1e. Subdivide Vinewood Addition • PC DATE: 1/6/93 /
I C I T Y O L i , _—
� c H A � � � N CC DATE: 1/25/93 1.
CASE #: 92 -13 SUB
By: Aanenson:k
1
1 STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Request to subdivide an existing metes and bounds parcel, .86 acres in size, into
I two lots of .48 acres and .41 acres, Vinewood Addition
1- Action by City ;+fd~RAI
Z LOCATION: Nez Perce En dotsed_,...t/ 7) W it
V APPLICANT: Stuart Hoarn ; Aeje ! - T�
I 6745 Amberst Lane Road Otte Su om to Comm
iOn
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Dap Quhr- tied to Council
1 4 4- -,.-
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
ACREAGE: 2.107 acres
I
DENSITY: 2 units per 1 acre
1 ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family residence
S - RSF; Vineland Forest Subdivision
I Q E - RSF; single family residence
W - RSF; single family residence
! WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
I W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The lot is vacant. The site is relatively flat. There is a large stand of trees
in the southeast corner.
I 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
1 ,
1
1
Vinewood Addition
January 6, 1993
Page 2
1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
1 The applicant is requesting a subdivision of a recently created lot. This lot was split with the
Edwards Vogel Subdivision, 915 Pleasant View Road, last spring. The applicant is requesting
to split this lot which is .86 acres in size into two lots. The lot split would create two lots, Lot
1 would be .48 acres and Lot 2 would be .41 acres.
This property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The minimum lot size in the RSF zone
1 is 15,000 square feet. Both lots exceed this requirement. The requested subdivision is consistent
with a conceptual layout that was revised several years ago in conjunction with the Vineland
Forest plat.
The lots being created do not have frontage on a P ublic street. The Subdivision Ordinance allows
up to 4 homes to be served by a private drive. When the Vineland Forest Subdivision was
' created in 1989, staff proposed a street layout for all of the parcels in this area. The developers
of Vineland Forest platted two outlots. Outlot A was created to give access to the existing home
on Lot 1, Block 2 of Vineland Forest. Outlot A is not being used and a portion of it has been
included into the proposed lots. Outlot B was dedicated to the city for access and utility
purposes. The city would like to retain ownership of this property for utility purposes. With the
Edwards Vogel Subdivision the city recorded an access agreement for Outlot B. Based upon
our review, staff is recommending that the plat be approved without variances and subject to
appropriate conditions.
1 BACKGROUND
' This lot is a portion of Vineland Subdivision platted in 1887. Vineland Subdivision had 11 lots
and this lot is part of the original Lot 3. Most of the original Vineland Subdivision has been
replatted, including most recently Vineland Forest and Troendle Subdivisions. During the
Vineland Forest plat, the potential division of this site was reviewed. Outlot B was specifically
created to provide access consistent with that which is requested in the current proposal.
1 STREETS /ACCESS
The site is currently accessed via a gravel drive along the easterly lot line from Pleasant View
1 Road. The proposed access for Lots 1 and 2 is from Nez Perce Drive via two separate
driveways. It is recommended that the applicant combine driveways in an effort to reduce access
points along the curve of Nez Perce Drive. A single access servicing these two lots is strongly
1 recommended. A driveway or cross - access easement should be prepared to regulate access and
maintenance responsibilities.
1 This parcel is proposing to access onto Nez Perce Drive which is proposed to be extended
westerly to Pleasant View Road in the near future. Since the applicant has not paid their fair
1
1
1
Vinewood Addition 1
January 6, 1993
Page 3 1
share for access to a public street, it is recommended that these lots contribute towards the
extension of Nez Perce Drive, similarly to the Troendle Addition which lies immediately adjacent
to the west. The developer of Troendle Addition contributed $10,000 for the 11 lots in Troendle
Addition. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant contribute his fair share of
approximately $900 per lot to the City for the extension of Nez Perce Drive.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
There is a significant amount of vegetation on the southeastern edge of the property. A
driveway onto Nez Perce would result in the elimination of some trees. Not all of these trees
are of high value. Staff would recommend that a home placement plan be provided, as well as
a landscaping/tree preservation plan, to ensure minimal tree loss.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
1
A proposed grading plan was submitted along with the preliminary plat. The proposed grades
are consistent with the overall neighborhood drainage pattern. No storm sewer improvements are
proposed for this development due to the relatively small size of the project. Location of the
driveway access may or may not require modification to the existing catch basin on Nez Perce
Drive. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying the catch basin
if applicable. All work shall be inspected by the City.
Erosion control measures are not proposed at this time since no grading will transpire until
building permits are issued. Staff has typically assigned erosion control measures at the time of
building permit issuance. Typically with all subdivisions a development contract is prepared and
enforced; however, since this is basically a simple lot division and there are not public
improvements being installed, staff feels it not necessary to prepare a development contract.
UTILITIES 1
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary sewer
and water service will need to be extended from the sewer and water lines which run adjacent
to the west property line. Previous assessment records indicate this parcel was previously
subdivided and assessed one connection charge payable at building permit issuance. The
proposed subdivision creates and additional lot; therefore, an additional connection charge should
be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The connection charge payable in 1993 is
$7,907.44. This should be collected for each lot as the building permit is issued. The City will
be responsible for extending the individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line.
