The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-02_SENN SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCESPLAT FILE NO KURVERS POINT C.R. DOC. N 0. / ,_} A J; 9 r /-. •Y-, �� ,• �Al 9 /1/BB 24 Zo"K/ � tii_ //4.00 /00 O bo I2o $CAGE /,A/ FEET` B(` ✓ _ \ i' — — — _ _ — 3z3. 73 1> 1>0 GSaa26 ses�3sa�o' —�Z�va �`'a„ �'9 �6- a h- .oa�s- ING 04O I IV N �- p4"�� g L=43.43t11\S Igp.G3_ - IN n N` �� I v �_ � -- ��cxJ IN � v � _ —' /1/1P 6cv Z c 7 8� I 10 4.B N9•za'z�w_� Ap �� OR,4//v,4 ANO /✓T!L/Ty E/}SEitIFrYTS — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ Io �`�l Z\ c}� ti °35'4o"K//— R 1 \ 11 ) ffRE S NoVIAI T-NL/S.' \ — — — — — — — — — �_--_ — °D g �" : 3 1 5 �0 5 40" i _ f, �,9 33�w — i— �B8"SO'/O ., — Q'Iq� '1 48 h l — ( °p 1�� , P0124e). 3_ m N°rah //ryeoFGovTLoTZ F9a\ �6G ohs Jr r .V• `Q `7 _ D I I I (� 4• too°° �'R,2��• ji i /D9 0 I I� I I� I 40 p h —SO po ION��N Imo\ /pO�T\ .ZZ �� I (�J pI IQ pl O \id2 1 ,'' Q I 11Y� 12 I 0 /o I /v �^ 2 — BE//V6 4S_S�oo\'78 so �II III 5� O _ II I _ 9s. wII tIo NJ LA// //V WIPTH ANP ADTO//V/VG /V/0 II LOT LIVES AND /O FEET //V W/DTF/ 4A/0 AD-70/N/N6 2/6HT OF WAY L/rVE5 UNLESS _ DTHE2W/5E /NDIC/iTED ON THE PLRT°\hv 9 J [y aD,pO 3¢ /a�� \ �S\9 •l\ Wi \ �m� �\�a a� � � � -� BENCH MA2K TOP OF TOP NUT OF HYDKRAJ / \ �- i A% NE CXUATTANT VALLEY Y/EW KC)Ap _%�., .�I`�I A ND �llGNln/AY JOI. ELEV. = 43L54 FEET A(--VP—� i'lae — — o° w ,<�� \� �j \/ h eq Z_50. 3 4 8 1 \�/ x� I a • - A198043'S9'K/ �<�DENa242.29 o p�nvOTE5 %Z /macHX /4 //vch/RO.vP/PE z /Vo, /4700MAzK�o FY L/CENSGOUTLOT I 3 h �A�oi ? S //rand N' o o I o�-yoa 1I S2a°jo8 o s'E Qo o IZ\Q3G—C—y- — o O-\ O 4oU) J MNC GO/I _//8.5 �o /o Ofw �e fh' �Yd��%S_4$�\ h ZS0v ° L 19b35 / ID LANE/.�ti ` S ox ?80 � sue\ \� 6 \ s / /�I L=9o.o6 j'� 1 d 524 j3'1/' Cl, 4=3Z 44Z9" Y , Sia / o, Z° Z / � � ° 5 ll� NJ > /6.ri ,� \ � ti 3 0l I a „ o ��. �J 4\ 45 '4s915,0 v I I \ MqT p=9R511h°° ��->3J I 4.� Ch L/NE , �� _ c95 3ZB.73 N89°o7'4/"u/ /S4 aN \MATCH LINE NFz- SCHOBORG LAND SURVEYING INC. SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS /10008 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: Mark Senn LOTUS \ LAKE / Bituminous Proposed Tract D ////// V. 143000f Sq Ft Existing \w 2.28f Ac. House Ai f N w o, w 25100 169.51 Er-WQsed Tract Q That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Tract A, thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet, thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described, thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West o distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly line of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees 02 minutes 681.99 i 3f nh 15. 0. N. p in - 5 S83102 03'e 323.26 Proposed Tract D: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Tract A, thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet, thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described, • thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 76.40 feet, thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly line of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees 02 minutes 03 seconds East, along said southerly line, a distance of 158.61 feet to a point distant 7700 feet from the right of way of Willow View Cove; thence North 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 68.04 feet; thence North 55 minutes 26 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 110.86 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Proposed Easement: That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly, northeasterly and easterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Tract A, thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of line of Tract A v -P.O.B. (Easement Line) �\ -� /U0.4 --- ' \--559 09'24"W 42.52 Iropos �"Rrpp o N 48 - h SYy fine of Tract sed t^7 N� cep o.�ement p'No 1 o 05'44'40 ry0 E's �3 0.15-�--- -- S8835'40:IV- 14.36 \ �, S`SbB, t I Existing Legal Description (supplied by client) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Hardcover Calculations. ft.)ft.): Existing House 4,561 Existing Driveway 11,862 Total Hardcover 16.423 View Cove CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for. Mark Senn j r-North line of Tract A N8874'20"W 881.99 -P.O.B. (Eoxment Line) LOTUS j \ Bituminous Driveway P.O.B. Tract --� / 106.47 _ 99 06 AD tiss 42.52 W ( M C i 5 1 ?s 'roposed r 04 to Proposed Tract D J � k,, Pro o � � � 7 N to / 143,000t Sq Ft Existing j Tr ct �b Sement to 1 w 228t Ac. House 15, Sq IFt a n h 0. 4 Aa oPosed of to ^ — 5 — H60Se vl N \ ro0 Et. `�' — - 4e - n o'05 44 40 "It's. l _ , t• � o' \ \ 0 S83102+03'r 32326 158.61 S88-35'40" 0 14.36 ' S%y ((ne of roct q__, �ssb i N61.4g' e— rdD ` �63 \vwo Proposed Tract D: �` 1 low 51 Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, p5+q.0"W 169' Minnesota, EXCEPT the tract of land described as follows: View _ S79wk • Commencing at the northeast comer of said Tract A, thence on on assumed CoVe bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet, thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described,' thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a Proposed Tract C., distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West a That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, files distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly line of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, described as 02 minutes 03 seconds East, along said southerly line, a distance of 158.61 feet to a Existing Legal Description (supplied by client) follows: 4 g �—i Q� point distant 77.00 feet from the right of way of Willow View Cave; thence North 6 Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, files Commencing at the northeast corner of said Tract A, degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 68.04 feet; thence North 55 of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 26 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 110.86 feet to the point of minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract beginning and there terminating. A, a distance of 106.47 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the Proposed Easement: point of beginning of the tract to be described,- thence That port of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a Carver County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly, northeasterly and easterly of a line Hardcover Calculations (sy. it.2• distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes described as follows: Existing House 4,561 57 seconds West a distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly Commencing at the northeast corner of said Tract A, thence on an assumed Existing Driveway 11 line of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees 02 minutes bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of ,862 ,,,1 .� r__, _< <__:__:__ r ,:__ f- Total Hardcover 16.423 rl "r .. J- C....f I ..-:J 1: ��..{A_-I.. .... - J:�t�...._ ..f __'J T a A f- fl_ __._{ _ April 2, 2009 �C,IuTYO(�F�1 CIWINSGN Mark and Suzanne Senn 7160 Willow View Cove 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Subdivision Creating an Additional Lot with Variances Planning Case #09-02 Administration MM:952.227.1100 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Senn: Fax.952.227.1110 Bu tiling Yq*dons This letter is to formally notify you that on March 23, 2009, the Chanhassen City Phase:952.2271180 Council voted unanimously to approve the following motion: Fax: 952.227.1190 "The City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance F9 to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton Phone:952.227.1160 design, and the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report, subject Fax:952.227.1170 to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate B: Finance PIM:952227.1140 1. Approval of the subdivision by registered land survey is contingent upon Fax:952.227.1110 compliance with the conditions of approval and recording of the new parcel with the Carver County Recorder's office before a building permit is issued. Park & Recreation Phone:952.227,1120 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply Fax:952.227.1110 with the City Code. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and Phone:952.227.1400 water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and Fax:952,227.1404 telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. Also showexisting lateral sanitary sewer and Planning 8 watermain on the property. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a Public Wake minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service and shall be dedicated to the 1591 Park Road benefitting property. Drainage and utility easements over the existing laterals Pfxine:952.227.1300 on the property must be shown. Required public easements shall be dedicated Fax:952.227.1310 at the width specified by the Engineering Department. sai" Center Phone:952.2271125 5. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities Fax:952.227.1110 within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is Web Site submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow www.achanhassennn.us will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for To nonow sC"Mm Mark & Suzanne Senn April 2, 2009 Page 2 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation, removal calculations and survey for Tract C for city staff approval prior to recording. b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. 9. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Type of Slope ime (maximum time an area can remain unegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1to3:1 14Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or manmade systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey for Tract C and as necessary on Tract D showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated or abandoned if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. ,. ,!A.)a k J Mark & Suzanne Senn April 2, 2009 Page 3 15. A cross access easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staffs layout (Alternate B)." Please provide the city with a set of mylar drawings for the recording of the Registered Land Survey subdivision. In order to record the subdivision/mylar all required items must be satisfied and all fees paid. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen:mn.us. Sincerely, Angie Auseth Planner I c: Jerry Mohn, Building Official Building Permit File 9:Nplan\2009 planning casesW9-02 senn subdivision & varianceVetter of approval.doc 09-oZ City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 when we show up at your house or at an accident or anything and much like our fire department open house so we're hoping for good weather on April 5`h. We did hire 2 new probationary fire fighters recently here and took them both on and they came to us already trained, and that's even better for the City because we don't have to invest into the training for them so, but we are still posting on the public access TV that we still are accepting applications so if you see that on there, feel free to put in an application. Did some different training this month that I'd like to report on. We had an organization called BART which is Basic Animal and Rescue Tactics come in and give us some training. Of course we train on medical and people training all the time but a lot of times pets at fire incidents are just as important as people. We had an organization come in and train us on doing CPR, administering 02 to animals and different techniques and stuff that we can use too so something that's been done quite a bit in this state and Minnesota's kind of a leader in it and we've got some additional tools that we have in our trucks now so that we can tend to the needs of pets that we come across at fires too so. A little training out of the box but we're trained for all the incidents now so. That's about all I have to report on. It's been, not much for structure fires which is good. Mayor Furlong: That's a good thing. Any questions for Chief Geske this evening? No? Very good. Thank you. Councilman Litsey: Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LOT WITH VARIANCES, 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE, APPLICANT: MARK AND SUZANNE SENN. Public Present: Name Address Betsy & Herb LePlatt 7012 Cheyenne Trail Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Cove Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. As you indicated this is a request for a metes and bounds subdivision to create a second building lot and variances for a private street. Background on this is that the public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 171h. At that time the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to approve the request for a metes and bounds subdivision and the variance for the private street. City code does require a public hearing before the City Council for a metes and bounds. That's why this is a public hearing. Typically that would have been held at the Planning Commission. Because there was other variances, we just bundled that together at the Planning Commission so again a public hearing is required for the metes and bounds. There were some issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission that the staff did follow up on. One is a concern that maybe there was some water, drainage backing up. We did investigate that and it appeared that the drain, the catch basin in the cul-de-sac was performing and the other concern was the grading plan. Because a house plan wasn't shown, there'll be future grading, that we will look at that carefully to make sure that the drainage for that house doesn't impede anybody else's current drainage IR SCANNED City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 pattern so that will be something that will be reviewed when that building pad is actually accomplished. And then the other one was the Planning Commission did add an additional comment regarding additional trees because a tree survey was not completed at this time and I'd be happy to discuss that in a little more detail later but with that the Planning Commission did approve it. So with that, the subject site as you indicated is on Kurvers Point and it's one of the largest lots actually in the Kurvers Point subdivision. The subdivision itself was created in 1987. It consists of 42 lots. This lot itself is 3.66 acres. Again one of the larger lots. A portion of this lot was split and added to a neighboring lot and that slide is actually in your staff report. So again there is a discretion with the variances. The City Council does have discretion with the variances because they're deviating from the standards, but as far as discretion on the metes and bounds, because in order to have a metes and bounds you have to meet all that criteria so the metes and bounds couldn't be approved unless you approved the variances that it meets the criteria of the metes and bounds. The metes and bounds says you are abutting a public street. This one's requesting a variance from that to meet that. Again in your staff report there was originally two proposals being submitted. This is a subdivision, the metes and bounds as shown. It will have to be modified based on revised recommendations but staff is, we'll be sharing with you here in a minute but I just want to make clear that the applicant did state to the staff that they are requesting withdrawal of the zoning variances. I just want to make sure from Mr. Senn that it's still his intent that he is withdrawing the variances on that. If you want to, you're withdrawing your request for all the zoning variances and you're just pursuing the subdivision variances, is that correct? Mark Senn: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Okay. We didn't get that formally so I just want to make sure that that was clear that we're all on the same page on that so, alright. So again the metes and bounds, you can see Tract C is the part that he's splitting so the bottom portion, Tract D is existing 3.66 acre lot. Within that Tract C is the proposed subdivision lot. This is zoned RSF, the minimum lot size in that zoning district is 15,000 square feet. So this was the original request with the zoning variances, as we just heard that they're, we're moving away from that so the original one had lot variances and the like and when we went through that with Mr. Senn, then he did, as stated, agree to pursue the alternative plan which does meet the requirements. And I'll just kind of briefly go through those. There is the minimum lot size, which we talked about. The 15,000 square feet. What this meets but some of the issues regarding that is when you have a common driveway easement, which is what he's requesting, that can be, that cannot be included in the calculation so while on face value it meets that, the metes and bounds will have to clearly show that defined. So wherever that common portion of the driveway is, that would, could not be included in the calculation. So the driveway going to the new pad could be cut off somewhere between anywhere within that area, if that makes sense. Mayor Furlong: No, help me understand that. Is this relating to an easement for which parcel? Kate Aanenson: For both parcels. What the ordinance states. Mayor Furlong: To use the common driveway. City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So that would have to be, that portion has to be 30 feet wide with an easement on it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So that portion, wherever that driveway comes in to that house, and we don't know that yet so that will be something that we'll have to be, when you record the plat we'll have to show, right now since we don't have a driveway location, that easement will be common to the end of that lot. The 30 foot wide easement. Then the other thing is that, and'I don't have a pointer here. Mayor Furlong: Can I ask a question before we get off the easement? Kate Aanenson: Sure, absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Is that easement required to provide, I mean this, this new parcel, the new lot, does it require an easement out to the public street? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Let me go through that part first and I'll go back to the slide. So the criteria for a common street is that any portion of the private street serving both tracks has to be placed in a common cross access agreement, so that's one of your conditions. There has to be a cross access agreement so both parties, existing home and the new homeowner can use that property. So that's put into an easement. Now the variances comes in here because within that easement the ordinance requires 25 foot pavement width and 7 ton design so we're saying we don't believe that's necessary to serve the two homes, so that's part of the variance request. Is not to have to do that. We are requesting that there be a 30 foot easement for the driveway at 7 to 8 foot width can remain as it is. That was the staff's interpretation. Again going back to the private driveway, if we go back to the existing plat, you can see how narrow it is on the cul-de- sac there. While this is a 3 1/2 acre lot, it's very narrow. To put another driveway on there, another driveway access to that separate lot on the end of a cul-de-sac when there's limited snow capacity, it seems to make some sense to make it common. So then the real issue for you to consider in the variance is, does it also make sense then to say is there, does it need to be then 7 ton and 20 feet wide. That's where the staff would agree that it probably services the way it is. The trash now currently comes out to the end of the cul-de-sac. Both parties would continue to do that so there's no heavy equipment going back. It'd just be used for residential purposes. So that's a criteria that was required with that request so the 30 foot easement and the driveway as it sits today within that easement. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Okay? So within that then the ordinance says that you have to have 100, where the lot, you can't start the lot until you get to that area where it meets 100 foot in width, and 12 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 that's the dashed line on there in the green. That's 100 foot in, where the lot meets the 100 foot in width, which would be to that easement line. Does everybody follow that? Now why does the green go past that? Because you still need to have 15,000 square feet but you can't count the setback until you get to that portion. So from that setback line you go 30 feet to make the lot. And the ordinance says if you don't have a house plan you have to have a 60 by 60 pad. So you go back to the other one, it didn't make the 60 by 60 or the lot width, so that's where we agreed to make this change. So now we've eliminated all the requirements for the zoning variance. The only variances now are just with the street and the subdivision variance. So with that we put in the compliance table on the staff report. We've looked at the grading and drainage. Again the issue there is because we don't have a housing plan, that we will review it at the time of application. One of the other issues that was pointed out in the utilities portion is that if the subdivision is approved, that they must submit a utility plan showing existing sanitary sewer services to the current home and then how cable and all that will be placed to the new home. Again that's another reason for the wider easement if anything needs to be in that. If a new easement does need to be created along that property line, that would also have to be recorded. As you know we record all easements within the lot line so that would be another thing that would have to be added. I also wanted to point out because we are creating a new lot, then fees are being recorded, required. So park and trail fees would be required as well as storm water fees would be required on the plat. Again going to the tree issue, there is a significant amount of trees. The Planning Commission felt like because we didn't have a tree survey, the Planning Commission did want that condition added. That's condition number 18. What we've asked the applicant to do is when they show us the home that they're putting on the site, we estimate what that tree removal would be. It is in excess of what the tree cover canopy requirement is so unless for some reason it went beyond that, then more than likely additional trees would not be required. There probably isn't a lot of place to plant those, but the Planning Commission felt because there wasn't a tree survey, that they wanted to add that. So unless there's any other questions, the staff is recommending approval of the metes and bounds subdivision with the variances, with the Findings of Fact and the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Clarification, and then we'll, you just said variances. Is the variance, the variance relates to the drive or the private street. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: But within that, the proposal is not to do a 25 foot width nor do a 7 ton. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. You're correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that's the, the variances are two but they both relate to the drive. Kate Aanenson: Private street, correct. Mayor Furlong: Private street, thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman McDonald: I have a question. It's kind of a clarification. What you talked about on number 18 about the trees. As I recall reading from the report the concern was to the property 13 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 to the north, and in here it also says enhance landscaping to the north side of the property. I guess what the question is, and again I did go out and look at the site. I don't see how you can add any additional landscaping out there. Are you of a feeling at this point that that finding's really not required? Kate Aanenson: Right, except that we don't know exactly where the utilities are going in. Those would be some of the unknowns right now and the grading plan to make this work. It appears that it probably isn't necessary. There's quite a bit of trees there, but if for some reason the utilities need to go in that area, then we want replacement. So we believe that when the site, the house plan comes in, the utilities are spotted, we'd have a better indication then of where it shows tree loss or replacement would go. But you're right, right now I don't know where else you could put something on that site. It's pretty dense right there. Councilman McDonald: And right now we don't have any idea of where utilities are going to be coming or going from at this point because there are no detailed plans. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That's all I have for right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, can you tell me why the property owner was obligated to subdivide. Because it's 4 acres. Haven't we, I mean our ordinance doesn't, what does it read? Does it read beyond a certain amount of acres? Kate Aanenson: No. It has nothing, there's no, our ordinance says so many units per acre but you can have 1 lot on 10 acres and still be in a residential single family home. What our ordinance says is you can only have one dwelling, and this is residential. One home per lot. You can have a variance to put, if you have somebody that you want to live with you in your home, you can ask for a variance. We have criteria for that for someone to live in your house. If you want to do a, have gramma or grampa live with you or you have a child that you need to have live with you, you can do that but to have a separate dwelling unit does require a separate lot. There is no mechanism to do that. Even on a twin home, you do two lots or a condominium or something like that, except a rental would be the only circumstance I'm aware of where you'd have more than one ownership for that conveyance. But it has nothing to do with density or units per acre or something like that. It would require a separate lot. Councilwoman Ernst: I thought we had put, I thought we had put other residential homes on the same lot in town. Kate Aanenson: Not on a single family, no. Councilwoman Ernst: Um, oh I'm sorry. Go ahead. Mayor Furlong: No, please continue. 14 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: For the grading plan, can you refresh my memory why are we requiring...? Kate Aanenson: The concern, always when you put a new house on, we've had this historically and that's why we require as-builts. When someone goes in and puts in a home, depending on the type of home, we require that when you do a plat that they showed a walkout elevation, so you'd know where the water's draining. In this area. This is put in before. There was some storm water ponds in place. There is 1 or 2 to the north but we want to make sure we're not causing runoff on this property to any other property so we want to see what type of home it is. Whether it's a walkout, lookout or just a finished floor elevation. Where that water drainage is going. Councilwoman Ernst: So I was out and looked at the site as well and it looked, there's a couple things. There's like a, I don't know what it is. It's a sanitary drainage that goes down below a hill. Below the trees there but then approximately 200 yards away from that there's another holding pond. So I guess I'm curious as to why there would be some concerns with drainage. Kate Aanenson: We don't know what type of home's going in, so until you know that, you know how they're going to grade around that, then we couldn't determine if it would create additional runoff, the type of home. You know how much they're going to excavate. How it's going to redirect the water. And if any other subdivision, that's a standard question that we would ask them to show us. You know you want a positive pitch on the front of the house to the street so it catches that. That's generally how we do it, so it goes into that catch basin there. On the back of the lot. That it's not going to the neighbor's property so that is, it's sheet flowing across back towards the storm water pond. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I, I mean I just didn't see how there could be a problem there going onto other people's property. Based on what I saw there but. Kate Aanenson: Right, being flat and unchanged but someone's going to change that by putting a house in, depending on the style house they put in. Yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: And then the tree survey. I know Jerry had mentioned this too. I mean there must be 300 or more trees out there and I'm just curious as to why the property owner may be required to do a survey, a tree survey and some landscaping surveys because I didn't. Kate Aanenson: This is one issue. Councilwoman Ernst: Again I guess it goes back to the drainage issue but. Kate Aanenson: This is one issue the neighbors brought up, the visual impact and to screen that and because there wasn't a tree survey or a house plan to show that impact, the Planning Commission just wanted to make sure, duly noted that it was an issue. A factor. 15 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: So we have approximately how many surveys that the property owner has to have total? Kate Aanenson: A grading plan. Councilwoman Ernst: A grading and. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's typical for any. Councilwoman Ernst: The tree survey. Kate Aanenson: That's a typical requirement of any subdivision. Councilwoman Ernst: And then the tree survey? And a drainage survey Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Ernst: It just seemed like an awful lot of surveys to have for putting in a house that I, when I was out and looked at the site it didn't seem like it was going to require all that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, again the staff's position on the tree survey, the drainage survey we believe is necessary. The tree survey we agree that you know when we see exactly where the house is going to sit, we'll make a determine. We're not going to cut down trees just to replace a tree so depending on what gets removed and the visual impact, then we would assess whether or not we need to put additional trees in. Councilwoman Ernst: Is that something that has to be done? When is that done? Is that done before or after? Todd Gerhardt: Typically it's done before the subdivision. Kate Aanenson: Or with the application, yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Before the house actually goes in? Todd Gerhardt: Well when you submit your original application to go the Planning Commission and City Council, it's one of the items that you're to submit for a full application is a tree survey. And then that would give the Planning Commission and staff you know verification of the amount of trees on the site. And the size of those. So you know then you can see what kind of impact's going to occur at the housing pad site. You know typically you'll see utility plans with the bigger subdivisions and you can see what the impact of the road utilities would have on that. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I just don't know what they would know at that point that they didn't know what they know today. You know other than just getting a survey done. 16 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Well I can answer that real quick. Within that buildable area there's room for flexibility. Now again that's illustrative of what we believe the buildable lot is. That metes and bounds from that original survey needs to be re -drawn to meet the standards of the 15,000. Meet the 100 foot setback, 30 foot setback line with the 60 by 60 buildable pad. That's our illustrative. That is not the metes and bounds subdivision so that's got to be re -submitted. So that could change a little bit. So within that we don't know exactly where that house is going to sit, or how the utilities are in there so there is some unknowns here yet. So we're just making sure that it's, meets the City standards. Councilman McDonald: Could I just follow up, to follow that? Then I guess what this is coming down to, I mean I looked at the site. There seems to be plenty of room there to put something in. My question about to the north, I don't see how the home's going to impact that but I think what you're telling us is that once you have more detail and you can actually overlay it in there. If you agree there's no impact as far as the trees that are currently there. He's not going to cut down existing trees to place this, then there may not be a need as far as replacement of trees. And at that point, I mean anything to the north, which would be along the fence line, which is on the other side of the road, we're not going to go in there and do an additional impact that says you have to block everything at this point are we? Kate Aanenson: No but you have to recognize that there is a buildable area to the north. Someone could put a porch on. We don't know exactly how that house is laid, but I would hope in good faith that we're going to use you know sound judgment and say, now of those trees are impacted. There's no more room for additional trees or if there is some additional loss because of utilities, then we can push it, move a tree around or save a tree and move a tree over where it provides an additional screening so that we would try to work on that. Councilman Litsey: Just for clarification, what surveys have not been completed yet? Kate Aanenson: Just the house pad survey and the tree survey. Councilman Litsey: And normally the tree survey is required ahead of time? Kate Aanenson: Typically we do. Councilman Litsey: And why was it not? Why the exception this time? Kate Aanenson: In this circumstance because it was a heavily wooded area, the place where the house is going is the area with the least amount of trees. If it moved to the north side then definitely we would have required a tree survey. Councilman Litsey: But in reading through that earlier there was some, I mean the main concern is with the trees. Kate Aanenson: To the north. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. 17 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Correct. And if I go to this aerial wanting again, that you can see is the area that they chose that has the least amount of trees on the site. Councilman Litsey: It just seems to me we're not being real consistent perhaps with not requiring that survey up front. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have a question in general regarding the survey. You know I think we've all been to look at the property between the Planning Commission meeting and tonight's meeting. When you say survey, what are you talking about? Are you talking about someone going out there and measuring and marking every tree that's there? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Or I mean are we going that extensive or are we just you know taking an overview of what's there right now. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Because that's really the question. Todd Gerhardt: Any tree over a 6 inch caliper. Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. And to be clear the City Forester did look at the site to make a determination of that it was in the area of the least amount of impact of trees, so then at that point you know, but if you were to do a tree survey, just like we did on the public works building, they marked all the trees on that property, yeah. Todd Gerhardt: You know I think our ordinance when it comes to tree surveys are typically for larger lot subdivisions and in those cases you may have a very heavily wooded piece of property. Similar to Mark's but larger and as a part of that there's no replacement calculation that's used. So that's been in place for a long time. Probably ever since I've been here and so you know it's been a standard of our's. It's a real concern when you see larger stands of trees go down that we replace that resource somewhere else on the site. Councilman Litsey: Does the ordinance differentiate between lot size though? Todd Gerhardt: No. Kate Aanenson: No except for that this lot, even with this whole area is cleared, there's a significant amount of stands so what our ordinance, as the City Manager's indicated, the ordinance is if there's few trees and you take them all out, it's heavily punitive. There's no way you can do any subdivision without taking out some trees so you find that nexus or that balance to say what's the appropriate amount, so again the lot was located in the area with the least amount of trees. So the majority of the rest of the property has significant amount of trees, so we're just trying to say what is the appropriate. If more trees go down than we think should go IV City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 down with this, then we're going to look at that replacement. We've asked them to stake the house when they get to that point. That's a condition that we evaluate that. If it seems excessive. Councilman Litsey: So we have the latitude to require that at some point... Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Litsey: I thought there was something in there but I didn't. Kate Aanenson: Well I think that's where the Planning Commission was a little bit firmer on that condition. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And while you're looking for that, if I could just chime in another opinion again. I, you know I totally agree with subdivisions when they're coming in and there are beautiful stands of oak trees or mature trees that are obviously been there for a long time and they should be protected and this to me seems to be, where this house is going, it is just a lot of trees that maybe are 6 inches or even less. I don't see a lot of substantial trees in that area when you first drive in so you know sometimes ordinances, I mean they're there for a reason but they've got to make sense at the same time and I'm not sure at this point if making the owner go out and do a tree survey for everything 6 inches or more, in that spot because where the house is going it is the least, that is where the least amount of trees are. I'm not sure if it makes sense. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess you know to chime in. I mean what I looked at today, and where the house is going to go, it's already cleared. There's one tree there that was damaged by lightning that's going to come down, and that doesn't necessarily need to be replaced because the tree's dead. Mayor Furlong: What I might ask, if we can, because I want to make sure that we get questions for staff. I want the applicant to come up and then we have a public hearing as well so. Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? Mayor Furlong: Sure. Kate Aanenson: We do have a condition inhere that speaks to just what I said and that's condition number 8 that says that they must submit a tree preservation removal calculation. So we're just going to ask them to show us what they're removing, and then they protect, use that protection fence around the remaining portion of it and then unless there's additional trees moved beyond that, what we believe is a calculation, then we would ask for additional trees to be placed, and that's where the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that if they're replaced, that they be put to that north side where they provide the most buffer. Councilwoman Ernst: So that's what the survey consists of? Kate Aanenson: No. That's not what the survey consists of. x 19 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 CouncilwomanErnst: Okay. Alright, I just wanted to be clear on that. Kate Aanenson: This is a modification to that. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Kate Aanenson: The survey requires everything. Councilman Litsey: That gives some comfort level moving forward that we have some control over some of that, if they feel that more trees or whatever. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Litsey: That's fine, and then as long as that's clear. Councilman McDonald: That's kind of a trade off between doing the survey up front and you know. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, as long as we have some authority to you know, do that, that's fine. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not the applicant is here. Mr. Senn, would you like to address the council on any items? Mark Senn: M. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Mark Senn: My name is Mark Senn. 7160 Willow View Cove, Chanhassen. Um, let's see here. We, we are I believe the largest lot in the entire area. I believe we're also probably the longest term resident in the area other than I think I surviving members of the Kurvers family. The, when we purchased this property it was always our intention to look at this property as not only meeting you know our current needs at that time but you know a lot of future needs and family needs and a whole bunch of other things. Our strong desire here was to really just kind of come in and ask permission or whatever we needed to essentially build another house on the property. Small house. One level. No stairs and that sort of thing. The purpose of the structure is to put my mother in it right now. Future purpose is probably putting me in it. The, we were kind of told basically that that wasn't possible and that we can do that life's gotten I guess very complicated since then no matter which way you turn in relationship to doing this. But it's our intention to never, I mean there will not be two separate owners here. There will be a covenant in the divided lot, if that's the approach that we end up taking and if that's the only approach that we'll have a covenant on it saying it needs to be remain the same ownership as the other house. That's not something we leave to chance one way or the other. That covenant will be there and will remain there. The, as far as the you know where we want to ultimately go with this, I think I PE City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 kind of prefaced it earlier. I mean what we want to do right now is put my mother in it and in the future my son will be basically moving into the house and probably my wife and I will be moving out into this house when we're not spending you know as much time around here. At least during the winters. What we're trying to do here, I mean basically that's, we've been pretty good stewards of the land out there. I think we have. We've even done something that most people I don't think ever consider doing but actually we even put a wetland on our property that wasn't there. And the, you know we've really kind of developed, since I've been there I've done all the landscaping on the property in terms of everything. I mean there was essentially almost nothing there when we purchased it so, we've really taken kind of a lot of care in what we've done there and how we've done it. The situation is that you know it appears that you know this is the way we have to go and actually subdivide, which is not really our desire but if that's what's required you know we're willing to go with that and we're willing to work with that but again we just don't want to create a separate situation here. I don't view this as a separate or how do I say it, the typical subdivision because it's not a typical subdivision and stuff. You know we have almost, we're just shy of 4 acres. We have about 430 feet of lakeshore and we have over 1,000 trees on our property. Just to give you a feel for it. I really want to thank all the council for coming out and looking at the property. Looking at the site. I was a little dismayed at the Planning Commission that nobody would come out and then was talking about what to do about certain areas and the area we're talking about here essentially, if you look just to the north of that site there, there's basically 300 trees in that area right there between us and any neighboring houses. If you go a little bit to the west, where the kind of center island area is and the driveway there, there's probably another couple hundred trees there and there's another 100 on the north side of the driveway between there and the property line going up to the house. Again behind the house that's a whole different story. We have well over 500 trees in the back of the house and stuff so it just kind of gives you a little better feel for the site and stuff. When the house was put where it is on the site, which is essentially the narrowest point, it was kind of put there intentionally because we really don't want to you know look at anything else happening between there and essentially the lake and stuff so that's part of what drove you know our decision in terms of where we wanted to put this. And we also located the house essentially based on where it would be the lowest impact on the site, but also lowest impact to really any, you know anything around the site and stuff so. The house we're planning is going to be like I say, single level, no stairs. About the only debate we're still going through is whether there's going to be a basement in it for storage or not but the, it's going to be at grade. Again, no steps and there's not going to be a walkout or anything like that. The topography there would be destroyed if we put a walkout in and that's not the intention again. Like I say we were even thinking of slab on grade but I've been thinking a little bit more just creating some, at least some additional storage space underneath. The house that we're looking at doing is going to be probably around 40 by 60 or so, with the garages. I mean we're not talking about a large house here. We've always kind of viewed this or look at it as, or at least I guess I should say I have because I grew up with, started in Minneapolis and then in Minnetonka and a few other places but kind of like a carriage house, which still exist in even many of our other surrounding suburbs and stuff and that's really kind of what we view this as and it's going to remain part of the property and be part of the property because that's what we want it to be. Just to give you a little more background on a few other things. The most the utilities come up the driveway. Under the driveway, and the remaining utilities follow the southern property line there and I mean that will all be laid out with the plan once we get the structure set. So we have really a couple different 21 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 options in terms of where to come from in terms of the utilities go. At least currently I'll just give you a feel for. We currently have a fire hydrant on the south end of the house. Probably about 15 feet off the house. And there's also sewer, just so, the sewer goes all the way back down to probably within 50 feet of the lake and stuff so, just kind of gives you a feel for what's there. As far as going with, you know we've been working with staff and you know if this is the route that's best and works for everybody, we're happy to go with Plan B. Some of the conditions that have been attached I think are kind of problematic and stuff but I'm not quite sure how we deal with that. For example in number 8, the whole deal over the tree calculations and survey and stuff. I think I mentioned to most of you and I can only hope that we're not required to do a tree survey. I don't even want to know what that would cost with over 1,000 trees, but going down there, item (c) under there causes me great concern, which tells me any tree I want to do anything with I have to get the City's permission from. I'm doing that almost on a weekly basis. With as many trees as we have, we're constantly thinning out and doing other things. I mean for example I have boxwoods growing up into majestic oaks that are 150 feet tall and that's what kills oaks and stuff so I mean I thin out my trees and take care of them because I'm trying to keep the big old oaks. I'm trying to keep the big, I've got pines in excess of 75 feet and everything else and we're trying to keep our mature trees but I think most of the people who know me I spend, oh I spend, since I've been retired, most of my life in my yard and it takes a lot of work just to keep that stuff up and heck, I can't even keep up with the firewood I produce so. I give a lot of it away. So I mean (c) again causes us a lot of concern because next thing I know I'm going to be doing what I'm always doing and being carted away for it. Other items in here that kind of concern us a little bit were number 12. Paying full parkland dedication fees. I've already paid them really. Don't think I should have to pay them again but. They've been paid once on the property and I'm not really again increasing, I had more, how would I say more people on the property over the last 20 years than I do now. And will after this house is built. The revised survey stuff and as far as the drainage goes, again also concerns me unless it's really defined because the last thing I want to do is re -survey my entire parcel there for topography and draining and basic grading and drainage, that sort of thing and stuff because we aren't going to alter it at all. In fact again that, one of the reasons why we picked where we're going to put the house because the drainage from that house is going to basically just go right to the east there. It's the only place it can go and there's a big catch basin there and that catch basin just goes underground then into a storm sewer which goes to a retaining pond that's less than a couple hundred yards away. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Senn excuse me. That item, which condition were you? Mark Senn: That is on number 13. I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Okay, 13. Thank you. Mark Senn: Yep. And then on number 18, again nobody from the Planning Commission came out and stuff but to be honest with you I can't even grow grass in any of those areas because it's so shady. I don't know how I'm going to get anything else to grow if somebody wants me to plant additional stuff and stuff. I guess maybe if the issue here is that the, if the neighbor to the north doesn't, or thinks this is going to alter their view, I guess I have a fence along the entire north property line there that's getting rather old and I mean I've worked, thinking about 22 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 replacing it anyway so I'll just replace that and when we do that section I'll be happy to just put in a privacy fence and then we won't have to worry about it and stuff but again most everything we've done there has been trying to be the lowest impact and have it kind of fit. Not have to do things like that and the, but again just in that area, it's impossible to look at, even if somebody wants me to plant, it's just throwing money down the tubes. I can't even, like I say, I can't even get grass to grow in most of the areas so, not shade grass. But other than that, the you know overall you know staff s been really good. I think staff kind of came up with Plan B because we were all kind of having a hard time trying to figure out how to do this with all the ordinances and regulations that have come in since we've owned the property. But it's a workable solution in a lot of ways. Again not the desired one but we'll just turn around and solve that with the covenant and that sort of thing if we need to do that so. Other than that if you have any questions, be happy to answer them. Again thanks you all for coming out and looking. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Senn. Councilman McDonald: I have a question. I mean it seems as though the biggest problem between you and the City is a lack of detail, and the City's put a lot of things in here that again would be required under the ordinance of a normal developer, and I guess you know you've laid out some of the problems with doing some of this. If it's possible to provide detail to the City, all we're looking for is certain assurances and then at that point you know staff can, and again I seem to be seeing that it's stated in here. It's kind of staff s discretion on some of these surveys as to whether they're going to require them or not but for right now it appears that because the lack of detail we have to put it in. If you can provide the detail and work with staff and come up with the solution there to maybe do away with some of these, would that be acceptable? Mark Senn: Yeah, I mean that's our intention. I mean the only reason we didn't is when we originally walked in and found out we had all these rules hitting us from 10 different directions, it was kind of really difficult to figure out exactly you know what we could put there. And then when staff came back and said we'll just put a 60 by 60 pad there, we said that's fine because we're not even going to utilize a 60 by 60 pad so. Kate Aanenson: Can I give a little clarification again? This is a metes and bounds subdivision. A metes and bounds subdivision typically we do if you have a lot that's maybe 200 feet on the street that only requires 90 feet of frontage, so all the utilities and everything is there. This isn't a plat. This is a metes and bounds subdivision so there is a lot of vagueness in doing a metes and bounds subdivision. So engineering was looking for where those drainage and utilities and so I'll let the City Engineer address what level of detail because that's their bailiwick as far as what they feel like they need for drainage, but that's why that was put on there because a metes and bounds is a different conveyance than a normal plat. So it doesn't have a level of detail. If this was a plat it would show the easement lines typically 10 feet around on the side so maybe Paul if you wanted to address the requirements for the survey. Paul Oehme: Sure. You know typically engineering requires drainage survey for new house pads. It's both for the property owner's benefit and for the adjacent properties to make sure that the drainage is properly getting away from the building, plus not impacting any associated 23 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 buildings or structures or any other lots around them so all we're looking for is some assurances that drainage is being maintained or improved on this site. Kate Aanenson: There's also a requirement for the drainage and utility easement and that's the other one, I'm on condition number 13. That, because we don't know where the driveway's going so there's that commonality portion so we want to see where that would go because that affects that, where that portion has to be 30 feet plus and then whether or not you wanted to show the utility in a separate easement or not. As you indicated there's a hydrant on there but this plat doesn't show if it's on an easement or. Mark Senn: Oh it is. We have a utility and drainage easement around the entire property and stuff now so. Mayor Furlong: Is that along the property line? Mark Senn: Yeah. Along the property lines and stuff so. Kate Aanenson: It's my understanding we couldn't find that so I don't know. Paul Oehme: Right, a metes and bounds survey typically doesn't show a lot of that detail work so. Mayor Furlong: Does that exist already on the? Paul Oehme: We weren't able to find it, the easement on the property so. Mark Senn: You wouldn't. There isn't. Kate Aanenson: That's the reason it's here. We couldn't find it on this one, yeah. So. Paul Oehme: So all we are asking is just to verify that those easements are recorded. And if not, we'd like to get those recorded. Mayor Furlong: For just the new parcel or both? Paul Oehme: Just, we're just talking about the new parcel. Mayor Furlong: The new parcel. And all this discussion has been around the new parcel, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for Mr. Senn? At this time. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Not for Mark but for Kate. Or Paul. Whichever one can answer it. 24 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: So if you can, can you get the detailed information without him having to do the surveys? Paul Oehme: Typically not. A registered land surveyor is typically the person that would be needed for obtaining the existing and needed easements on the property so he would do a title search and look at what's exactly out there currently and if anything additionally is needed, he can point that out to us. Councilwoman Ernst: Is this kind of what you were talking about Jerry is doing this aside from the survey? Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess what I'm looking for here is, I mean what's in the requirements yeah, it's pretty stringent but it's required by the ordinances and everything. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, the City's just looking to protect themselves and once we have assurances of some of this, and again it's because of there's no detail as to what's going in there and so the City needs to know. Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear, we don't have any records of it. It's not that there's no detail. We don't have records of it so someone has to provide that. Councilman McDonald: No, I mean details of his house. Of what he wants to build and where it's going to go. Kate Aanenson: Or existing conditions. Councilman McDonald: Right. Yeah. So that's the thing I think we're looking for and it's not that we're going to require a lot of this. It's I guess it's the option. Kate Aanenson: Well, I don't want to have the discretion. Councilwoman Ernst: ...why do we have it in here? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Kate. Kate Aanenson: Well my concern is that I'm going to be negotiating all these things and I feel very uncomfortable doing that. You know I think and the staff's position is, what we have in here, but for the tree thing which we agree that we can resolve that. I'm not sure, if we don't have the easements here, someone has to go out and physically survey it and find that location so it'd either be the City or. Mayor Furlong: Okay. OR City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilman McDonald: I guess let me, I'm not saying that they should come out. I understand you've got to negotiate. My question's more to Mr. Senn in that knowing that, that what we're looking for as a City, if you're prepared to do it and give it to the City and then we're willing to say okay that meets our requirements, then is everything okay and it looks as though these things are still open to negotiation somewhat. Mark Senn: Well again most of that doesn't bother me Mr. McDonald as long as it doesn't cost me a fortune to do it. I mean again I'm building a very small residence here that I'm not looking to turn into a half a million dollar home so, especially when the half a million's caused by things that have absolutely nothing to do with the structure so. Because again you know, you know we're going to continue and we still do and will continue to look at it as you know as one piece of land anyway so. 3 Councilman McDonald: Okay, and I guess I understand all of those concerns and what I'm kind of looking for here is, how do we meet the requirements of the City and all it's ordinance and how do we meet your requirements of trying to build what's basically a fairly simple home for a very good purpose and such. That's all I'm trying to look at is how do we get at that without driving the cost of your home up to where it's much more than what it should be. Mark Senn: Yeah to be honest with you I wish somebody would have told me that they didn't know about the easements because that shocks me. I mean I believe I have a plat map for the entire neighborhood when it was laid out with all the easements on it. For every lot and stuff. can, I'll dig that out and stuff. I thought those were all here and on record and everybody understood where all those were. Mayor Furlong: Let me ask a quick question. With regard to condition number 13 in the staff report. It says submit a revised survey showing the following a, b and c. Is that survey, just for clarification, is that survey of Tract C and D or simply Tract C? Kate Aanenson: I'll ask Paul on that. Paul Oehme: That would be just C. Mayor Furlong: Just C. Paul Oehme: Yeah C and drainage. Basically if the drainage is heading to the east, we'd like to grab that information as well. Mayor Furlong: And to the extent that the grading and construction might change the drainage on that portion. Paul Oehme: On that parcel. Mayor Furlong: You're looking for where the drainage is going to go after the house is built. Paul Oehme: Exactly. 26 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: To verify that it's not going towards the neighbor. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: That it's going to the east, which Mr. Senn said that's, it may not naturally go there now. Some of it may, some of it may not but that's what you're looking at. Paul Oehme: It's both for the property owner's benefit and for the neighbor's benefit I think, and for the City's. They can capture that information and make sure that we know where that water's going. Mayor Furlong: But again just to be clear 13 is just related to Tract C? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Not Tract D. And maybe we can clarify the language there to be clear. Kate Aanenson: Sure. We can make that a part of the motion. Part of the condition. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. If I can just add a point of clarification here. What we're trying to do here is once Mark is done with the subdivision, he can sell Tract C. I know that's not his intention but that's the ultimate goal here based on our ordinance. If he had this property and just put the carriage house, he couldn't just sell the carriage house and so this is allowing him the opportunity to sell that. That's what our ordinance puts in place. We don't allow the carriage house and we can go through a whole white paper of why we don't allow carriage houses but at this point what we're trying to do is to protect Mark and the future owner of that property the rights with those easements of where water's going to drain and the neighbor's next door. So just point of clarification. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions for Mr. Senn? Otherwise what I'll do is, thank you. Mark Senn: Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: And we'll have a public hearing here so at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. If you can please state your name and address in addressing the council on this matter I'd appreciate it. Herb LePlatt: Hi. My name is Herb LePlatt and we live at 7012 Cheyenne Trail, Chanhassen, Minnesota and we are the property that's directly to the north of the proposed Tract C that Mark is proposing to put in. Several points that I wanted to bring up right away is Mark said that his house was one of the oldest and that's not true. There's 3 homes just north of him that were there since 1968 so his house, that's not a true statement. There are other homes there that are 27 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 older than his that have been well established. The other part of this is, just north of where this building site is is probably the least treed spot on his entire property and that's why it's so critical to have a tree survey and Find out exactly what is going to happen to those trees because those trees are critical to main our values and our expectation of what we bought 20 years ago. We're not the only ones that are in this same situation. There are two other neighbors right next to us that are in the same situation as we are. Councilman Litsey: Is there a way to put that map up so you can point to where you're talking about or? Mayor Furlong: Can we put it on the table? Do we have one for the table? Councilman Litsey: If not, then just the pointer. Kate Aanenson: It'd be easier with the mouse just to point right to the north there. Councilman Litsey: That's fine. Just so I get it right. Kate Aanenson: There you go. Herb LePlatt: That's our property right there. Councilman Litsey: Okay. And the least treed area you're saying is? Kate Aanenson: Off that point to the north. Herb LePlatt: Is off that point to the north, correct. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Thank you. Herb LePlatt: I believe that a tree survey, there was an assumption being made that a tree survey would have to be done for his whole lot and that's not necessary at all. I don't think anybody wants that but I do believe that a tree survey around the area of this Tract C is appropriate so I encourage you to follow through with that if you possibly can. The utilities, there is an electrical utility, the gas utility that runs right down that north lot line so we have no control over the trees or what happens in that easement right there. I mean they can come in and take all those trees down and now we've got even less trees because a majority of the trees that are there exist on that utility easement. We have no control over that so I'd really like to encourage some sort of a control by the Planning Commission to have landscaping done. Or at least ensure that there is a buffer that remains there that we can control in this building process instead of waiting for the power company to come in and take the trees down because they're getting into their power wires. A privacy fence was mentioned and the privacy fence would probably have to be about 20 feet tall in order for it to work or have any impact simply because where he's building, where Lot C is or Tract C is the highest point on that property. So anybody that is anywhere around him is going to see that house and have, be impacted by it no matter what you put in there, unless it's tall trees. I guess the, I just wanted to encourage the council to listen to your own ordinances W. City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 because they're there for a reason. It's not to cost him more money but it is to protect the other people around a development. When we bought our house there 20 years ago we came in and it was all plotted as single family homes. There was no expectation of any development behind us ever, and I'm not sure exactly what it will do to our value of our home. If it brings the value down I hope that it brings the tax base down with it. There's 3 other homes here that will be similarly impacted if they went to sell their homes later on. So just as a consideration I think that the council should listen to what their ordinances and what their planning department has been telling them and it is for a good reason. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. May I ask you a question? Herb LePlatt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Mr. LePlatt. You mentioned trees and a utility easement on the north lot line. Is that easement on Mr. Senn's side of the property or on your side of the property? Herb LePlatt: It's on our side of the property line. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And what's the listen of that? Of that easement. Herb LePlatt: I believe it's a 10 foot easement. It's a standard electrical utility easement. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Herb LePlatt: There's a gas line that goes through there and, a natural gas line and a power line. Mayor Furlong: Because you do have some trees on your side of the property line but you're saying those are in the easement area? Herb LePlatt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then from the tree survey standpoint around there, you said it's important to do it. Help us understand your thoughts on how that would be used. Herb LePlatt: That's how you control what trees are going to be taken down and if those trees need to be replaced. Is to have a tree survey done so in the utility process of coming into his new tract takes down trees, or in the building process that's off the roadway it's off because there's going to be changes there, that you don't even know about yet because it hasn't been detailed. In fact there's, you've all been saying the same thing. There's a tremendous lack of detail in this plan and without the details you can't tell whether it's going to fit into your ordinance or the variances on the ordinance that you're creating. So I encourage you to get the details and that would include a tree survey, and I don't think it has to be done throughout the whole thing. I think that the planning commission could give some guidelines on how large an area needs to be surveyed. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 29 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Herb LePlatt: Most of the trees that are on the northeast side of his proposed lot are all under 6 inches. That means he could come in and take them all down if he wanted to and then there would be no trees between us and, well the four, the subdivision, whole subdivision and this new tract. So it's, there's a lot of gray area that needs to be worked through before I think that there could be any approval process done with a fair conscience. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey: I just wanted to ask, are you comfortable with what, how it's phrased in here in terms of conditions of approval or do you still think that's too watered down? Herb LePlatt: Well from what I heard here tonight I think that what currently is there would be acceptable to us. I think that that would do what would be needed to give the Planning Commission oversight on the tree removal or the utilities and the new road that's going to be built in there. So. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Herb LePlatt: I believe that it, you know as it stands I would think that that's, that would be appropriate as long as there's some oversight. Councilman Litsey: Right. Thank you. Herb LePlatt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. LePlatt. Anyone else who would like to speak? Betsy LePlatt: Hi, I'm Betsy LePlatt. I am the other adult resident at 7012 Cheyenne Trail. My main reason for coming up was I was disappointed with the removal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission to add some sort of landscaping on the north side and the reason this bothers me a bit is I was hoping maybe there would be some sort of evergreen something that could be planted on the new lot C since it is a little bit higher elevation than the part to the north that's not in Lot C. But however I think the privacy fence idea is not a bad one so I wanted to go on record saying that and I guess that's it. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Councilman Litsey: Kate, doesn't Section 18, or the condition 18 address that a little bit? Kate Aanenson: 18? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think maybe shy was under the impression that you were going to remove that. You have been discussing that. 30 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So I think there's just a misunderstanding. You haven't voted on that yet. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we haven't made any changes at this point. We've been discussing the different changes but as I understood Ms. LePlatt your comments is you prefer to keep 18 in. Condition 18. Betsy LePlatt: I don't have 18... for me to know. Mayor Furlong: That's what I heard. That was the condition that the Planning Commission recommended be added that dealt with landscaping. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Enhancing landscaping. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Betsy LePlatt: On the north. Councilwoman Tjomhom: That's what 18 said. Councilman Litsey: It says the applicant shall work with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. Herb LePlatt: Would that be the Tract C property? The new property or the existing? Councilman Litsey: Good question. Kate Aanenson: It's on the north side. I think we have to decide where it goes. Councilman Litsey: So we have to clarify that language. Herb LePlatt: ...either the north side of his driveway or south side of his driveway. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. We're still in a public hearing at this point so I would invite anyone else to please come forward and address the council on this matter. No? Okay. Without objection then we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for thoughts and discussions unless there are other questions. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'm going to throw a question out there. On these subdivisions, you know we're talking about trees and counting them and removing and putting them back and, take me back to the planning commission days. What is required for the amount of trees on this 31 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 subdivision, and what's required if they're removed? You know do they have to be replaced? I mean what is our ordinance? What does it say? Kate Aanenson: Well there's a couple points here. One, when there's a variance request you can apply any reasonable condition to mitigate that impact and that's I think where the Planning Commission was going. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Okay. And the other one is, I'll just state it simply and that's if there's a lot of trees you can take some trees out because there's no way you can build without removing some trees. If there's very few trees and you take them all out, you're going to be heavily penalized to replace. So the goal is looking at the species of trees and what's being removed, so until we have the house in front of us, and we look at the floor plan, how the final grading works out. What's the best way? What we've found is kind of working through that, best way. To site a tree. If we can place a tree on the site, again we hate to remove trees to place another tree, that we would look to see, if another tree could be placed, would it be effective screening to make that decision in the field at a future date, so we would look at how much is being removed. Can we replace it? Where can it be replaced? You don't want to replace it right next to the house so we have to look at all that and evaluate once the house plan comes in and that's why we think A covers that, and again using sound judgment. What makes sense to make that work. Mayor Furlong: Could you pull up the picture that showed the 60 by 60 pad, that showed the setbacks? Of the staff B. Do you have a sense of the distance between the northern most point of Tract C and the northern property line of Tract D? Kate Aanenson: 30-40 feet. Mayor Furlong: 30-40 feet. 30? And what's the setback? You've got that point there but what's the setback from. Kate Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying between the road and that, could something go in that point and how close would it be to the. Mayor Furlong: But isn't there a setback there from that property line? Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: That northern most property line... Kate Aanenson: Right, if I could just go to the original survey that was on here, you can see that's the property line where that driveway converges is. It's the only place you would have on Tract C would be in that point where the driveway is. The driveway's kind of split. Is that what you're asking me? PA City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: I guess I'm asking the northern, we've got kind of a point, that northern point almost looks like a house if you will. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right there. Right. Mayor Furlong: With the roof line, what I'll refer to as the northern property line on C, which is kind of the roof line. The two together. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Which will confuse everybody but what is the setback for building from those two lot lines? Kate Aanenson: Oh, I see. From that setback line. I probably have to go, if you'll let me go to the. Mayor Furlong: Is it the side? Is it 10 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This is where you're showing it. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: It's 10 feet. Kate Aanenson: Actually the front, the front is where you meet the 100 so that's, that would be a side. So that'd be 10 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay so, because that's 30 is coming from a quote, front. Kate Aanenson: 30's from the front and the back would be. Mayor Furlong: And 30 in the back. Kate Aanenson: Towards the lake. And then 10 on each side. You're correct. Mayor Furlong: 10 on each side. Kate Aanenson: So there is room within there to put. Again looking at what the roof line looks like, could a tree go in there? It may not, and if for some reason as the applicant indicated the utilities are in there, something needs to be dug up to get drainage and we're making a water swath to put that in, that maybe a tree can be placed on the other side so we'll have to make that as a field decision. And that's why I say we'll go out there and look at it, once they stake out where the house pad's going to go, we'll make that tree inventory there. What's being removed. 33 l J City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Can some of it be replaced? Where's the appropriate place? That's always a better field decision to get the best screening. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Did I answer your question? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No it did. I just. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? Mr. Senn if you would, you had mentioned that there's some utilities that run along the driveway and some utilities that run along the southern property line. Did I understand that correct? Mark Senn: Yeah, the. Mayor Furlong: Do you know which ones are under the driveway and which ones are on the southern property line? Mark Senn: The utilities that run up under our driveway I believe are our gas. The stuff on the north, or I mean sorry, the south property line I believe is the, is the, what am I trying to say? I think it's the telephone and. Mayor Furlong: Water, electric. Mark Senn: And cable and stuff like that. The water I believe also goes up under the driveway, if I remember correctly. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mark Senn: And stuff, and then actually I think goes up under the driveway and then criss- crosses over across to where that hydrant is that I was describing on the south side. Our sewer for our house goes down towards the lake, not towards the street and stuff and so we tie into a sewer deal that's to the west of us basically and stuff. As far as what's, I mean we drive the, how would I say it. The utility easement along the north property line north of our property line essentially, I mean all that, we don't derive any utilities off of that. That all services essentially the neighborhood to the north of us and stuff. It has nothing to do with us one way or the other. Mayor Furlong: So all your utilities are at the driveway or south? Mark Senn: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: But those are your private utilities, correct? That go down the driveway. 34 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mark Senn: Ah yes, but I mean what we're looking to do is basically just tie, because I mean again they're metered at the house so I mean it's our intention to tie into the utilities at the closest point we can tie into utilities so. Mayor Furlong: So I guess the question I have then, there is a request here in the staff report for an easement on that access, the driveway. Does it need to be an easement... Kate Aanenson: And that may be a double, that might be the easement for the utilities might be one and the same. Mayor Furlong: But does there need to be a utility easement from the public street as well for this parcel? Mark Senn: It's usually all one in the same. Kate Aanenson: Well it may or may not be. We have both conditions in here so. Mayor Furlong: Where's the second condition? The utility easement. Kate Aanenson: It's 15. Mayor Furlong: Drainage and utility easement, okay. Kate Aanenson: ...the driveway serving both so that's a cross access. And then. Mayor Furlong: What about other utilities? 13 just says showing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Number 4. And number 3. Mayor Furlong: Utility plan showing existing, okay. Mark Senn: Yeah, see all the utilities to the north property line are kind of sightly. They're all above ground. All of our utilities are underground. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, thank you. Thoughts and comments. Any other questions on this one? Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Ernst: Well I personally would like to see staff and property owner, see what they can come to on a conclusion and then come back. Work through the details that we talked about tonight and then bring it back. That's what I personally would like to see. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: See if they can work some things out. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So are you saying you'd like to table this? 35 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts, comments. Councilman Litsey: I'm fine moving ahead as proposed. I think it addresses the legitimate concerns of the neighbors here without compromising the applicant's ability to move forward so I think we're being mindful of what the neighbors have brought up and yet the applicant can move forward. I think we should just do it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom or Mr. McDonald. Councilwoman Tjomhom: You can start. Councilman McDonald: I guess you know I'd be in favor of that too because my concern is, after hearing. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In favor of what? Tabling or. Councilman McDonald: Tabling. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I would be in favor of tabling and allowing some details to be worked out because what I hear from the residents to the north, I'm not sure that that's what number 18 is and that's where my confusion comes down because now if you're requiring buffering and landscaping over on basically it would be Tract D instead of C because I don't see how you're going to do it on Tract C. I think that needs to be worked out as to what are we going to do there as far as screening. Is there anything, because if we don't take down any trees, we're not going to require anything to be put back in there but we don't know that at this point because we don't know if there's any trees. Kate Aanenson: Mayor, unless someone submits a house plan, I really don't know that I have much more to negotiate with. I'm submitting what I believe to do a legitimate requirement to our ordinances. Unless someone submits a house plans in more details then I don't really have. Councilman Litsey: No, that's absolutely a good point. Kate Aanenson: I don't know what else to negotiate. If you want to waive something then, then I would suggest that that take place there because I feel like this is our best recommendation to meet our ordinance. You know we're doing a metes and bounds instead of a subdivision which requires a variance so I think, unless you want to give us some direction on that. Councilman McDonald: Well if I misunderstand, I thought that's what you were asking for is we need more detail submitted in all of this to move forward. 