ducks and geese there. So I don't know, it's hard for me to say it's a hardship to have them forego a deck if they've already violated the setback requirements. I guess I have nothing else to say on it, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jerry Paulsen: My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening. This is more of a question of clarification since there's the wetland involved. There are two city ordinances that involve, what do we call the building pad, which you're familiar with now. One calls for a 60 x 40 in the wetland code, and the general, in the subdivision it calls for a 60 x 60. So they seem to conflict with each other. You would think the wetland would require a more strict building pad than what the normal pad would be. Basically city code says that if there's a more restrictive code within the code, that is what takes precedent. I'm not sure if the 60 x 60 is really a pertinent factor in this but it seems a little ambiguous to have the two codes in city ordinance. And 60 x 60 seems to be what would take precedent in this case 25 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 anyway. So that's just what I wanted to get clarification on. And a follow-up question, if I don't get an answer right now ... that means you have a certain number of square feet and therefore a 40 x 90 pad would serve the same purpose I assume. Or would a 20 x 120 pad serve the same purpose? And my point is, is a 60 x 60 pad a 60 x 60 or is it something other than that and I'd like a clarification on that too. Thank you. Peterson: Do you want to tackle that Kate? Aanenson: Sure. Obviously that has relevance to another issue. The 60 x 60 pad is in the tree ordinance and when we look at that, when it's a heavily wooded lot. We try to look at the 60 x 60 as a tree area. The standard is a 60 x 40 which these did meet when they went through the criteria. Just for further background on this. A letter was, is in writing given to the applicant from an officer of the city. He's no longer here, that gave them this setback so again it was an error on the staffs part and so we're trying to solve the problem. Jerry Paulsen: ...wooded area? Aanenson: That's what it's in, is in a wooded area. It's in that. Jerry Paulsen: It happens to be in the code... Aanenson: I know we disagree on this Mr. Paulsen but that not our interpretation. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, comments please. Sacchet Yeah Mr. Chair. 1 certainly am very environmentally inclined myself but on the other hand we have a situation here where something was given approval to go in a particular direction and it seems like it's somewhat balanced by the fact that they are asking for slightly larger buffer zone, or what you call the inner? Aanenson: The buffer zone. Sacchet: So we're asking for somewhat larger buffer zone to balance out the fact that the setback is shorter, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And I would think that balances some of your concerns about the environmental impact. It's not an ideal situation. I don't believe we can disallow something that's already been granted. I believe that's a pretty good balance as far as all this is in front of us. That's my comment. Peterson: Good. Appreciate that. Other comments? 26 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Uli's comment. And then I also would note that, I was looking at the summary analysis in the staff report about the requirements for the ordinance for setbacks and what we actually have and if you take the home setback, even if you include the buffer strip. If you take the minimum buffer strip that could be required, Lots 15 and 16 would still qualify and if you take the deck setback and take the minimum buffer strip, we're talking a minimum of I foot on Lot 15 that it misses by and 7 feet on Lot 16. And so I think it's really at the minimus issue that we're dealing with. I think that instead of trying to reinvent the wheel here, that this variance makes sense and I agree with the staff report and I agree with the staffs proposal. Peterson: Any additional comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I'm kind of puzzled by this because of other variance requests that we've seen before this commission encroaching into wetlands and staff's position to be very strict about them, and that not having a deck has never been considered a hardship before. And now in this staff report it's considered a hardship because the majority of the neighbors have it. This is the first time that I've seen that rationale. Aanenson: Let me clarify the rationale. The survey showed a deck. Okay. And that was part of the building permit and that's why we made that interpretation. The survey showed the deck and the deck. The other ones that have come in, they've exceeded what was shown on the survey because we, as a general rule, measure the deck from the wetland. So they're given approval. Now if they come in with something bigger, that's the difference so we're saying when we originally approved this, we approved it with the deck on there so I want to make sure that's clear. Did you follow what I'm saying? Kind: Yep. Aanenson: Because we have this problem consistently and we have pointed it out to a developer in this community that does do a lot of wetland developments, that they are putting minimal decks on there. As soon as the homeowner gets in, they recognize that a 7 foot deck is not big enough and we've apprised this developer of that situation. That they need to do a reasonable deck size. So when these came in they were checked. Unfortunately, they were given a bad setback information so that's not that went so I wanted to make