The developer/builder will be responsible for extending into the house.
1
1
1
1
1 Vinewood Addition
January 6, 1993
i Page 4
EASEMENTS/RIGHT -OF -WAY
1 The previous plat of this site (Edwards Vogel Addition) dedicated an additional 7 feet of right -of-
way along Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this plat also dedicate an additional 17
I feet of road right -of -way along Pleasant View Road over Outlot A at this time. Staff is
questioning the intent of Outlot A. It is recommended that Outlot A be combined with one of
the adjacent parcels to avoid the possibility of going tax forfeit.
1 COMPLIANCE TABLE
1 RSF District Lot 1 Lot 2
Minimum Lot 15, 000 sq ft 20,900 sq ft 18,050 sq ft
1 Lot Frontage 90 feet 104 feet 100' flag
Min Depth 125 feet 333 feet 226 feet
1 Front Setback 30 feet flag lot 64 feet 64 feet
Rear Setback 30 feet flag lot 30 feet 30 feet
1 Side Setback 20 feet flag lot 17 feet * 17 feet *
I * The side yard setback requirement for a flag lot is 20 feet. Both lots being created do not meet
this standard. Staff is recommending that the house pad be reduced to meet the setback
standards. A house 60 feet wide would still fit on the lot.
I PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
I On January 6, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Vinewood Subdivision.
The main issues of concern were that Outlot A be vacated and included in this subdivision, the
driveways be combined, and the trees be preserved. All of these concerns have been reflected
1 in the conditions of approval.
I RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
1 "The City Council approves Vinewood Subdivision #92 -13 with the following conditions:
1 1. The proposed house location meet the flag lot setback requirements.
1
1
1
Vinewood Addition
January 6, 1993
Page 5
2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time I
P P P
of the building permit application for staff review and approval. '
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the city by final plat additional of road right -of -way on
Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one -half the total right -of -way of 40 feet
contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards/Vogel Addition.
1
4. The remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent 1
parcels, or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval.
5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross- access I
or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance
responsibilities for the two parcels.
6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the 1
property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition.
At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the
amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes
I
or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive.
8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive
to Pleasant View Road.
9. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road.
10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be
submitted for approval by city staff with the intention being that the trees along the
I
west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible.
ATTACHMENTS
1
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated December 15, 1992.
2. Hearing notice.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 6, 1993.
4. Preliminary plat dated November 23, 1992.
I
1
1
1
1 CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
X 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner
FROM: // Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician A
DATE: December 15, 1992
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Vinewood Addition
File No. 93 -1 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Ron Krueger & Associates dated
September 25, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
1 UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary
1 sewer and water service will need to be extended from the sewer and water lines which run
adjacent to the west property line. Previous assessment records indicate this parcel was
previously subdivided and assessed one connection charge payable at building permit
' issuance. The proposed subdivision creates and additional lot; therefore, an additional
connection charge should be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The
connection charge payable in 1993 is $7,907.44. This should be collected for each lot as the
' building permit is issued. The City will be responsible for extending the individual sanitary
sewer and water services to the property line. The developer /builder will be responsible
1 for extending into the house.
GRADING AND DRAINAQE
1 A proposed grading plan was submitted along with the preliminary plat. The proposed
grades are consistent with the overall neighborhood drainage pattern. No storm sewer
' improvements are proposed for this development due to the relatively small size of the
project. Location of the driveway access may or may not require modification to the existing
catch basin on Nez Perce Drive. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated
with modifying the catch basin if applicable. All work shall be inspected by the City.
1
fir
t ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Kate Aanenson 1
December 15, 1992
Page 2
i
Erosion control measures are not proposed at this time since no grading will transpire until
building permits are issued. Staff has typically assigned erosion control measures at the time 1
of building permit issuance. Typically with all subdivisions a development contract is
prepared and enforced; however, since this is basically a simple lot division and there are I
not public improvements being installed, staff feels it not necessary to prepare a
development contract.
ACCESS 1
The site is currently accessed via a gravel drive along the easterly lot line from Pleasant I
View Road. The proposed access for Lots 1 and 2 is from Nez Perce Drive via two separate
driveways. It is recommended that the applicant combine driveways in an effort to reduce
access points along the curve of Nez Perce Drive. A single access servicing these two lots
I
is strongly recommended. A driveway or cross- access easement should be prepared to
regulate access and maintenance responsibilities.
This parcel is proposing to access onto Nez Perce Drive which is proposed to be extended
westerly to Pleasant View Road in the near future. Since the applicant has not paid their
fair share for access to a public street, it is recommended that these lots contribute towards
the extension of Nez Perce Drive similarly to the Troendle Addition which lies immediately
adjacent to the west. The developer of Troendle Addition contributed $10,000 for the 11
lots in Troendle Addition. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant contribute his
111
fair share of approximately $900 per lot to the City for the extension of Nez Perce Drive.
The previous plat of this site dedicated an additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant
1
View Road. It is recommended that this plat also dedicate an additional 7 feet of road
right -of -way along Pleasant View Road over Outlot A at this time. Staff is questioning what
is the intent of Outlot A. Will it be sold to the adjacent property owner (Cunningham) or
I
will it be left as an alternative access to serve Lots 1 and 2? It is recommended that Outlot
A be combined with one of the adjacent parcels to avoid the possibility of going tax forfeit.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL '
1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road I
right -of -way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one -half the total
right -of -way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, I
Edwards /Vogel Addition.
2. Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels.
1
1
1
' Kate Aanenson
December 15, 1992
' Page 3
3. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross-
' access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance
responsibilities for the two parcels.
1 4. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the
property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood
Addition. At the time of building permit issues for Lots 1 or 2, a connection charge
' in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any
manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive.
' 6. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 to the City for future extension of Nez Perce
Drive to Pleasant View Road.
' ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
1
1
1 ,
1
1
1
1
1
R
W I , LAKE , RIX v A
• K� _ ,� �
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �¢' l ,' '
11 ; 111 S 4 ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �� „ W.,
Wednesday, January 6, 1993 - 7:30 ��! ...._--.7._
P.M. 41•4 / 1i � � / ,�.�
ti p.
, � // ; ��
City Hall Council Chambers .� P w40��
690 Coulter Drive flu , [ E l ILTP/i (
Project: Vinewood N MEETING
Ilk
lifl; lFFho vran.'"N r
Developer: Stuart Hoarn ruLPt �l��1911,4.: ` '' s . .
Location: South of Pleasant View Road rfia�■ a= IWA.I•m" s�`�
and North of Nez Perce Drive l ∎I tl�st �- -41-4 k
- �
.' ,•�; , r 4 ' iL
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in 1
your area. The developer, Stuart Hoarn is proposing to replat 1 lot into 2 lots on property
zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road, just north of
Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition. 1
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 1
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 1
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. i
Questions or 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
I
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937 -1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. 1
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 24,
1992.
dia
i i; 1
' I. V
1
1
Jonathan & Linda McGrath Timothy & Theresa Klouda Erick & Jana Johnson
1 381 Fox Path 6401 Fox Path 6411 Fox Path
!Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Dennis & Ann Sullivan Charles & Beverly Enderson Steven & Kimberly Lattu
6421 Fox Path , 6431 Fox Path 840 Fox Court
'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Steven & Brenda Hachtman Jimmy & Mary Roane Frederick Bruno &
860 Fox Court 6571 Fox Path Mari Ann Skalicky
'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6560 Fox Path
Chanhassen, MN 55317
rank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor Gordon & Patricia Whiteman William P. Cunningham
/o Victory Envelope 825 Pleasant View Road 865 Pleasant View Road
1000 Park Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Chanhassen, MN 55317
Henry, Jr. and Sharon Graef Arthur & R. Owens Daniel J. Rogers
'855 Pleasant View Road 6535 Peaceful Lane Sharon K. Peterson Rogers
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1200 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Countryside Management David & Linda Lundahl Donald Shearer
•1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 6501 Nez Perce Drive 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W.
t.,ong Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Long Lake, MN 55391
L . Thomas & Sharon Morga Todd Cocallas James & Kari Ledin
Apt. 207 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 840 Vineland Court
I 603 Lake Street Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Excelsior, MN 55331
"' Richard & Nancy Hajt Benjamin & Marjorie Lammers David & Paula Donna
820 Vineland Court 861 Vineland Court 881 Vineland Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Doug & D. Olsen Daniel & Janet Syverson Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor
I 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 921 Vineland Court 7951 Powers Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor Dennis & Gai Mathisen
Gulf Shore Blvd. N. 850 Pleasant View Road
Naples, FL 33940 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 13
Krauss: I believe the 25th.
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in everyone.
Craig Mertz: Paul, is that February 25th?
Krauss: I'm sorry, January 25th. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed. III
sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you. We
had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon. Their attorneys called us to '
pull from them from the agenda. It's item number 4.
Batzli: So that one's gone, okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW II
ROAD. JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEWOOD ADDITION, STUART HOARN.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Julius C. Smith 7600 France Avenue So, Mpls 55435
Dan Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive
David Lundahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive
W. Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road '
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith. I'm here representing the
landowner to the immediate west of that property.
Emmings: Who is that?
Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr. Now I can put it in the negative or the"
positive. I'll take it in the positive. We don't object to this,
provided that it doesn't negatively impact the lots to the west, which my
client owns. He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hop
that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who
is being benefitted of course, because he's getting two lots out of one,
that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be
replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers"
And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be
done or we should establish or the City should establish'a 20 foot
conservation easement certainly along our side. We've spent a
considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there II
of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation
district where they can't remove the trees. They've done it with my
client on several parcels. The other question, the other thing we're
concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road.II
Under the initial platting, Lot 2, the original Lot 2 was required to go
to Nez Perce Road, and we don't have any.problem if both lots go to Nez II
Perce Road but we don't want, we would object to any authorization
allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outlot A. Since
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 14
that was prohibited before, we would like to see that prohibition remain.
And make that a condition of approval. So essentially we don't have a
problem with it provided they don't tear all the trees out next to our
lots. Our lots to the west and we would hope the City would apply the
' same requirements that they applied to everybody else with regard to
trees and replacement thereof. Or if it's not possible, because you're
going to put two houses in there, that there at least be a 20 foot
conservation easement along the side, on the west.
Batzli: Paul, could you respond to the replacement and the access
on Outlot A and the buffer. Proposed buffer. Or he would tike to see a
buffer.