91 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: I'm saying that they, let them work it out. However that needs to be, but see if they can come to an agreement on some things and then bring it back to council. Councilman Litsey: What I hear staff saying is to do that then we'd have to have house plans. Councilwoman Ernst: Well. Councilman Litsey: Is that what we're asking for? Councilwoman Ernst: I don't know. That's something they're going to have to work out. Councilman Litsey: Well I think we have to give staff direction. I don't want to leave them hanging. Councilman McDonald: Well and I guess I'd be in favor of you know getting the details. What do we need to work out? So that's going to mean staff needs the details of what's going in. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess everyone's working with what they have at this point and doing the best they can with the information they've been given. You know I don't have a major problem with any of this. I think my major problem, if I have one, is the ordinance itself that requires people to count trees that are this big. You know I think that kind of sometimes over burdens them, for developers and people that are trying to do something with their property and so I guess that's where I come back, and I've done this with other developments also and I've said that it's tedious for developers to have to go to that extent when it comes to tree preservation. Obviously common sense intercedes that there are definitely those mature trees that should be marked and taken care of, and so I guess that's where I go back to, is it onerous to go count all the trees or you know what's required on the lot? What's not? So I guess I'm willing to move forward with it and in good faith hoping that there aren't a lot of those small trees that need to be counted and that I would think it would be in everyone's interest, the applicants and the neighbors and the person that's going to be living there to keep all the trees there for privacy. Common sense just tells me that at least that that would be what should happen so I am willing to go ahead and move forward with this tonight. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Ernst: I'm sorry Mayor, could I ask one more question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate when, with the details that you have laid out here, are you saying that this is basically everything that we have to work with? There's no more. Kate Aanenson: Well, we require a drainage and utility easement. I'm not the one to say you don't need to do that. You know I think if we've looked for that and we don't have it. The 37 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 original, this is originally a registered land survey so we don't have that data so what we've said, Paul clarified that and we just say for the new tract so we're minimizing the requirements if this was a subdivision so we've already kind of stepped back from that so I think what we're recommending here is to make it legitimate, as the City manager said, if there's conveyances on that property that it's whole, and we don't know what's going to happen in the future. That we've done our due diligence to make sure it's correct. Nobody wants them to count any individual trees but I think what we've agreed is that we're going to stake out the area for tree removal. We'll examine that. If there's a place to put an additional tree, if that's what makes sense, then that's what we would do but to take down trees to put in another tree, we all agree that doesn't make sense. Whether or not you want to say that you know some of the other easements are there, I don't, or doesn't have to pay park fees, I'm not sure that's my place to negotiate those things. I feel uncomfortable negotiating some of those things so. -.- Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Councilwoman Ernst: (Yes). Mayor Furlong: A lot of different parts, a lot of different options here this evening. I think based on the information we have, I do feel comfortable going forward. It may mean that there might be some more requirements than typical. At the same time I think we have to look at the requirements and make sure they're reasonable, and I think this is, getting back to Councilwoman Tjomhom's thoughts and comments here on what's reasonable. Our ordinances are there. We do follow the ordinances but at the same time we have to take a look at the ordinance and say is it reasonable to require that the ordinance be followed, and I think the best example of that probably is the request for the variance this evening on the private street to not require upgrading that current driveway to a 7 ton, 25 foot wide private street. That would certainly take out a number of trees. I think trees will be the most used word tonight on our council minutes. Todd Gerhardt: In this room. Mayor Furlong: Well, I think if the minutes get recorded somebody can do a word count on trees. I just said it twice more. But I think to, within that I think trying to talk about, I've tried to make some notes here and maybe I've missed something but you know with regard to some of the issues before us I think the, Mr. Senn has already modified what he originally wanted, which was a new structure on the existing lot without any, without any change in property lines. He wanted a new structure on the existing lot. He's moved away from that. With that, to staff's credit, looking for opportunities, a way to meet the ordinance and minimize the request for variances, they've done that here. I think there is reasonable cause to support the variance request. That the two variances, both of them on the private street, which is the width and the construction of 7 ton. I think the, you know as I look down the conditions, some conditions, number 12. Isn't there credit in our ordinance for any parkland fees previously paid against the current fees as well? I mean I think to the extent that, my sense is that any fees currently paid, there's also, that would be credited against the current fees. Mr. Knutson. W. City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Roger Knutson: For park dedication you only pay for the additional lot. Not, he already has one lot so he only pays for the one additional lot. Mayor Furlong: Right. You know with regard to the grading plan, with utilities and stuff like that, the grading plan I think is very important and that can come with the house plans but what that's going to do is show where the lot will be graded. It's going to have to be graded some, even though it's fairly flat and open, to make sure that water does run the way that they want it to run, which is to the east. Currently it naturally drains probably to the east and south both. What we don't want is a situation where it amplifies the drainage to the south and therefore impacts the neighbor to the south, so I think the grading plan is an important part of what we do, and that's important. You know with regard to, and now I'll get back to the trees. We've got, and I fully appreciate the LePlatt's concern about their view changing and that's going, that may or may not happen. It's in the winter time now so none of the trees have, are foliaged out but you know on the north side of that driveway, if there's 30 feet to the property line plus the setbacks, another 10. Given the shape of the buildable area, I'm doubtful that the building will go right up to that setback and that peak but even if it does, it's still 40 feet away with substantial number of trees inbetween. I can understand the recommendation of the Planning Commission on number 18 but I just, you know when I step back and say is it reasonable? I just, I don't know that it is to do that. I certainly don't think under condition 8, you know I have, I don't know that there's a need for a survey at all. I certainly don't think condition 8(c), that no trees will be removed on Tract C or D without approval of the City. I mean that's pretty broad. How long does that last for and is that really necessary? I think if the applicant, when they submit their building permit also submit a plan for the tree preservation and removal calculations. Not including necessarily a survey but on an area that can be reviewed by staff on site, which we've done and you said that's the best way to do it. And then protect those trees that they're looking to preserve with fencing, which we do on all developments. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: That's kind of the best we can do. I mean I think that's a reasonable accommodation. We'll be able to tell. There may be some big trees that have to come out. But there aren't only, there are a substantial number of trees there so, I mean I'm comfortable moving forward with the adjustment to 8 that I've recommended. And with the adjustment to 13 that says a revised survey of Tract C showing the following. I k now there was a question about easement over the road. In my opinion that absolutely has to be there for this parcel all the way from the public street. Based upon personal experience with family members, they don't always talk nice to each other and Mark, I'm sure your's is the exception but people change. Time changes thoughts and that has to be there so, but I clearly think that that needs to be there, as well as the easements for the utilities coming into this parcel. Currently they may be working together but some day that may not be the case. Even with common ownership that simply may not be the case and I think it just, that's protection for all. So those would be my recommendations, given what we have, unless there's a desire on the part, I don't even know how much time we have left on this, if any. You know unless there's a desire by the applicant to wait, but then what I'm hearing is, you'd have to come forward with your housing plans and it may be premature to do that. I don't know, that'd be up to you. Is it? Okay. Then I think what W, City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 we need to do is go forward with the information we have and seek reasonable balance between the information that we've received this evening. Other comments. Councilman Litsey: Mayor, you're looking to strike under 8(c) then, or modify that language? Mayor Furlong: I'd be looking to strike 8(c). Councilman Litsey: 8(c). Mayor Furlong: And I'd be looking to strike. Kate Aanenson: Can we modify (a)? Mayor Furlong: I'd modify (a), correct. Kate Aanenson: Just to say submit a survey for the home location? Mayor Furlong: Well not necessarily a survey. What I'm looking for is basically tree preservation and removal plan to the City staff. This is all relating to Tract C. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what that does then is here's, the property owner then is going to have to say to the City here's what I'm planning to do on Tract C. And then (b) would require them to seek to preserve those that are being protected. Kate Aanenson: Which is standard. Mayor Furlong: By fencing. Correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Throughout the construction process. And 8(a) would be accomplished based upon staff and the applicant working together, likely on site. After it's staked out. So that can be seen, and I think that's how we do it all the time, don't we? I mean that's just normal practice. Councilman Litsey: That's workable? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So and with 13, now I guess for all of these, basically are there any conditions here that are not related to Tract C? Or do all of these relate specifically to Tract C? Can you review that quickly because. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I would have to. HC City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: I don't want to put Tract C in 13 and then leave it implied that... Kate Aanenson: The only one I'm not sure on is the engineering on 13. If there were some other drainage, because the original recording we had was a registered land survey, that's why there wasn't an easement recorded, and I don't know. Mayor Furlong: And well that's why I thought Mr. Oehme said earlier this evening that 13 related only to Tract C. Paul Oehme: For the drainage, yeah. Mayor Furlong: And the, what about the other a, b and c? Is that all Tract C or is some of that D too? Paul Oehme: Well to the east. I mean I think we need to do, evaluate how the drainage heads to the east and potentially to the cul-de-sac. And also if these utilities are going to become public we need to evaluate how those utilities are being brought in there so. Mayor Furlong: So, okay then maybe I misunderstood. 13 needs to be for the entire Tract D as well as C? Or is there a sub -set in, help me understand. Paul Oehme: No, I would recommend just to the east of Tract C to the cul-de-sac. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Tract C and to the east of Tract C on D. Paul Oehme: Correct. Todd Gerhardt: It's wherever you know Mark's going to have to tie into those utilities and so you may have to go onto Tract D to create an easement for the benefit of C. Mayor Furlong: Correct, and I would think that the, if the connection is from Tract C straight to the north to his driveway to connect into the utilities, it's not just that easement but the easement from that point back out to the public utilities as well. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. If the private utility breaks, that property owner should have the rights to go on there and fix it. Mayor Furlong: Or to have... Todd Gerhardt: ...want to. Mayor Furlong: Right. Exactly, and that makes sense. Okay. So the revised survey under 13 would be for Tract C and as necessary on Tract D to the. Kate Aanenson: As necessary, yep. 41 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, is that? Did you get that on the minutes Nann? Let's go, and then the last thing was, I guess the last thing was 18 and I fully appreciate the LePlatt's concern. I'm just, I'm looking at it practically and from a reasonable, and I believe that there's, between the distance between the northern part of, or the setback portion of the building on Tract C up to the north property line, then additionally from the distance from that property line up to the house on Cheyenne Trail, that's quite a bit of distance. In fact it looks like on the aerial he's more distance than the distance of some of the houses from Cheyenne to, to Willow View further to the east so. Those are my recommendations as a way to move forward here this evening. Taking advantage of the compromise that's already taken place between the applicant and staff, and looking for a way to meet people's needs as best we can. Councilman McDonald: So are you saying strike? <; Councilman Litsey: ...remove number 18? Councilman McDonald: Are you saying strike 18? Mayor Furlong: That would be my suggestion, simply given the, well as I said earlier. Councilwoman Tjomhom: In the motion 18 isn't mentioned. It's just 1 through 17. Mayor Furlong: 18 is down at the bottom of the conditions. Councilman McDonald: On the front page. Councilman Litsey: On the front page it's 1 through 18. Mayor Furlong: Yeah but I think the staff report wasn't updated back on, what was it? Councilman Litsey: I don't personally think 18 is too onerous on the applicant. I think it gives flexibility and I trust staff would be reasonable. I would be, personally I'd be receptive to the other two amendments or changes but I wouldn't be to 18. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess could I ask for clarification because that's where all of my problems have been tonight is on 18. It just says to the north of the property. Are we talking about D or C? If we're talking about D, then I guess I have some problems with that because now we're going beyond this property. If we're talking about C, then make sure that the buffer remains within that. Then I don't think we have a problem. It should be okay to leave it that way. I'm not sure what property we're talking about and that's what I've been trying to get at. What trees? You know are we talking about making them build a berm. We've heard privacy fences. All kinds of things and planting evergreens. That I think is going a little bit further than what's required and that's the problem I had with 18 was it was too open ended as to what we're talking about. 42 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Well I guess my thoughts on it, and the picture on the screen here, to the exti that it says of the property, let's for sake of discussion say it is Tract C. Okay? Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Then as we talked about before, based on the information I have the northern most point of Tract C is about 30 feet from the north property line of D. Which is also the south property line of the homes to the north on Cheyenne and you can see in this picture the distance, you can see the distance that it is from that property line up to those homes. Yet if you go to the furthest right of his picture you'll see that the other homes on Cheyenne back to the home on Willow View are closer than these two will be. Councilman McDonald: Right. But I guess my point is you're not going to put any landscaping in there. It's already full of trees and that's why, then why is that there? If it's going to the north to the property line of Tract D, then I think we still have got some problems because now you're making someone go in and put things over and above what's currently there and you can't even get to some of his property because of the trees so they have to go on the other side of the fence. That's my problem with 18 is I think it's. Kate Aanenson: Can I just again go to where the Planning Commission's rationale was. If you look at the criteria for a private street, prevailing development patterns. Okay? It's on the end of a cul-de-sac. - We all are in concurrence on that. Public street would not improve the access. I think there's agreement on that. And then it says enhance protection of natural resources and that's where the Planning Commission said, you know maybe we should look at the trees to the north. That was a generic north because we don't have the house plan. We don't know how it's going to lay out. As the mayor stated, which we concur, we'll go out there. We'll put a fence around what goes and if we can put additional trees on, there's enough loss or putting the utilities in cause additional loss, we'll try to put an additional tree somewhere to the north of the site. It could be the house site. It says to the north. To the north of the home. To the north of the, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. So that's all, it's all covered in 8. That's what we I think are in concurrence on. Todd Gerhardt: Right on. I mean 8 covers everything on Parcel C. Mayor Furlong: It covers 18. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: 18's redundant. Todd Gerhardt: And I think everybody's in agreement that Parcel D does not, you couldn't fit any trees on there. Kate Aanenson: Right, unless the road had to get ripped up to put the utilities in for some reason but agreed, so. 43 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: So effectively 8 covers 18 so it's redundant. Kate Aanenson: I believe it does. Yeah. I think the Planning Commission was just struggling with that, are we enhancing the natural resources, and we've modified 8 to make sure that that happens. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Todd Gerhardt: So you can eliminate 18 then. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald: I mean does that answer Councilman Litsey's concerns? Councilman Litsey: Well I'll defer to staff if you think that that gives you enough latitude to address the concerns that the neighbors have raised, and if the neighbors are comfortable with that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We're comfortable with that. That we understand what the Planning Commission intent is and that it's reasonable requirement. Councilman Litsey: Does the neighbors understand, do you understand that? Herb LePlatt: You know I have some, I have some concerns about it but I do understand what the intent is. Councilman Litsey: That sits okay with you? Herb LePlatt: Yeah. ...okay the way it stands as long as they don't come in and rip that road out and they have to go back in and... improve that road, yeah. It's like I said, our, the least amount of trees on that whole lot of his is between the north of Lot C and his... That's where the least number of trees exist. And part of that is because his driveway goes through there. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's correct. Herb LePlatt: So if we, you know you lose anymore in there, then there needs to be some governance, some oversight into the ... and make sure that those... And I think 8 does that but what I understand, I haven't read it thoroughly in the way it stands now but I think 8 probably covers it. Mayor Furlong: Yeah the key here from a concern standpoint, actually is not 8 but it is the variance that doesn't require them to rip the road out and to rip the road out, so I think your concerns are covered. Herb LePlatt: Well it would be for utilities because if his utilities are underneath that road, I mean there may be you know, they may have to remove a portion of that road. Cif City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: That, they may have to remove a portion of the driveway but the key is by granting the variance the entire driveway doesn't have to be taken out and built to a 25 foot wide, nor would it if they had to rip out a portion of it would they have to rebuild it to 25 foot wide. Okay. So I think you're right. I think 8 and I think the variance, what I'm offering, the variance provides the protection that you're seeking. Any other thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: Well and I think the other thing to one of your points about the easements, they do need to be put in there because you're creating a land locked lot. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Councilman McDonald: And so it's got to have access, whether it's family members or not, I think law requires that. You can't just create a land locked piece of property. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Access easement as well as, as well as utility easements to provide any public utilities from the public street. Okay. Councilman McDonald: Okay, I guess we're good. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Ernst: What is the motion? After all that. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, you want to give it a try. Councilwoman Ernst: Go for it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm going to go for it. No pointing fingers at me. I make the motion the City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7 ton design, and approves the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 18 and the adoption of the attached facts, Findings of Fact and action. Amending, or based upon, or. Mayor Furlong: Amending. Yep. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Amending. Changes to condition 8. Is that correct? Do you want me to give you the specific language? Kate Aanenson: I think we've got it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: That's already been discussed? Okay. Condition 13. Is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. 45 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 Councilwoman Tjomhom: And striking condition 18. Mayor Furlong: Correct. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Is that it? Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City.Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate B: 1. Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. 5. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. Ql City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation, removal calculations and survey for Tract C for City staff approval prior to recording. b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. 9. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Type of Slope Time (nvvd,i n time an area can remain tmvegetated when area is not actively worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey for Tract C and as necessary on Tract D showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staff's layout (Alternate B). " 47 City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. That completes half of our agenda this evening. No, I'm glad we spent the time on it because it's important that we spend time to make sure we get things right so thank you everyone for your patience and participation. We do appreciate that. Let's move on now with our agenda this evening. Mr. Gerhardt, item number 5. Are we going to proceed with that this evening? Which is consideration of feasibility study. DOWNTOWN PARK AND RIDE FACILITY: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FEASIBILITY STUDY. Todd Gerhardt: Yes Mayor. It will not take that long. Council sat through this before and I'm sure Jon and Paul have a quick power point. All we're doing is asking for the council to accept the feasibility study this evening. There is no conditions that go along with that. All you are doing is informing you of the design and then anything that would relate to TIF agreements or master redevelopment agreements would all have to come back at a separate time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So all you're doing is accepting where the street would go. How the utilities would be relocated. Mayor Furlong: And, okay that's fine. Let's start with the staff report please. Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Jon Horn. I'm with Kimley-Hom and Associates. We have been working with City staff and Southwest Transit on the downtown transit station improvement project. We have the completed feasibility report for the project and wanted to run you through a very brief overview of the feasibility report tonight. The project includes public improvements to support the construction of a park and ride facility by Southwest Transit. The number of parking spaces to be provided in that facility is bouncing around somewhere between 400 to 520 something that will be further identified as a part of this process. The site is located directly behind the Chanhassen Dinner Theater property. We have been spending a lot of time coordinating the proposed improvements with Southwest Transit. There are improvements that Southwest will be building as a part of this project. There's some land acquisition that I'll talk briefly about that's included as a part of the project. Some roadway right-of-way and some land that the City will be acquiring. We did do a traffic study as a part of the process to evaluate the possibility for a traffic signal at either Great Plains Boulevard or Market Boulevard, either to support the transit facility as well as potential redevelopment in the area by the Bloomberg Companies. Bloomberg's considering possibly an apartment building and some office and retail use in the area. Based upon the results of that traffic study they're currently not proposed to be traffic signals at either location. It was determined not to be warranted. There were some other recommendations that came out of that traffic study that I'll mention here briefly. This is the project location map. The red box shows the location of the parking ramp, directly behind the dinner theater. It sits at about the location of the existing corrugated metal building that's used for a scene shop for the dinner theater as well as a bus shelter at that location. In terms of the improvements, I mentioned the coordination between the m CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 12, 2009, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Senn Metes & Bounds Subdivision with Variances — Planning Case 09-02 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thisday of mar(b- , 2009. SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen City Council Meeting Date & Time: Monday, March 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a Metes and Bounds Subdivision with Variances. Planning 09-02 File: Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn Property 7160 Willow View Cove Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Mayor will lead the public hearing What through the following steps: Happens at 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed the Meeting: project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the City Council discusses the project. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-02.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please Questions & contact Angie Auseth at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Comments: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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 City Council. The staff report for this item will be available online at the link shown above the Thursday prior to the Cit Council meeting. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen City Council Meeting Date & Monday, March 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Time: Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Metes and Bounds Subdivision with Proposal: Variances. Planning 09-02 File: Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn Property 7160 Willow View Cove A location ma is on the reverse side of this Location: notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Mayor will lead the public hearing What through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed the Meeting: project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the City Council discusses the project. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-02.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Questions & aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the City Council. The staff report for this item will be available online at the link shown above the Thursday prior to the City Council meeting. ALFRED BERRY & GINA BERGAMINO gARBARA A BURKE BERRY 7009 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHA BRAD L & PAMELA S HARRISON 7018 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 CHARLES L & KATHERINE J HIRT 7007 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHRISTOPHER R MCGINTY & JANE A MCGINTY 7010 SANDY HOOK CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 DALE H & NANCY A JOHNSON 7120 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 DOUGLAS H & JEANNE E MACLEAN 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 HENRY NEILS 7012 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 JAMES A & MARILYN J CONNELLY 7008 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 BRADLEY A & ELIZABETH HAMILTON 7011DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 CHARLES L & STACEY A MEHR 7022 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CRAIG A & SANDRA A CARLSON 7271 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7520 DANIEL J & KRISTEN A RYAN 7004 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 ERIC & SOPHIE CHABIN 7130 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 GARY A & RUTH E ARENS 7140 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 BENT V & ANNE-LISE PAULSEN 7013DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 BRIAN & KIMBERLY LIEBO 7025 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & HEIDI M GARCIA 7018 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CRAIG R & LAURIE K BURFEIND 7150 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 DAVID M & LAURIE C SUSLA 7008 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 GERRY & SHIRLEY HUMPHREY 7251 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 HERBERT A LEPLATT & ELIZABETH J JACQUELINE D KURVERS LAPLATT 7240 KURVERS POINT RD 7012 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 JAMES HENRIK QUACKENBUSH JOANN M QUACKENBUSH 7241 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 JAMES P WIRE 7024 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 JAMES S & M CAROLYN ERNY JASON G & JODI L RADEL JEFFREY A & PIA E SCHUTT 7008 SANDY HOOK CIR 20 TWIN MAPLE LN 40 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 JEFFREY B & KATHLEEN M GROVER JOHN D & MARGARET A ADIE KENNETH A & ANN H BLOCH 60 TWIN MAPLE LN 7011 CHEYENNE TRL 7015 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 KURVERS POINT HOME OWNERS ASSN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 MARK S & SANDRA L CHRISTENSEN 7019 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 MICHAEL J & MAUREEN D GREBIN 7151 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7515 LEE R & JENNIFER A WALDRON 7020 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 MICHAEL & LYNN J MARRA 7007 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 PAUL H LUEHR & KATHRYN M WOODRUFF 7012 SANDY HOOK CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 ROBERT P BIRDW ELL & KIMBERLY ABIRDROBYN N & BARBARA S MOSCHET 7016 DAKOTA 7006 CHEYENNE TRL COIN DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 STEPHEN K & ELIZABETH LIEDTKE 7231 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 WILLIAM L & SHERRI L HILLE 7131 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7515 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 MARK O & SUZANNE SENN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 MICHAEL J & LISA J FARLAND 7261 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 PETER J SPERLING & TRACY A WRIGHT SPERLING 7021 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 SCOTT M & MARCIA A HIPPEN 7017 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 STEVEN T MESTITZ & PEGGY L NAAS 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 09-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 23, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. Thepurpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a metes and bounds subdivision with a variances on property located at 7160 Willow View Cove. Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/ plan/09-02.1itm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: aauseth&i.chanhassen.mmus Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, March 12, 2009; No. 4181) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.y[ 4 ) was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijkhnnopgr�stt/Juv�wwx(y�z� q / 1{ Z�q/!N(iy � � Lauri/��✓ Subscribed and sworn before me on this Q'day of NG4 , 2009 Nola lic JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires 01/31/2013 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.43 per column inch SCANNED 0 CITY OF CBANAA3SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952,227.1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park 8 Recreation Phone: 952227,1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone:952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Carter Phone:952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.oi.chanhassen, mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: March 23, 2009 *- i SUBJ: Senn Metes and Bounds Subdivision and Variance for a Private Street — Planning Case #09-02 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approves the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-18 and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action" City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a two -lot metes and bounds subdivision to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. Planning Commission Update A public hearing was held at the Febnraryl7, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to approve the request for a metes and bounds subdivision and variance for the private street. City Code requires a public hearing at the City Council meeting for a metes and bounds subdivision. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant contacted staff and agreed to Alternate B, which eliminated all Zoning variance requests. The applicant is therefore requesting approval of Altemate B. A variance to allow access via a private street is still required as part of the subdivision request. The Planning Commission discussed the current drainage issues on the west side of the cul-de-sac for Willow View Cove. Several neighbors stated the area is often flooded and under water. Staff visited the site and did not observe any drainage issues or obstructions within the street or from the north. Runoff to the street was draining to the catch basin at the low point of the cul-de-sac. Off-street drainage from the north was flowing through the existing culvert under the driveway and ultimately into the storm sewer. The applicant is required to submit a grading plan for review and approval prior to recording of the subdivision, at which time staff will evaluate the proposed drainage to ensure that it does not negatively impact the adjacent properties or stormwater system. Chanhassen is a Community for Life. Providing forToday and Planning for Tomorrow scruureo Todd Gerhardt Senn Metes and Bounds Subdivision March 23, 2009 Page 2 The Planning Commission also discussed the aesthetics of adding an additional lot and home within the neighborhood. Without a tree survey, it is difficult to know how many trees are located on the site and where they are located. Additionally, it is unknown what trees will be removed during construction. The Planning Commission added a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to provide landscaping to screen the adjacent properties. The Planning Commission minutes for February 17, 2009 are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approves the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-18 and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report (Revised) Dated February 17, 2009. 3. Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 17, 2009. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-02 wan subdivision & vanane6executive summary 3-23-09 .doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION ALTERNATE B Q1 CIA Application of Mark and Suzanne Senn for a two -lot subdivision with zoning variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. On March 23, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision with variances preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre) uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109. 4. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: The subdivision variance is required to allow a private street to serve the subject development. a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves site features. Reconstruction of the private street will cause environmental impact. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. The subject parcel is the largest lot within the Kurvers Point subdivision. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. d. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal. 5. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the RSF district. The proposed lot can comply with the minimum zoning requirements b. 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 the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the private street standards variance is approved. 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; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. f. 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. 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. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. The planning report #09-02, dated February 17, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots based on these findings of fact for Alternate B." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 23`a day of March, 2009. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Its Mayor PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: A. "The Planning Ceffm3issiefi feeewAnends PP 1 f Planning Case nn 02 as ..l.e...« in P, .«.. e e e design, lot depth less than 125 feet, and ffent yard setback Ism ARR 40 feAt FIS ffleaswed fFofa the 100 feet lot width and a 40 * 60 feet house pad, allow a private stFeetwith A width of less than 20 feet --ad- lem then R7 ton and appmvg' of the qubdivision ffeating two lots as eudimd in the stagrepe# subjeet to eenditions 1 15 below and adoption of the B. "The Rimming GeffHnissiiaa fesommends aka City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, ..Y . e feet, zn c lot depth less dim 125 r l...,.v l et and fiynt yaFd se.ess than et asf e wed and approves appreval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-17 below and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a two -lot metes and bounds subdivision wanes to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. Them are two aftemative Motions: 2. Approve staffs recommendation (Alternate B). LOCATION: 7160 Willow View Cove — Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109 APPLICANT: Mark and Suzanne Senn 7610 Willow View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2-4 units/acre) ACREAGE: 3.66 Acres GROSS DENSITY: 0.54 units per acre NET DENSITY: 0.54 units per acre Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 2 of 14 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a metes and bounds subdivision is limited to whether or not the proposed subdivision meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the subdivision. This is a quasi-judicial decision. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article X11 Single -Family Residential District Sec. 