sure that's clear. But you're right, the deck's not up yet. Peterson: Okay. Anything further Ladd? Conrad: The only way I can, I have to be sure that the intent of the buffer strip and the setback is being met. Regardless of the footage here. And right now I don't see that we've imposed anything. It's typically we're trying to average 20 feet. Roughly. That's what we're trying to average and that's what we're imposing here. So you know, I guess I'm looking for accountability someplace. And I don't see a penalty. Not that I need a penalty. The point is to preserve what the wetlands, integrity of the wetland. Aanenson: Let me give you the staff's. I know what you're saying exactly. I think you can put 30 foot on there. I think that would be an adequate buffer but then we went back and said, now we're penalizing the homeowner. It's not hurting the applicant because they're out of the deal. So what we're doing is saying now, gee you bought the house that someone made an error on and so we struggled with that same issue. Where do you find, our goal is to protect the wetland. That's our goal. If 20's a minimum, yeah. And maybe it can be larger but again we tried to weigh it against no fault of the homeowner and that's where we were trying to strike that balance. 27 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Conrad: So what else could be imposed to protect? Is there anything? Aanenson: You can put a condition on the variance. I guess you might want to ask that to the applicant. If they can think of something else to. Conrad: Well now here's a case where I think, I don't want the applicant to tell us. I want us to say. Aanenson: You can have him do some wetland credit somewhere. You can have him do some additional trees. Thinking off the top of my head on this one. Some suggestions. Conrad: Okay, now you're telling me Kate. I kind of like what you're. Aanenson: That's certainly an option. They can add to a wetland bank. Certainly. Conrad: And that's not penalizing the homeowner. Aanenson: No. And I think that may be reasonable. I guess if that's the direction we're going, I don't know how to put a dollar value to that but that may be something we want to work out with the city attorney or something. Peterson: Public hearing's over, sorry. Aanenson: We may want to look at with the city attorney try to figure out some sort of value or something on how we can do replacement, but I guess that's what we tried not to penalize the homeowners too much and get the appropriate balance but we can look into that. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, if I can add one aspect. Ultimately what protects a wetland is not our ordinances. It's the people that end up living there and I appreciate the sensitivity that you put into trying not to burden the homeowner because if we put restrictions in there that's going to hurt the homeowner, he's going to not create very well towards the wetland. I think for me, one thing that I want to preserve is, I want to try to encourage the good will of the homeowners to the wetland. If he sees the wetland as this bad thing that prevents him from being able to have a deck, I don't think that gives the good attitude that fosters them to want to preserve and take care of it. But I like the idea of there are other things that he could put in there where the environment gets improved a little bit. Like additional trees or something like that to balance the scale. I like that idea a lot. Conrad: It's something there. I'm not sure what totally it is but, going back in time I think this area, when this, all this came in and I think all the neighbors were very concerned with those this is treated. And because there was a mistake, this is hard for me to say okay. And we all make mistakes but I think there has to be, have we taken care of this wetland and staff is probably saying yeah. And the homeowners are probably going to take care of it because we're sensitive to that but I guess I still need to, there's got to be a, there's some other compensation that we've got to work here, at least from my standpoint. Burton: Mr. Chair? One concern I've had is any type of penalty or conditions put on Cudd may pass right through to the homeowners anyway. Gets in their agreement. We may end up going round about way of penalizing the homeowners anyway. 28 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Peterson: It'd be reasonable to assume that. Again, even though we want somebody to understand the impact of their decision but is it the developer's decision? It wasn't. It was somebody from the city so we're looking at the wrong person to penalize. Aanenson: Well, I think there were some errors made on both parts so, just to be clear. We're taking some of the blame. Somebody made an inappropriate read and they made an error too. Peterson: Well, I think we've discussed it enough. At least for entertaining a motion. Ladd, are you comfortable moving ahead with discussion at least? Conrad: Yeah, go ahead Mr. Chair. I'm not sure. Peterson: I'll entertain a motion please. Sacchet: I'll make a motion. I move that we approve Variance #00-8 VAR to allow structures to encroach into the required setback of a natural wetland located on Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy as shown in the plans dated Received June 1, 2000 with the following conditions 1 through 3. I personally don't think there's a need to change the conditions. Peterson: Okay, is there a second to that motion? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad: Sure. Kate, so as I look at the plan submitted from Cudd, your report says 20 foot buffer, 40 foot setback from the outside edge. Sacchet: So it includes the buffer. Conrad: Okay. It includes the buffer.' Sacchet: That's the crux. Setback includes the buffer. That's where we heard ideally it should, right? Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Variance #00-8 VAR to allow structures to encroach into the required setback of a natural wetland located on Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy as shown in the plans dated Received June 1, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall maintain a 20 foot buffer strip along the edge of the natural wetland. 2. The applicant shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the outside edge of the drainage and utility easement surrounding the delineated edge of the natural wetland. The 20 foot wide buffer strip shall be included within the 40 foot wetland setback. The 20 foot buffer strip shall be identified by permanent monumentation. The monuments will be supplied by the city. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of these monuments. The monuments shall be placed as shown on the attachment entitled "MONUMENT LOCATIONS". 29 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 All voted in favor, except Conrad and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-906 REGARDING NON -CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD. Public Present: Name Address Vicki Weber Representing Mr. Happe Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: And with that, any questions of staff? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm assuming that the reason that the ordinance stated that these three lots are to be considered as one was for purpose 2(b), which is to encourage the elimination of non- conforming uses, lots and structures. Or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Is that the reason why that was in there in the first place? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Aanenson: And that still applies. Kind: It still applies to Lot F that were subdivided when? Al-Jaff: We haven't permitted any subdivisions. Kind: Since 1987. Al-Jaff: No. Kind: So why, so this wouldn't apply to anything? There's no show 3 adjacent lots. Aanenson: We found some that it does apply to. That's why we're trying to fix the problem. This was put in place because we had a situation where, especially for the Halla subdivision, we allowed them to go less than 2 '/z acres because we said in time, if sewer's extended, they may want to further subdivide. So we felt like all those lots that were in the 1987 had been built on. Well we found in this very southern area of the city there are existing lots that are under common ownership that the only hope they have is the 1 per 10. That's the only thing they don't meet and that was a requirement based on the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement for those sprawling large lot developments. So there are lots of record that have that in place. The problem is if it's one owner or family or something they can't subdivide them. Or sell them as individual lots. And that was never the intent. When Paul Krauss, the former planning director was here, it was his belief that those lots had probably all been built on. But we found some that hadn't been. Kind: And they're after 1987? 30 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Aanenson: They were platted in 1987 but they're all under one ownership. That's the penalty. If you have them all in one person's name, even though there's three separate PID's, because they're in one person's name, that's the penalty. And we believe that was onerous and that's why we're saying we should put that back in because we found some that that circumstance happens. Kind: I think I get it. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. Chair. I have a question. The condition number 10. Couldn't that be simplified a little bit? It says applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive plan contain a development density of 1 unit per 2 1/2acres were accepted until January 151''. Aanenson: That's the magic date of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. That's the critical one we needed in that we didn't have in. Sacchet: If all required information was submitted to the planning department. We don't need to list them because they were required then. It's not like somebody come and still apply for that. AI -Jaffa The only reason we left them in there was to give it something to 'go back to. This way we can pull out the application... and say okay. Did they meet this and did they meet that? Sacchet: So there's a purpose to actually... okay. That was my question. Thanks for answering it. Peterson: Okay, anything else? A motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton 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. Vicki Weber: Hi. I'm Vicki Weber and I'm with Coldwell-Banker Burnet and I am representing Mr. and Mrs. Happe here tonight. They have moved to... To put the human part of this topic, can I put... This property they had subdivided back in '84. They lived down the street... purchased this property and decided that for future investment they would divide the property. They divided the 9.34 acres into 3 separate lots and that's what these are right here and... What they want to do is a nest egg for the future. They had then platted. They had it recorded. Mr. Happe's going into a nursing home and I think you probably got the letter that she wrote a very emotional letter and we're not here to be emotional but, he is 94 and she's 88. And now we put the house on the market ... for $455,000. It was appraised in January for 440. Something like that. It's about $130-$140,000 each parcel. They're being taxed