Krauss: Let me take the easy one first. There is no access being
' proposed to Pleasant View Road. A condition backing that up is certainly
fine with staff. I believe the old driveway to Pleasant View Road, there
was no anticipation of using it. It's a remnant outiot that was left
over from the subdivision. We preferred at that point that it get
incorporated into adjoining cots and there was some presentations by the
property owner, the developer at that point that he was going to offer
that for sale to adjoining properties and apparently it's never been
' done. We're still requesting that that be done. So again, I think you
can put that to bed by just adding a condition that neither of these lots
should access to Pleasant View Road. As to the tree preservation issue,
Mr. Smith is correct. As far as subdivisions go, we do have a tree
replacement policy. We do do that. However, on single family lots,
which these generally are right now. I mean we're taking one lot and
splitting them into two, typically what we do is establish tree
preservation, a no cut area, around the homes to minimize cutting. That
has been done. There is a condition to that effect. It states that
landscaping, tree preservation, home placement plans, shall be submitted
at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval.
As to the question of buffering single family homes in the Troendle
Addition, that's somewhat more problematic. First of all the location of
the driveways that are being illustrated on the plat would preclude that.
I suppose it's possible to kick those driveways over somewhat to save
additional trees. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been up there.
Unfortunately, Kate could be here tonight. She was ill. But if there
are trees on the property line, we can certainly work to incorporate some
of those to some extent into there by kicking the driveway over. But the
fundamental issue of buffering between one single family home and another
is not something that we've gotten into in the past, and I really
wouldn't advocate that you launch into that for the future. These are
not, I mean the homes that are built in Vineland Forest area are not
' insubstantial. I think the neighborhood has developed quite attractively
and - people typically do significant landscaping. So if there is some
desire, I think Mr. Smith is right. I think there were some trees along
the old Troendle driveway, and I'm not sure who's side of the property
1 they're on.
Julius Smith: Troendle is again another bunch of lots over further west.
Krauss: No, it's this one. Oh I'm sorry, you're right. It's after one
more. It's the homesite. If there are trees within 10 feet of the
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 15
property, 1 think we can do something like that. But it's kind of hard
to see on that drawing. But if you look at the larger sized print, the
driveway that's being illustrated virtually butts up against that wester
property line.
Batzli: But there's two driveways illustrated on this. Wouldn't that II
shrink once we go with the single driveway?
Krauss: Yes. Well, the condition though that's been applied by the
engineering department is only that they have a single curb cut. It gets
split out into two driveways. We can, and probably ought to because it'
in our subdivision code, require that they share a common driveway beyon
House number.
Batzli: When it says the applicant shall utilize a single driveway
access in condition 5, that means one curb cut? That doesn't mean one II
driveway?
Krauss: Yeah. 1
Ahrens: That doesn't even make sense actually.
Batzli: And then you require a cross access or driveway easement. Why 1
would you require those things if they have two separate driveways?
Krauss: Because at one point they will Y down and run together. '
Batzli: This is the property line there. He doesn't come over it.
Emmings: Oh, you're right.
Krauss: What you will do is you'll have a single driveway that will
branch off at some point, so there is a common section.
Ahrens: That's not how it shows on the plan.
Batzli: The P lan shows two and it shows.
Krauss: That's correct. The plan is wrong. This is a condition to
remedy the plan. But an alternative in this is to require that you,
we're spinning our wheels with a lot of concrete here... If there's a
common driveway that runs something like that, then you do have more
clearance.
Batzli: Is the condition the way it's worded now require the red line? , in
Krauss: No. The green line.
Ahrens: Why not require the red line? 1
Krauss: I honestly don't have a problem with that.
Batzli: Now explain to me one more time why you would require for your II
green lines, why there has to be a cross easement?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 16
11 Krauss: You've got this common point of intersection where they're both
using the same piece of blacktop which may be on one or the other
properties.
Batzli: Have you looked at the way this is drawn on the map?
Krauss: Yeah.
' Batzli: I mean this second driveway from Lot 1 never touches Lot 2.
Krauss: It doesn't the way it's drawn. The way it's drawn is not the
way the engineering department is asking for it to be drawn.
Batzli: Okay.
Krauss: I mean essentially what you do. If you see that little
diagonal, this corner of the lot?
Batzli: Yep.
Krauss: That would be almost the center line of the common driveway. 5o
you'd line up 10 feet on one side of it you know...5 feet on the other.
Batzli: 1 feel like I'm not communicating well here so we'll go on.
Conrad: You're right.
1 Batzli: Where were we? Is there anyone else that would like to address
the Commission?
Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive,
1 which is basically on the inside of the corner that you can just see of
Nez Perce there. A number of the residents there are concerned, myself
included, about the type of homes I guess. We would also like to see
that those homes conform to the covenants that we have conformed to, due
to the proximity of this lot to our development. I'm wondering if, has
there been any type of plan as far as the size and style of homes
submitted yet?
Batzli: Let me ask something. Are you to the south of this or right to
the west in Vineland? Or are you across the street? Can you point
there?
Dan Rogers: I'm there.
Batzli: Oh, you're across the Nez Perce. Okay. There's been nothing in
regard to style or cost.
I Emmings: We can't impose covenants from one development onto somebody
elses land.