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. PROPOSAL/SUMNIARY The applicant is requesting a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a parcel into two single- family lots with variances. A metes and bounds subdivision is permitted when the resulting parcels meet the minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. the zoning eFdiamee requir-emeWs (area; depth aPA setbaeks.) The pfflpesal does not meetall subdi,Asien eFdinanee r-equimments (60'x6O' house pad). In ardef to pmeeed with a metes bounds subdMsien� the city must approve 0-hese var-innee . The applicant and Staff is are proposing an alternate design (Alternate B) that eliminates complies with all zoning variances. The proposal requires a variance to allow a private street to sen Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 3 of 14 The property is a riparian lot, zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential District and gains access via Willow View Cove. The current site density is 0.27 units per acre. The site is guided Low Density (1.2-4 units per acre). The existing site density is well below the density permitted in the district. The lot area is 3.66 acres (159,429 square feet). The RSF district requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for a non riparian lot, and 20,000 square feet for a riparian lot. The existing lot area far exceeds the nummum requirements of the zoning district. There is currently a single-family home located on the parcel. The existing structure meets the requirements of the RSF and Shoreland Management Districts ordinances. The applicant and Staff is are proposing an Alternate B with a variance to allow a substandard private street with conditions outlined in the staff report. A metes and bounds subdivision requires City Council action only; due to the nature of the request the Planning Commission should review the complete application. BACKGR0IJND The subject site is a riparian lot located on the east side of Lotus Lake and is part of the Kurvers Point Subdivision. The Kurvers Point Subdivision was created in 1987 and consists of 42 single-family lots. The subject site is the largest lot within the subdivision with an area of 3.66 acres. When the subdivision was originally approved the subject site was platted as Lot 4, Block 3. In November 1989, the City Council passed a resolution to approve an administrative subdivision of Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, transferring a portion of land from Lot 4 to Lot 5. KpMar 3M. N.N A3N pa N1N ur N. •r u� N » N » N N Y• LM N1 4K » r tK W' eNK Na K .iK .NN W» NK Kurvers Point Subdivision » Ntr wN .,".I P opah Lhte '-4j ILO S.f LN 1. BYII[ S) E1n,k 3 i WR 4"L N Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 4 of 14 SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a 3.66 acre site into two single-family lots served by a private street. As previously stated, a metes and bounds subdivision is permitted when both resulting parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance (area, width, depth, etc.) and abut a public or private street. does not meet the wAsef-thezeninger-d-ing—mee. TheFeferv, the applieant is Feque. _ea i. .a t u Finhounds b YY yI c subF}i' 4siefi. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ \.. A rbfii]oY fe, 99 vrzs \ LA.a PPased Trxf D cRopafe ,a3aa a}TixtaC - Proposed New Lot (Tract Q V_I •:.:.ag Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 5 of 14 Alternate B (staff as proposal) Staff has developed an alternative layout that will meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff proposes extending the easterly property line to the north edge of the private street. The lot will achieve a width of 100 feet 35 feet west of said line. The front yard setback and lot depth are measured from the 100-foot line. The lot depth is increased from 96 feet to 131 feet. By extending this property lines, all zoning variances are eliminated and the only variance request necessary is for the private street. The applicant has agreed to go along with staff's design (Alternate B). Zoning Ordinance Regulations — All Requirements Met • Minimum Lot Area. The City Code requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The private street serving the parcel must be located within a 30-foot easement. The area of the easement and the private street may not be calculated as part of the total lot area. Staffs layout proposes a parcel with an area of approximately 15,500f square feet. Since the driveway access to the proposed Tract C is not shown on the plans, staff is unable to determine the exact area of the private street. The lot area must be adjusted accordingly to maintain a minimum of 15,000 square feet as required in the RSF zoning district. \ 0foot wid easement I00' Fmnt It [... The front setback of a lot served by Private Steel a private sheet begins whet a the "Ith achieves 100 feet • Lot Depth. On lots served by a private street, the front property line is measured where the lot achieves 100 feet in width The front yard setback and lot depth are then measured from the front property line. All plans must demonstrate that a 60x60 house pad can be accommodated on a newly created parcel. Stab's proposal shows a lot width of 100 feet. The lot depth is 131 feet. The buildable area on the site can easily accommodate a 60 x 60 house pad leaving room to accommodate improvements. Setbacks. A structure must maintain a 30-foot setback from the 100-foot front property line. Staff s layout maintains all required setbacks. Subdivision Ordinance Regulations • The City Code requires a minimum 60' x 60' house pad (3,600 square feet) be shown on the plans or the proposed house type. Staff s proposal reflects a 60' x 60' house pad. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 6 of 14 STREETS The plan proposes accessing the lots via a private street utilizing the existing private driveway. The existing driveway gains access from the cul-de-sac located on the easterly side of the parcel, Willow View Cove. Once the commonality of the private street ends, any portion of the private driveway serving Tract D, located on Tract C, shall be placed in a cross -access easement. An easement over the private street must be provided. Section 18-57 (p) of the City Code requires private streets to be constructed to a 7-ton design, with 20-foot pavement width and located within a 30- foot easement. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing width of 10 feet. The intent is to minimize disturbance to the mature trees on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Private Street Criteria Section 18-57. Streets. (s) Private streets serving up to four lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF, R4 and RLM (when less than four units per acre) districts if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (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 a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city s natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 7 of 14 COMPLIANCE TABLE Compliance Tract C Existing Lot A#erno" Alternate B Tract D 15,000 sq ft 15,500 sq ft 142,500 sq ft Lot Area Non -Riparian Less than (less private street (less private 20,000 sq ft000 access and easement street access and Riparian sq ft) easement sq ft) Lot Frontage 100, 99 04' 78' 95'+ (Private Street Lot Depth 125' 9-71 158.61' 6821+ Front yard 30' 30' 470' Setback huildahlg area Rear Yard 30' non riparian 4W 30' 320' Setback 75' riparian site Coverage 25% May met exeeed 2594 May not exceed 25% 11.5% *There are a number of items that are needed in evaluating a subdivision that the applicant has not addressed. They include: • Location of existing and proposed utilities. • Location of the proposed driveway access to the proposed lot. • Tree survey. • Necessary easements. • House Plan. These items must be addressed and submitted prior to recording. WETLANDS The property abuts Lotus Lake, a DNR Public Water. In addition, a review of topographic data, historic aerial photography, the Web Soil Survey Data and the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan indicates that a fringe Type 1/3 wetland exists adjacent to Lotus Lake. Based upon the proposed lot split as submitted, it appears that no wetland impacts will result from the proposed activity. In addition, the proposed new lot is located well outside of any wetland buffer areas or setbacks required under City Code. LAKES and BLUFFS The proposed project is located within the shoreland district for Lotus Lake. Lotus Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. Riparian lots must have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet while non -riparian lots within the shoreland management district must have a Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 8 of 14 minimum size of at least 15,000 square feet. Both proposed lots as shown in Alternate B will meet the pertinent area requirement. Based upon topography provided by Carver County, there does not appear to be any areas which meet the criteria to be classified as a bluff. Erosion and Sediment Control In the event that a building permit is issued for the property, adequate erosion control best management practices will need to be installed to prevent sediment from being discharged off the site or into any water features such as wetlands, lakes, or stormsewer. Silt fence should be provided in areas where sediment may otherwise be carried off -site. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed covered with mulch or sodded according to the following table. Type of Sloe Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Da Daily scraping and sweeping of streets shall be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential development rates of $3,410 per acre. Total area of proposed Tract C equals 0.344 acres. Therefore, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,173.04. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SVIW culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single Family Residential developments have a connection charge of $2,360 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $811.94 for the proposed Tract C. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 9 of 14 SWMP Credits This project proposes no on -site water quality features. Therefore, no credit will be applied to the proposed subdivision. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A grading plan was not submitted with the proposal. If the subdivision is approved a grading plan must be submitted for review and approval. The grading plan shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Code. UTILITIES A utility plan was not submitted with the proposal. According to the utility as -built information for this area, sanitary sewer lies along the shoreline of Lotus Lake and within Willow View Cove. It appears that the sanitary sewer service to the existing home on proposed Tract D extends from the sewer along Lotus Lake. The as-builts do not show a sanitary sewer service stub for proposed Tract C. According to the utility as -built information, the water service for the existing home on proposed Tract D extends from a six-inch lateral on the property to the south. The as -built does not show a water service for proposed Tract C. If the subdivision is approved, a utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home, and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that cross another property. The easement width shall extend minimum of 10 feet from the service. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these hookup charges. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 10 of 14 PARK DEDICATION The nearest neighborhood park to this subdivision is South Lotus Lake Park. South Lotus Lake Park is 7.42 acres in size and features a playground, boat access, tennis/basketball court, and an open field. Off- street parking is available at the park. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TRAILS The subject site can access the Highway 101 North pedestrian trail. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. It is recommended that fiill park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected as a condition of approval for the metes and bounds subdivision. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon subdivision approval. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Louts Lake La1us Lake The applicant has not submitted tree preservation calculations or survey. If this subdivision is approved, the calculations and survey will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Even without specific calculations, it is evident from aerial photos and a site visit that the applicant will not exceed canopy coverage limits for the subdivision. It appears that the proposed lot will have significant tree removal. Existing conditions within the proposed lot (Tract Q include mature, native sugar maple basswood woods on the east and central portions of the lot and lawn and mature spruce on the west side of the lot. The proposed location of the home will remove a significant area of existing trees due to grading and construction activities. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 11 of 14 Staff strongly recommends the preservation of the wooded area for the following reasons. The wooded area provides greater diversity and is self-sustaining (younger trees growing and replacing older). It also provides greater environmental benefit by producing more oxygen, sequestering more carbon, alleviating more urban heat island effect, providing wildlife habitat, and sheltering a greater area of land thereby reducing runoff, an important consideration for a lakeshore property. Due to the location of the proposed building pad in relation to the wooded area, tree preservation seems most applicable around the edges of the lot. The wooded area lies between the road access and the house pad. The equipment used for construction will need a perimeter of access around the building pad which is generally 15 — 20 feet. The northwest comer of the house pad lies 21 feet from the driveway. This proximity will lend itself to the most convenient and efficient access to the house pad and placement of the driveway and therefore will be cleared. The picture below represents the tree removal on the proposed lot; the area is outlined in red. Staff recommends that, at a minimum, the applicant be required to preserve all trees outside of the red area. Reducing the size of the removal area should be a priority in order to retain as many trees on the lot as possible. Additionally, staff supports the recommendation to allow the private street to remain at its current width. Widening the private street will necessitate additional significant tree removal. The tree loss will be greater than the benefit of a short section of a widened drive. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 12 of 14 The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt one of the following motions: . .. .. ... .. - .....-... ..- �� .� I .. .... - ... -- .. .. .. ..... .. ... .. 1 ... .. .. . . .. .. ... ... ... - .. .. - .. . . or B. "The Plannift Genwnission Feraommends approval e City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, And denial Afthe IA* area varianee to eFeate a lot less than 15,000 square ��, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard seth- A —sic less than 30 feet Rq FAAAR]IFed and approves approval e€the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-17 below and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 13 of 14 Conditions of Approval 1. Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. 5. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. c. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. 9. At this time, the estimated total SMW fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 14 of 14 Type of Sloe Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) than 3:1 7 Days —Stccper 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Da These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staffs layout (Alternate B). 18. The applicant shall work with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. " ATTACHMENTS 2. Findings of Fact Alternate B. 3. Application. 4. Email from John Gleason dated February 6, 2009. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. . &\plan\2009 planning cases\09-02 scan subdivision & variance\staff neport.doc oR-0';1- CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATE B Application of Mark and Suzanne Senn for a two -lot subdivision with zoning variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. On February 17, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision with variances 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre) uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109. 4. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: The subdivision variance is required to allow a private street to serve the subject development. a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves site features. Reconstruction of the private street will cause environmental impact. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. The subject parcel is the largest lot within the Kurvers Point subdivision. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. SCMNM Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. d. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal. 5. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the RSF district. The proposed lot can comply with the minimum zoning requirements b. 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 the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the private street standards variance is approved. 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; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. 2 f. 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. 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. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. The planning report #09-02, dated February 17, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots based on these findings of fact for Alternate B." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17"' day of February, 2009. I' MINIhC63 Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION rLtAst Applicant Name and Address: -71&o LOILiXL, U E'LJ Co V CHs4v VA) S-S317 Contact:_ 1"t-K4C s iA/ nJ Phone:gSL -ti 45 Z z 7 z Fax: QSZ -% 6 -c4 zq Email: Planning Case No. CITY OF CHANHASSEh RECEIVED JAN 16 2009 MA-LK A�;g2lytitif. St:n/� "7/6U W,�Luw' 0f'cu Cevt, �tl.