separately on separate PID's. They have been I think since '92. So what's happening here is people are interested... they want part of it. They don't want the whole 10 acres. The developers that want the 10 acres want to know if they can develop it and they can't develop it. I've been getting calls every day and I said, I have to go to the Planning Commission. I have to give the whole story explaining yes, it was divided but now it may not be divided so we're got to go back to the city and talk to them about it. Well, will you call me back. So what the situation is with this, if it can't be divided, it's really tough luck for Mr. and Mrs. Happe. In 10-15 years when we get water and sewer on that street, you can divide it into townhomes probably and it would sell for a great deal of money. So what's happened here is they're kind of out of 31 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 luck because they're running out of time. And you know you had mentioned Mr. Chair, you had said somehow be creative and add an ordinance. It's kind of what's happened for these people. They did it with good faith they got it divided and now they may not be able to divide it ... and someone's going to come in and catch them at a disadvantage and they're going to buy it from them at less money. Turn around and it will be okay again or they'll sit on it for 10 years and make a lot of money. They just want you to give them what they expected to get out of this property. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And again I just want to clarify the glitch is the fact that it's all under Mr. Happe's name. They are taxed three separate lots and that's how we caught it and the ordinance says if it's under one, now you have to meet the new rules and that wasn't our intent. And obviously that got left out. The penalty, if he would have put it in the name of some other heirs or something we wouldn't be here asking for the amendment but it's in his name. Peterson: So noted. Anyone else in the public hearing? Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any thoughts? Kind: Quick question for staff. This site is guided for? _ Aanenson: Low density. Kind: Thank you. Not townhomes. Aanenson: Those are on the bluff. They probably couldn't be further subdivided either. We did check that with the home location and make sure... Kind: Okay with that I'll make my comments Mr. Chair. I don't think the landowner should be penalized because he maintained ownership of the three, or they maintained ownership of the three parcels. If they had just gifted them to their children this wouldn't be, we wouldn't be here today. They shouldn't be penalized for that. I support staff's recommendation. Ah, but I do have a question about it. Uli, Kate? Would you object to changing the language to number 10 to be more past tense? It bugs me that we're passing something that says that application will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987. Aanenson: That were accepted? Kind: Yeah. So I'll propose doing it more past tense for a motion. Sacchet: It really doesn't do us any good any more... is exact enough. Peterson: Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the staff, or the Planning Commission recommends approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20-906, Alternate Lot Size requirements in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts by adding the language that appears below in points 8, 9 and 10. And I would like to 32 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 change the language on number 10 to be applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive plan to contain a development density of one unit per 2 '/2 acres were accepted on January 15, 1987, with the following. Provided the following information was submitted to the planning department. Peterson: Any second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Any further discussion? Sacchet: I still have an editing question. That were accepted until January 15th or by January 15t" Kind: Oh before. On or before. Sacchet: On or before? Okay. Kind: Good point. I suppose we have to be picky about this. Sacchet: Might as well be specific. Peterson: Okay, so moved and seconded. It's been discussed. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-906. Alternate lot size requirements in A-2 and RR, Residential Zoning Districts by adding the language that appears in bold: (8) Existing parcels of record established prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance shall be deemed buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by item 10 of this section. (9) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in Section 20-575 and 20- 595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2) parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. (10) Applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive plan to contain a development density of one unit per 2 '/2 acres were accepted on or before January 15, 1987, provided the following information was submitted to the Planning Department: a. Completion of the Application for Subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. C. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further, these applications must also submit addition data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plan approval by July 1, 1987 unless the City Council deems to table final action on the application after July 1, 1987. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 33 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Peterson: Does this go onto the Council or is this it? Aanenson: Yes. It's a code amendment. Peterson: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE ARTICLE XXV, SECTION 20-1176, LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL TO CHANGE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. This term landscape density transfer. Is that what we're expressing in the last paragraph there? It talks about landscape density transfer in the middle paragraph and it says that it needs to be defined. Did we define that? Aanenson: Oh! I guess that was one that we felt if you wanted to add some further language on that, then we would put something in there. So I thank you for pointing that out. That was a question you had. We didn't have a good response. I don't know, did you have some language? Kind: It was I think Alison that brought up the density transfer concept for landscaping and I noticed that you left it off of your recommendations because it might be difficult to quantify. Aanenson: Right. Right. That was Jill's recommendation. Unless you felt strongly about it, she felt that that might be hard to administer and quantify, correct. Kind: I tend to agree. Burton: It does seem tough. Kind: I thought it was kind of a clever idea but. Aanenson: We're managing a lot of individual lots. Kind: Well it sort of defeats the purpose that we need a buffer for that parcel. If it's adequate buffer for that parcel, with the number of trees, then maybe we should look at our buffer ordinance. Aanenson: Right. 1 guess that was our position. Kind: Right. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: One Mr. Chair. Under the proposed berm, 3 feet and higher. Do you have the leverage? The way it's worded, can you say, can staff say I don't want the berm? I guess I'm looking for total, I don't 34 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 want somebody saying I put the berm in, therefore I don't have to do that. I want you to have the leverage to say the berm counts. The berm doesn't count or cases where the berm doesn't count. Aanenson: Right. That's a good question. Lots of times it's driven by other factors such as storm water ponds. For example on that Marsh Glen plat that we looked at that's adjacent to 101. There was a pond there. We wanted more of a berm because when 101 gets widened, we think that's a better response to creating a buffer as opposed to the trees, which may not provide a screen and buffer with the amount of traffic on that. The developer in that situation, because of the pond, felt like that would be pretty onerous. We went back and forth on that one. We even talked about a fence so I think you bring up a good point. You might want to put a little bit of language that would give discretion to the staff to say the circumstance. Again, collector roads is one I can think of that certainly we want a little bit more leeway to say what's an appropriate buffer. Whether it's fencing or a berm. That's a good point. If you want to say based on staff's recommendation. Conrad: Not ours. Aanenson: Again, then that would be my situation, or if it's a density issue such as the apartment building. That would be another situation we felt like a berm actually did a little bit better job. When there's different land uses for fencing. That's a good point. Peterson: Other comments? Questions? Motion for a public hearing please? Burton moved, Conrad 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. Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thoughts on this one fellow commissioners. Kind: I think staff did a good job of coming up with language after our work session and I definitely want to have some language in that berm section that says that staff needs to approve the use of a berm and maybe just put, proceed that whole bold face by saying if approved by staff, berms 3 feet and higher in the buffer yard may be substituted for up to'/2 of the required understory trees and shrubs, depending on length of the berm. Burton: Since it's an ordinance, would it be more appropriate to say if approved by the city? Aanenson: Or recommended by staff. Yeah, if approved by the city. Kind: If approved by the City? Aanenson: Yeah. Tile other circumstance I was thinking, if you're looking at sight line issues. That's a good comment. Peterson: Other comments? Entertain a motion please. Kind: Mr. Chair. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Buffer Yard Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1176, Buffer Yard Requirements by adding the language that appears in bold 35 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 and deleting the language noted by strike through with a change to Section 20-1176(f)(3). At the beginning of the bold face, change the beginning of that sentence to read, If approved by the City, berms 3 feet and higher in the buffer yard may be substituted for up to one-half of the required understory trees and shrubs, etc. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Buffer Yard Ordinance Amendments to Section 20-1176. Buffer Yard Requirements by adding the language that appears in bold and deleting the language noted by a strike -through: Section 20-1176 (f) (2) (c) Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses or adjacent to a collector or arterial right-of-way. Y7►C plant unit multiplieF is a faeter bywhieh the basie number- of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is deter -mined in aeeer-danee with the seleetedwidth of the ya The project developer shall be responsible for providing 75 percent of the required plantings. If abutting property owner(s) desire to bring the buffering to 100 percent of the required buffer yard plantings, then the adjacent property owner(s) may install the remaining 25 percent of the required plantings on their own