' Don Rogers: Right, I understand. From listening earlier that this
portion was originally a part of Vineland Forest. Did I hear that
correctly?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 17
Krauss: As I recall, it was one of the lots that was split off from
Vineland Forest but I think Frank had an interest in it. 1
Julius Smith: No, that isn't correct. This property, if you don't
mind... The property line for Vineland Forest was here. It stopped.
This was all one piece and when Van Eckhout did then with Vineland
Forest, he bought this chunk from this guy to get access from Vineland
Forest out to Pleasant View. And he had three lots here plus a long roa
coming through. During his hearings, that road was eliminated and Mr.
Beddor objected to that road and so Mr. Van Eckhout had three lots here
and Frank bought those lots from him. This used to be all one piece so
this never was part of the Vineland Forest property. It was a totally II
different ownership. Then this parcel split in two with the back half
going here. This was required as a part of the Vineland Forest plat.
Krauss: That was done in the Vineland Forest plat. 1
Julius Smith: So that there would be an access, you know however that
might develop. So that this lot would come south and not go up to '
Pleasant View.
Dan Rogers: I'm not terribly familiar with how everything works at the
City. Is it the Planning office then that approves housing plans?
Krauss: Well, yeah. The Building Department does review housing plans.
We review them as well. We review them against Code minimums. That
doesn't get at what your issue is. Typically covenants, and I'm not sur
what the Vineland Forest covenants are, is that the house value should be
$180,000.00 or whatever. '
Dan Rogers: Or square footage.
Krauss: A certain size and have so many garages. That's not something
that's enforceable by the City. Nor is it frankly legal for us to deman
that there be a certain value. The market dictates that it generally
happens but we can't assure you of that fact. '
Dan Rogers: Okay, thank you.
Batzli: Let me see if there's anyone else that has a comment first okay"
Yes, please.
Dave Lundahl: My name is Dave Lundahl. I live at 6501 Nez Perce. I am"
the lot exactly south of there. The first thing I would say is that I
would, I guess I would like to see the red line driveway. I would much
prefer that to the separate driveways. All of the trees and stuff that '
are where that driveway goes right now, happen to be some quite large
oaks so I'm disappointed to see those go. I understand that probably
can't be changed. But I would also ask if there is something that can b
done to preserve some of the trees along the lot line on my side of this
piece of property. I'm also concerned of course about what type of home
is going to go in there and will it conform to the rest of the
neighborhood since there are only going to be 2 homes alongside of a '
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 18
development that's already there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me
that we ask the developer to conform to similar type convenants.
Batzli: Well you certainly should talk to the developer and see if you
can, it's something that we can't necessarily do but often times
neighbors do have a large impact on a developer's plans so.
Dave Lundahl: Is there any information about the number of vehicles per
household that we could expect that would help us to insure that there's
only one single driveway there?
Emmings: The number of vehicles per house are the number of spaces in
the garage plus 1. If it's anything like my neighborhood. If you have a
1 car garage, there's 2 cars. If you have a 2 car garage, there's 3
cars.
Conrad: I don't think there's anything you can hang your hat on to help
in that issue. The issues you can deal with are what we're talking about
' right here. You're kind of don't have control.
Dave Lundahl: Well, I would reiterate my desire to see the red line type
driveway recommended.
Batzli: Thank you very much. Yes sir.
Julius Smith: Just as a point of clarification. It's my understanding
there's no access to Pleasant View authorized by this and also that tree
replacement...ordinances don't apply to single family plats. Did I read
that right? Paul, is that what it says?
Krauss: Jules, they have not been applied to single family lots. Once
you're looking to site a home, once the plat, the lots are created, we
require that roads be moved to save trees. We require that lots be
reconfigured to save trees. Where a developer has asked to cut them
down, we require replacement. But when individual homes have been built,
it's one of those things where something has to give someplace and what's
been done in the past is that the home is allowed to go in. They
establish a no cut zone around the home and make sure that the equipment
doesn't go outside of that area but you have to make a lot buildable.
Julius Smith: Well, except they're going to cut down all the trees along
the west line.
Krauss: Well I think that can be addressed.
Batzli: Well can we make it a condition that the driveway that we
approve minimizes disturbance of the trees at the entry point onto Nez
Perce and on the western line?
Krauss: I think that you can do better than that. Frankly, I don't
offer this as an excuse but this was, there was something that I caught
reading this tonight. I mean we have an_ ordinance that says when you
have flag lots and you share common driveways, that you use a single
driveway. That it be paved 20 feet wide to a 7 ton design I believe. In
1
f
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 19
this case, I mean it doesn't, they checked with the Fire Marshal. The
Fire Marshal was willing to accept this because both homes are within 15
feet of the street which is the distance they can lay a hose. But yes,
think in the interest of tree preservation, you can insist that they
share a common driveway over Lot 2. Going down to a single driveway on II
Lot 1 and that that driveway be designed to avoid impact to the trees as
much as possible.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion toll
close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Discussion, Ladd. 1
Conrad: Are we obligated to allow that lot split?
Krauss: It has no variances. It conforms to your ordinances. r
Conrad: Just reading through here. The driveway that gets to Lot 1, is
that an easement? ,
Krauss: No. They've actually platted it as a neck.
Conrad: And we can allow that? I guess my biggest problem with this is"
that access that is forced into the tree line. And so if we can solve
that problem, I guess I am comfortable with it. But I'm not sure what
we're solving here. You know I'm saying those words and I haven't given"
an absolute, I want to save this. I guess we're coming up loose to
staff.