property. When the parcel abuts public property, such as roads or parks, the developer shall be responsible for 100% of the required plantings. Section 20-1176 (f) (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands which provide physical separation between developments or between a development and a collector and arterial road may satisfy the buffering function of the required buffer yard. The plant unit multiplier for- the required plantings shall be redueed pr-opet4ionally to the inerease in the buffer yar-d width ineeFperafien said features. If approved by the City, proposed berms 3 feet and higher in the buffer yard may be substituted for up to one-half ('/Z) of the required understory trees and shrubs, depending on the length of the berm. For instance, if a berm runs the entire length of the buffer yard, the understory and shrub plantings may be reduced by one-half. Any boulevard trees or reforestation plantings required in the buffer yard can be counted towards required overstory buffer yard plantings if there is insufficient room for both types of plantings. Section 20-1176 (f) (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees or conifers in the city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as overstory trees shall have a minimum height of 8 feet when planted Arborvitae shall not be used as an overstory tree. Section 20-1176 (f) (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as understory trees shall have a minimum height of 6 feet when planted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 NEW BUSINESS: Peterson: Kate, any new business? Aanenson: Sure. Tell you what's coming up on July 18th Planning Commission. We did have some things that, some other subdivisions that were submitted that we didn't accept based on flaws but we do have the park maintenance building which will be in for site plan approval which is removing the existing park maintenance building with the upgrade of Highway 5 so we'll see the site plan for the new one. They're also looking at putting an ambulance service in there. Waconia will be located in that. Two cell towers. Peterson: Two? Aanenson: Yes. An appeal to a requirement that we put for a buffer strip on a variance for a home on a Lakeshore lot. That we made a recommendation, or actually the City Council did for a buffer treatment. They don't want to put it in anymore. A variance for a deck. And then the Igel subdivision would be on the 18`' since we don't have the 41h meeting. Oh excuse me, then we'll also be seeing one for, we have a site plan review for Mark Undestad which is... Hempel: Chan Lakes. Aanenson: Thank you. Chan Lakes number 8. Al -Jaffa Chan Lakes Business Park number 7. Aanenson: 7. 100,000 square foot building. So we continue to do a lot of industrial, so we'll have a big meeting. I'm anticipating also a full agenda on the first one in August. Just in case anyone wants to know, Matt's already told me he's going to be gone on the 18th so... Peterson: Any other new business? Aanenson: Just, have you been out to the field and looking at what's going on out there? The apartments have begun construction. They had a ground breaking ceremony yesterday. Burton: How much? I'm sorry. Aanenson: The apartments on Lake Susan. We did send out notice to the neighbors. Because we did walk that site. As a general rule we walk before we give them, we walk the property before we give them notice to proceed. To make sure the erosion control, tree and all that is installed and in place, which it was. They were given an order to proceed so just so you know too, the... construction of the trail is obstructed as part of the construction. Hempel: Semi -closed. Aanenson: Semi -closed. Just for safety issues too. I mean they're out there... Highway 5. That will be going to City Council here shortly as far as the frontage road. That's still set for bid opening next week. Hempel: June 30"'. 37 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Aanenson: June 30", so that's still on track. And then that's about it. Ongoing issues. OLD BUSINESS. Peterson: Old business? Are we due to elect a chair and vice chair one of these weeks? Conrad: I don't think so. It's a every 2 year cycle as I recall. Aanenson: Would you like me to put that on the next agenda? Peterson: We probably should do something with it, yeah. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Burton moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: I don't. If you have any. I think I shared the one planning... Kind: In your litany there did you mention anything about Igel status? Aanenson: Yes. They'll be on for the 18"'. Kind: Okay. That's what I thought it was. Peterson: Your listening skills tonight are a little bit waning. Kind: They are. I'm getting distracted. Sacchet: I have a semi ongoing item. I assume this qualifies as an ongoing item. You put my old phone numbers in the address. Peterson: That's why it's old business. Sacchet: It's old business, there we go. Aanenson: I think it probably got taken off an old directory. I'll fix that. Thank you for informing us of that. Sacchet: Yeah, I saw that. Point that out. Peterson: Ongoing items. Private street, flag lots. Aanenson: Just as a point of order Mr. Chairman, as a general rule when we get to open discussion, we usually stop taping. If you want to continue to tape, there's people here to listen. It's up to you. Generally, anybody's welcome to the discussion but... is up to you. Peterson: Fellow commissioners, any thoughts on this? 38 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2000 Sacchet: I'd like it without taping this. Peterson: Meeting adjourned. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39