Ledvina: We don't really know where the trees are. You know if we move
it one way or the other, that's impossible.
Krauss: Well however though, when you go from having two 10 or 15 foot I
wide driveways to having a single common 20 and you lose the dead space
inbetween, you've got a lot more flexibility.
Batzli: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: A couple of technical things here. The subdivision number, ill
that 92 -13 or are we using 93 numbers now? Or is this a holdover from
last year?
Krauss: It was submitted last year. r
Ledvina: Okay. And then condition number 3. There's some verbage
missing. On the first line it should read, the applicant shall dedicate"
to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road right -of -way.
That was in Dave's report but didn't get in here.
Krauss: Well actually no. If I remember right, Pleasant View Road runs"
on the bias through there and the condition that we've been using is
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 20
actually accurate. That they will dedicate over Outlot A whatever it
takes to make 40 foot on centerline.
Ledvina: Okay. So,you're...7 feet, you just want.
Krauss: That's the approximate amount but it varies from one side to the
other.
' Ledvina: Okay, that's fine then.
Batzli: Then just take out the word "of ".
I Ledvina: Yeah. Additional road right -of -way, okay. Because it looked
like something was missing and I thought that could have been the
problem. I guess I would generally support the discussions regarding the
access or preventing access to Pleasant View and then the driveway
situation.
Batzli: That's it? Okay, thank you. Steve.
Emmings: I have nothing additional and I agree with the comments that
have been made so far.
Batzli: Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Batzli: Joan.
Ahrens: No comments.
Batzli: Brian. Okay. Thank you. Can we force this condition number 4
to happen?
Krauss: I don't believe so. We had the same problem in the past. I'd
like to double check that with the City Attorney.
Batzli: But we wouldn't necessarily have to approve this if we didn't
11 like the fact that this had an Outlot A in it, correct? Or because
everything else meets our ordinance, we would have to approve it? Even
though we've got this funny little Outlot A sticking here. Could we
require that that be part of something?
Krauss: You can certainly try and I wouldn't be opposed to , it. I tried
to get that done 3 years ago. It's certainly, if it's legally upholdable
and we'll let the City Attorney discuss that.
Batzli: I just don't like to let them split this and leave this problem
11 here.
Krauss: Well it has no purpose. We had a condition, in fact I think you
might have approved the condition, with Van Eckhout originally when this
went through 3 years ago. At that time Van Eckhout made representations
that he had every intention of selling Outlot A to the property owner
r •
Planning Commission Meeting
g ion eting
January 6, 1993 - Page 21
either to the east or the west but if we obligated him to sell it, then
it wasn't worth very much. Well apparently that's never been resolved. '
Ahrens: It's not going to be worth anything...
Krauss: Of course not. I'd support you trying it and if it's not 1
justifiable, our attorney will tell us to pull it out.
Batzli: Well, I would like to make it stronger than what you have it II
worded I guess. Not should be deeded but it shall be deeded prior to
giving them building permits or something.
Emmings: Or final plat approval? '
Batzli: Yeah. Something where, this is kind of wishy washy and we don'
solve the problem that we have hanging here.
Krauss: Or it shall be deeded and combined.
Ahrens: Why do, if we're not going to give them the access, what do we II
care what they do with it?
Krauss: What do we care what? 1
Ahrens: What happens to Outlot A.
Batzli: I guess we don't want little fingers all over the city. 11
Krauss: When you have remnant parcels, they're not maintained.
Certainly nobody's going to mow that thing. It's the old driveway. It''
no man's land.
Ahrens: But there's no incentive for him to take half of it either. '
Krauss: No, and then what happens when is it goes tax forfeit after 7
years. 1
Emmings: And one of the neighbors buys it.
Ahrens: Yeah, one of the neighbors buys it anyway. ,
Batzli: So then we live with it for 7 years? I guess I'd rather clean
it up when we have the opportunity. 1
Ahrens: If you can force them to sell his land? I doubt that you can do
that. 1
Julius Smith: Hasn't Oultot A in fact been sold to the owner of Lots 1
and 2? I believe it has.
Krauss: That's the issue.
Julius Smith: I think it has been I mean. 1
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 22
11 Krauss: It's part of those lots.
Julius Smith: Mr. Van Eckhout has sold this to this guy.
Krauss: So what you've done is you've eliminated the problem over Lots 1
and 2 but you still have the problem over the remainder.
Julius Smith: Right. So when you say combining, you mean Outlot A with
Lot, what is this 1? Is that what you're talking about?
Krauss: Either that one or the one that's labeled as Cunningham to the.
Julius Smith: Well of course Cunningham doesn't own it but the guy who
owns this owns Outlot A.
Krauss: That's not clear.
Ahrens: What if they don't want to buy it? What if the neighbors don't
want to buy it? You can't force them to self something that somebody,
then you're forcing somebody to buy it.
Emmings: Well how about making it part of Lot 1, to give Lot 1
responsibility for what happens to it. Taxes and everything else. He
may have more incentive to try and get a deal with one of the neighbors
if he doesn't want it.
Krauss: Sure.
' Batzli: See, I just don't like creating an outlot here that's you know.
Ahrens: I think Steve's solution is the best one. I don't think we can
11 force him to sell it and force somebody else to buy it. I guess we just
have to hook it onto another lot and make him maintain it.
I Emmings: Then he'll have to pay taxes on it and everything else until he
does something else with it.
Ahrens: Right.
11 Emmings: Except the only trouble with that is, it would make him go
through another proceeding to split it off. Well, they'd have to
' wouldn't they?
Ahrens: Is this registered land?
Emmings: Well, wouldn't they have to go through another platting to make
it a separate parcel to sell it?
11 Ahrens: No. I don't think so.
Emmings: Do it by metes and bounds?
Krauss: Sure. Metes and bounds...you're not creating a new lot.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 23
Emmings: I wonder what the applicant will think of this. Too bad he
didn't show. 1
Conrad: That will show him.
Emmings: Let's turn the lots too while we're at it.
Batzli: Okay. Otherwise I support the language to have the common
driveway and preserve as many trees as we can to the west and to the
south and where the driveway... That's all I have. Is there a motion? II
Or you want to discuss first?
Emmings: Yeah. What do you want to do with Outlot A? And then do you I
really.
Batzli: I don't want to allow the preservation of an Outlot that they'rI
just screwing around with and they're not going to finish this piece up.
I don't feel like this is good planning to let them create a new outlot.
Emmings: But do we gain anything by making it a part of Lot 1? 1
Batzli: Well I think you force the issue that the applicant is going toll
go to the Council and say, I can't sell this with Lot 1. Or at least
it's going to, it will force them to do something with it. I think.
Emmings: Well, who's going to own Outlot A? That's what, I'm not clear"
on that.
Pat Cunningham: That's'why I'm here. I'd like to. '
Emmings: Who are you?
Pat Cunningham: I'm Pat Cunningham. 1
Emmings: And you live?
Pat Cunningham: I'm directly to the east. ,
Emmings: Oh okay. Have you talked to him?
Pat Cunningham: Yes. I've talked to him. I've tried to buy it for the
last couple of years and I got a call about 2 months ago from Mr. Van
Eckhout, I think you pronounce it. He said, I'm not going to sell it yoll
because I can make more money selling it to somebody else.
Ahrens: Who does he figure he's going to sell it to?
Batzli: He , sold it to the person that's splitting these lots.
Pat Cunningham: He sold it to the first, the larger of the two I'm
guessing, and that man owns, as I understand it...
Julius Smith: Is it my understanding that the guy who owns Lot 2 is not il
the same person who owns Lot 1 anymore?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 24
Krauss: No.
Julius Smith: Then perhaps the owner of Lot 2 also owns this.
Krauss: Actually my understanding is the individual that's buying Lot 1
is also buying Lot 2 to build a home for his mother.
Emmings: He couldn't own Lot 2 now because there is no Lot 2 now.
11 Krauss: It's in one ownership. It's one parcel.
Julius Smith: This whole parcel has got, there are two lots.
Krauss: Right.
Julius Smith: I'm talking about the old plat. The original one. This
has been divided into two lots. Now they want to divide Lot 2 of the
original one into Lots 1 and 2 and making the new plat.
Krauss: Right, exactly.
Julius Smith: My question is, Outlot A, the fellow who owned Lot 2
before this plat. 1 mean the guy who's platting it, Lot 2 of the old
plat. Owns Outlot A as well. You can't very well, if you put these two
' lots together, he's going to have access and I don't know how.
Krauss: That's not clear to me Jules. I think that this outlot is still
merged with this underlying lot.
Julius Smith: That's right. And that's why you almost have to leave it
an outlot because if you say we don't want an outlot. It's got to be put
1 with this lot.
Krauss: Well, but what the Planning Commission seems to be saying is,
why let it be an outlot at all. Why not make somebody take
responsibility for it?
Julius Smith: I don't know that you could force somebody to sell it
though.
Krauss: No, but you don't have to allow it to be replatted and
maintaining it's outlot status.
Julius Smith: You could just leave it as nothing.
Krauss: You can make it part of Lot 1.
Emmings: But what do we gain by that? It was my suggestion and I'm not
so sure we really gained anything by it. Because it still is going to be
owned. Someone's still going to have to pay taxes on it. I was thinking
we could.
Batzli: But that person's right there.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 25 1
Emmings: What do you mean? 1
Batzli: Well if you hook it up with Lot 1, whoever's in that house is
going to own it. II Krauss: They don't have the ability to just sever it and forget about
paying taxes on it. It's part of their lot.
Batzli: It's part of their house. They're going to pay taxes on it.
Emmings: Maybe we'd be doing Mr. Cunningham a favor if we do it that
way.
Ahrens: This underlying lot, this Lot 1 right here.
Batzli: The original Lot 1.
Ahrens: The original Lot 1. Who owns that? '
Batzli: Do we know?
Julius Smith: A fellow by the name of Edwards used to own it. I don't II
know if he still does. He was the platter, he was the one who did the
. original split into two lots.
Batzli: Well from a sound planning practices viewpoint Paul, should we 1
hook it up with Lot 1 or not?
Krauss: I'd prefer that you get rid of it one way or the other. Either'
we force their hand into merging it with an adjoining lot, if that's
legally justifiable. 1 think probably that's questionable. Or you
eliminate the outlot status and combine it with Lot 1 and put the onous II
on that property owner to resolve it by sealing it or maintaining it.
Ahrens: That's what you have to do. '
Batzli: I guess I'd, oh okay. Yes.
Julius Smith: I have only one concern with that. If you split, if you II
put that Outiot A into Lot, whatever his new one is, Lot 1 of the new
plat, that outlot, that Lot 1 is going to be an L shaped lot and I don't
believe the city has bought the access onto Pleasant View Road and I'm II
not so sure that if his lot abutts Pleasant View Road you can stop him
from using it. If it's a separate lot, you can prohibit from doing
that. '
Emmings: But if we make it a condition of the plat, can't we do that?
Tell him he's got to have his access on Nez Perce.
Krauss: Yes, for sure. That's true. I mean you've already resolved I/
that.
Ahrens: We're already doing that. '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 26
Emmings: That's a condition of the plat. He's asking for a plat and
we're making that a condition. Do you think that's alright?
Julius Smith: Well,yeah, if he agrees. He in a sense is giving up his
right to the access to Pleasant View...
Emmings: Well but that's even what he's drawn on his own plat. So
that's what he wants. We're not making him do anything he hasn't.
Batzli: I guess what I would recommend is that we say, the remaining
portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined with one of the adjacent
I/ parcels, or be combined into Lot 1 prior to final plat approval.
Emmings: I like that.
' Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Emmings: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with conditions in the staff report 1, 2
and 3 as they exist, and striking the word "of" in number 3, as discussed
in Matt's discussion. And number 4 will read that Outlot A, striking the
words "remaining portion ", that Outlot A should be deeded or combined to
one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat
approval. And then conditions 5 thru 8 will stay as they are in the
staff report. There will be a new number 9 that will say that neither
Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. And a
number 10 that says that the Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway
and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval to city
11 staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of
the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible.
Ahrens: Second.
Batzli: Any discussion?
Ledvina: I think this is one item, I think you used the word should in
your.
11 Emmings: Shall. Change should to shall.
Ledvina: Okay. For item number 4.
Batzli: Would you like to, I think that our neighbor to the south
indicated there were some trees there. Would you like t� extend your
motion on the driveway access to try and be considered to the trees on
11 that side as well, or are you just concerned about this west side?
Emmings: I'm concerned about the west side only because we've got an
opportunity by the location of the driveway and I don't know what. They
do have to submit a tree removal plan right?
Krauss: Yes.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 28
9. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View
Road. 1
10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that
driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the
intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two II
lots shall be preserved to the extent possible.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Batzli: When does this go to City Council?
Krauss: January 25th.
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET, ON PROPERTY ZONED BH. HIGHWAY II
BUSINESS DISTRICT, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the II
public hearing to order.
Kim Jacobsen: I'm Kim Jacobsen. I'm representing the Americana Bank. II
Randy Schultz, the President of the bank gives his condolensces. He
couldn't be here. He's got a bad back tonight and he's in bed and maybe
going under surgery but needless to say, we did request that the sign bell
approved as I guess we're presenting it now. We did go through the City
Council and we went through with the Planning Commission. We never tried
to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line. We II
came from Market Square. It's a PUD. If you can recall, we were here
once before with a development. During that time we had a monument sign.
It was located within a few feet of the property line there. When we
came down to Market Blvd, we again represented a monument sign. Never
tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built
base as part of the general construction package where the contractor
built the masonary base, which happens during the construction. Came at
that point to apply for a sign permit. To put the signage on top of the
base assuming we had no problems. Everything had gone through.
Construction plans had been reviewed. Had been approved by staff. We
looked at the situation and I guess what we've got to say is that we
don't feel we're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of
this case. I brought along some photographs. One is the photograph of
our base, which is sitting here. But I think the important thing to
notice about it is that we are about 20 feet from the street. We're a
good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the
background of this photograph, you can see the Market Square sign. The
one I've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd. It sitsll
within a couple feel of the sidewalk. Within 10 feet of the street. It
just seems like, to the average person, a precedence has been set. I mea
they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is
proposing and the situation we have been brought into, I don't see that
Planning ommission Meeting
9
January 6, 1993 - Page 27
Emmings: So you're going to have some input and you can look out for the
neighbor to the south maybe to some extent there?
Krauss: We can try yes. But we should be aware of the fact that these
lots are big enough to accommodate a 60 foot wide home and the increased
sideyard setback on a neck lot, which goes from 10 feet to 20 feet. So
you've got to assume that it's probably going to be down to the minimums.
You'll have a home 20 feet back from the property line.
Batzli: But they're going to have 20 feet of buffering from the property
line.
11 Krauss: Yeah, and what we try to do is to make sure that as much of that
20 feet as possible gets preserved because you don't just cut it off
their foundation line. There's usually abutment that runs around it.
Batzli: Any other discussion on the motion?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with the following conditions:
1. The proposed house location meets the flag lot requirements.
2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be
submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff
review and approval.
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional
road right -of -way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at
one -half the total right -of -way of 40 feet contiguous from the north
line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards /Vogel Addition.
4. Outlot A shall be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels
or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval.
' 5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce
Drive. A cross - access or driveway easement shall be prepared
guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two
parcels.
6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water
services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued
for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit
issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the amount of
$7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with
modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway
access onto Nez Perce Drive.
8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800. to the City for future
extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road.
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1