�iNN/tSS� /V, ,A/y SS-3/7 Contact:.cttkK s-c-Ain; Phone:C/sz 9yy z z Aa Fax: 9,rz 5 o, u60 y Email: a'We4s . fo�n NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* _rX— Subdivision* `}OU Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) KVariance (VAR) 2ob Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment _X Notification Sign 20�_) (City to install and remove) X Es ow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $5 UP/SPRNAC/VARNVAP/Metes & Bounds 45Oiminor SUB TOTAL FEE $ I.Ljqv An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. •-18 -er,r ce L5 043 = *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: 7/ 6 c w, U. e v .i i f. w C o LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: P/ D 1Z zS• 69SC o iC TOTAL ACREAGE: 3 (V WETLANDS PRESENT: YES X NO PRESENT ZONING: K S F REQUESTED ZONING: RSf PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: t- w U � s, Ty r s S i l)f ✓ 77?L. REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: �c LV O E s T r /c'F s, v a-✓ T..l C REASON FOR REQUEST: C c r1 r1 A c rf c D FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: 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 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 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. Signature of Applicant Date Cy Signature of Fee owner Date SCpNNEO GAPLANIFonns\peveloMent Review Application.DOC Rev. 1108 PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: 716 o LL , LL J w ✓: f c-�J C o LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Qr0 %LS-69Sc O%G TOTALACREAGE: 3.6 Aci[ES WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: K S-F REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION YES X NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: O�Z+5,Tv 2f511),f✓7744 FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: include number of existing employees: and now employees: 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 fling 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 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 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 (his 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. Signature of Applicant of Fee —/ 5-- o 9 Date /�- o/ Date ScAryNEO G TIANForms\Development Review Applic tion.DOC Rev. 1f08 VARIANCES REQUEST 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE We purchased this property approximately 20 years ago. Our property is just shy of 4 acres and has approximately 430 feet of lakeshore on Lotus Lake. Our long term plan was to always place one if not two additional structures on the property to accommodate future family needs. When we purchased this property there were no Hiles which prohibited us from doing so. My mother is now 85 years old and wishes to maintain her independence, something that we support. It is however now necessary to get her closer to us so we can better help her. She is now ready to move so I subsequently contacted the City and was told that ordinances had now been put in place that prohibited us from 1). adding additional dwellings to the property, or 2). do a lot split to construct another dwelling. It is our strong preference to always keep the property as one, and in the family, because we never want to nor intent to dispose of any property created by a split. The City suggested the only possible way to proceed was to request variances to allow us to subdivide. We were then informed that other ordinances passed even more recently prohibited us from proceeding without variances unless we upgrade the driveway to a city street and remove a lot of significant number of mature trees and vegetation which would negatively alter the character of the property. Rather than argue over the effective taking caused by new ordinances being put in place that we were not notified of, in the spirit of cooperation we proceeded down the track to subdivide. We are willing to cooperate and do so even though it is our strong desire not to subdivide. We have had a updated survey completed and sited the proposed structure keeping in mind all things considered important about the character of the property. Subsequently, we are seeking approval of several variances which will allow us to maintain the character of the property, place the structure where it best fits without destroying a lot of mature vegetation, and likewise not allowing construction to do the same. These more recently passed ordinances don't allow private driveways any longer serving multiple lots without being constructed to the standards of a city road. To do so would wipe out and destroy a large wooded area surrounding the current driveway which by the way is over a thousand feet long. Another more recently passed ordinance does not allow lot splits with less than 100 feet of sheet frontage and while we have just shy of four acres we only have about 70 feet of street frontage. Again due to a more recent ordinance passed, our proposed lot size of 15,000 square feet and house pad size (60'x 40') or 2400 square feet require variances only because of where we placed the structure. To move the structure from the current proposed location would either wipe out a lot mature woods one way, or a cluster of approximately 100 foot pines the other way. If we move the structure approximately 30 feet to the west to avoid a variance it would wipe out the above mentioned pine cluster. SCANNED In that none of the variances impact setbacks from existing neighboring properties, we seek the approval of all necessary variances due to hardships at any number of levels. First, if our property right to add additional dwellings to our acreage had not been taken, no variances would be necessary. By cooperating with a lot split instead these variances are created. Each of these variances then necessitated by the split are being caused again by the elimination of or taking of our property rights through ordinances passed since we have owned the property, which we were never made aware of. Most importantly, to proceed with any plan other than the proposed would substantially alter and destroy much of the character of the property through the elimination and damages to mature wooded areas and vegetation. What we are proposing, given our acreage, will have no practical spill over effects to any one else other than us. Our current hard surface coverage is 10.4% overall. Splitting off the lot changes the coverage on the primary lot to 11.4%. On the split lot or secondary lot the coverage would be 16%. SCANNED UMIUIIVAt_ REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 109 R.L.S. FILE NO. 97 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA R. T. DOC. NO.T63214 C r /�- LAK6 WE F UNE 1, :- i�/L I-'/ v; -I!_ !J/'1 � : L' (_ ,=1 r / �l i l.r "i LAKE AS OF JU/JE 1, N88"24�E0"L.a 1987—� I(- ___-_g".99 -•- ai M � - � 0��51 3 \M ZV l - ---b Sf.99 ---- r � I ReNGH MARK TOP OF NUT OF HYOKANT AT NE QUADRANT- VALLEY VIEW ROAD g STATE HWY. IOI. ELEV.= 931.54FEET, r4(,VO-1929 911614E5T KNOWN LAKE ELEV. = 8%.5 FEET GURKENT WATER ELEV. - 895.S FEET Cn(6/a9) TRACT q THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 4t`5, BLOCK 3, KURVERS POINT HAS AN ASSUMED 5EARW6, Of N 68" Z4' W" IN n 69.77� V /J aoo ybB.00 Tf ACTS a N B ao 1 I wy in'Np � N _> ��M � M veN 2 00 100 200 300 400 SCBLE IN FEET • DENOTES IRON MONUFAEN'T FOUND O DENOTES A two x t41ACH tROA PIPE 5ET MARKED LSY LICENSE NO. 14-700 I hereby cerfity that, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 508, Minnesota Stalules of 1949, as amended, I have surveyed 8u following described property in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota to wit: Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 3, KURVERS POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof. That the survey shown hereon is a correct delineation of said survey. Dated this day 91 NVGBM6�/L PPaaululG�BB. SSchoborg, Registered Land Surveffir Minnesota State License No. 14700 C/NNHASSM M114NIESOTA This Registered Land Survey was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this 10'Re day of hlyxJl?nIY2 19-M. CLf Y COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF CHANHASSEN, MINJESOTA Mayor By � Manager COUNTY SURVEYOR, Carver County, Minnesota Pursuant to Chapter 395, Minnesota Laws of 1971, this Registered Lard Survey has been approved lfiisj d of 19el. Al" //1 y,�/ By AL1GE-FQAL2 Al z✓�O� Theodore Kemna, Carver County Surveyor COUNTY AUDITOR, Carver County, Minnesota I hereby certify that there are no delqyuuent taxes for all years porior to 19gQ for land described on this Registered Land Survey and transfer entered. Dated this-.220w'day of 199-7. 3'a ANY MSCKayd� Ate, County Auditor BY_-`gdFC� jel -' SCHOBORG COUNTY TREASURER Carver County. Minnesota I hereby certify that the taxes ppyable for the year 19h' for land described on this Registered Lard Survey have been paid on ihis$TAmsay of y% , 1�9JY�� D. F. Dahlke, County Treasurer By-7••`• -� - REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Caner County, Minnesota - I hereby certity that this Registered Land Survey was filed Ihis_ day dam, 19 rU Y at /Lko'obck-A.M. ,('� /�� Carl W. Hanson, Jr., Registrar of Thies By &. b&'L h QAQ - INC. Auseth, Angie From: John Gleason pohn.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:27 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Request for Two -Lot Subdivision with Variances at 7160 Willow View Cover Dear Ms. Auseth, I am writing in response to the memo you sent me dated January 26, 2009 on the subject Request for Two -Lot Subdivision with Variances [.... ] at 7160 Willow View Cover [... ]. We are opposed to this lot subdivision if either or both of the resulting lots result in non -conforming lot dimensions (area or width). If a non -conforming lot results, please review the City' s code regarding lot subdivisions and non -conforming lots in the Shoreland District. Although I saw no reference to an easement in the information you provided, should that be included in the proposal, we also recommend that no easement to the lake be granted to the non -riparian lot owner as non -riparian lake access can negatively effect water quality. Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, lack John (Jack) Gleason, Area Hydrologist -West Metro MN DNR Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651-259-5754 (W) 651-772-7977 (F) John.Gleasoniadnr.state.mn.us Visit our website at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/index.html CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 5, 2009, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Senn Subdivision with Variances — Planning Case 09-02 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this LL4t- day of G hn , a a 2009. 17,—sCommission10 KIM T. MEUWISSEN NotaryPublic-Minnesota My EwresJan3120 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a subdivision creating an additional lot with variances Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn Property 7160 Willow View Cove Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-02.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Auseth by email at aausethpci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. 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. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council, If you wish to have something to be included in the Wort, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a subdivision creating an additional lot with variances Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn Property 7160 Willow View Cove Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1' Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-02.html. if you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persorl • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be Included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ALFRED BERRY & GINA BERGAMINO gARBARA A BURKE BERRY 7009 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHA BRAD L & PAMELA S HARRISON 7018 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 CHARLES L & KATHERINE J HIRT 7007 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHRISTOPHER R MCGINTY & JANE A MCGINTY 7010 SANDY HOOK CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 DALE H & NANCY A JOHNSON 7120 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 DOUGLAS H & JEANNE E MACLEAN 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 BRADLEY A & ELIZABETH HAMILTON 7011 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 CHARLES L & STACEY A MEHR 7022 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CRAIG A & SANDRA A CARLSON 7271 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7520 DANIEL J & KRISTEN A RYAN 7004 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 ERIC & SOPHIE CHABIN 7130 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 GARY A & RUTH E ARENS 7140 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 BENT V & ANNE-LISE PAULSEN 7013 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 BRIAN & KIMBERLY LIEBO 7025 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & HEIDI M GARCIA 7018 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CRAIG R & LAURIE K BURFEIND 7150 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 DAVID M & LAURIE C SUSLA 7008 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 GERRY & SHIRLEY HUMPHREY 7251 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 HENRY NEILS HERBERT A LEPLATT & ELIZABETH J JACQUELINE D KURVERS 7012 DAKOTA LAPLATT 7240 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 7012 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 JAMES A & MARILYN J CONNELLY 7008 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 JAMES HENRIK QUACKENBUSH JOANN M QUACKENBUSH 7241 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 JAMES P WIRE 7024 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 JAMES S & M CAROLYN ERNY JASON G & JODI L RADEL JEFFREY A & PIA E SCHUTT 7008 SANDY HOOK CIR 20 TWIN MAPLE LN 40 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 JEFFREY B & KATHLEEN M GROVER JOHN D & MARGARET A ADIE KENNETH A & ANN H BLOCH 60 TWIN MAPLE LN 7011 CHEYENNE TRL 7015 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9582 KURVERS POINT HOME OWNERS ASSN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 MARK S & SANDRA L CHRISTENSEN 7019 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 MICHAEL J & MAUREEN D GREBIN 7151 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7515 LEE R & JENNIFER A WALDRON 7020 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 MICHAEL & LYNN J MARRA 7007 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 PAUL H LUEHR & KATHRYN M WOODRUFF 7012 SANDY HOOK CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9315 ROBERT P BIRDWELL & KIMBERLY A ROBYN N & BARBARA S MOSCHET BIRDWELL 7006 CHEYENNE TRL 7016 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9581 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9504 STEPHEN K & ELIZABETH LIEDTKE 7231 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 WILLIAM L & SHERRI L HILLE 7131 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7515 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9583 MARK O & SUZANNE SENN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 MICHAEL J & LISA J FARLAND 7261 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7519 PETER J SPERLING & TRACY A WRIGHT SPERLING 7021 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 SCOTT M & MARCIA A HIPPEN 7017 CHEYENNE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7513 STEVEN T MESTITZ & PEGGY L NAAS 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7514 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Angie Auseth, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Mestitz 7200 Willow View Cove Regina Herron 1380 Thrush Court Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Cove Nancy Laplatt 7012 Cheyenne Trail Cathy Velko 40 Basswood Circle PUBLIC HEARING: SENN SUBDIVISION: REOUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LOT WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE. APPLICANT: MARK & SUZANNE SENN. PLANNING CASE 09-02. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Okay, questions for staff. Dan, start with you. Keefe: So really looking at one variance, right? Auseth: Yes. Keefe: And you had indicated that they're willing to go with Alternate B, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Keefe: And so are we still kind of deciding between the two or are we really just focusing on B in the variance? It isn't clear to me. Auseth: We're focusing on B. Keefe: B alone? Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: (Yes). Keefe: Okay. And okay. So if you don't know exactly where this house is going to go, I mean how can you say that you're actually going to save a bunch of trees because the one area that's on your, you know it's got a lot of trees. It looks to be right where this pad is but how do we know? We don't at this point do we? Auseth: We don't know exactly where it's going to be but it'll be in the buildable area which is more west onto the property. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Larson: Okay, can you go back to that picture? That one. Okay. Where it has the white buildable area and where this proposed road widening would happen. Would that, if they go and widen the road so the, well people can access, or the other people, the Senn's, does that change the buildable area? Auseth: No. What really, the driveway would stay exactly as is. That's one of their. Larson: Okay, where the hash marks are. Auseth: That's just the easement and so the lot lines will stay in that dark black and then that's just showing that that lot area will have to be removed from the calculation. So it won't impact the buildable area at all. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I think Angie's done a pretty good job. I just want to clarify again, there's 3 components of a private street. One is that it has to have a 30 foot wide easement, which we are going to require. The other is the 7 ton design, and the other is a 20 foot pavement width. And the 20 foot pavement width and the 7 ton design is the area that we're agreeing to support a variance on. Not the 30 foot easement but what Angie is saying is that the easement area can't be included in the lot area. So we believe there's adequate, the driveway could come off quite a ways sooner so we're just building in that flexibility. We want to see how the house fits on there so the only portion that would be the 30 foot is the portion that's, once the driveway starts, then the 30 foot goes away. We don't know so what was looked at there was the worst case scenario. Larson: Well my thought was, you know you've got it plunked right here. What if they put it closer to that road. That's what I was wondering if it would be too close then because your buildable area is in where the hash marks, you know they meet. Auseth: Right and the driveway could come in up there. Larson: Okay. That's all I have. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I did have a question. Angie, does the gray on this depict the present driveway? In other words is the present driveway, will that be used as the same corridor for the private driveway? Auseth: Yes. It will be as is as shown on this drawing. Laufenburger: Okay. And then a couple other questions. The private street, as we call it. That will be, the maintenance of that will be the responsibility of the owner of which lot? Auseth: They'll have a joint agreement for the private street. Laufenburger: Okay. But it will be maintained totally by. Auseth: Privately. Laufenburger: By privately. Okay. Are there requirements, does the 20 foot requirement meet code for movement of emergency vehicles and stuff like that? On the private street. Aanenson: The fire marshal did, to talk about it right now, that's how it's servicing that property so if you had to service that property today, the fire truck would be at the hydrant at the end of the street so that was one of the issues that we looked at. If they did have to go to the driveway, that's how it'd be serviced today. I think the measure that we want to look at is where that new driveway comes in and it's not impeding stacking. We've had some of those issues so that's certainly something staff would want to look at. Where that tie comes in I think and that's where Commissioner Larson is looking at too. Where's the best place for trees and access so you're not plugging that driveway. One place has additional guests that there's adequate, so those are something that we would work on with the house plan as that was evolved. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. I think one last, actually two last questions. The while, what's called the buildable area, that's an area defined by appropriate setbacks within current code. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. So that building pad could really be positioned anywhere within that as long as it's a 60 by 60 or a 3,600 square foot pad, it could fit anywhere in that white buildable area. Is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Then the last question that I had, I noticed it in this, in the information that was sent to us, there was a statement sent to you by an area hydrologist. Can you just explain that a little bit for me? Auseth: Get to that real quick. This was based on the original design. Laufenburger: Original A? Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: Yes. Where it did not meet the 90 foot width. Laufenburger: Okay. So this really doesn't come into play since we're really focusing on B. Auseth: Yes. Because the 100 foot width supersedes that 90 foot that's required within the shoreland. Laufenburger: Okay. Do we have, what's going to be the property address? If this is approved. Auseth: That's determined by. Aanenson: The building official. Laufenburger: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you Chairman. Thomas: I just have one little question Angie. This property at the moment, it's being, the subdivision is for, they're going to subdivide it and potentially the second building could be owned by anyone at any time but at the moment isn't it owned by, going to be family, is that the plan or the reason they're subdividing it? It's not. Auseth: I believe that's the intent but it could be sold as an individual lot. Thomas: As an individual lot on the cul-de-sac. Okay. Aanenson: And for the record I think it's always best to look at it, it can always change hands and make it the best lot you can and that's why we proceeded with making it meet code as much as we could. You never know. Thomas: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Alright, if we have an applicant here tonight, if you'd like to step up to the microphone and color in the lines for us. That'd be great. Mark Senn: I don't have a whole lot to say. I mean we're. Papke: Could you state your name and address. Mark Senn: Oh I'm sorry. Mark Senn, 7160 Willow View Cove. We're in concurrence with staff s Alternate B. Kind of came up at the last minute and once we saw it, it was very similar and solved most of the problems so we were fine with it so. Other than that I'd be happy to answer whatever questions you have. Papke: I think you were last so why don't you go ahead first. Thomas: Yeah, actually I don't. I'm good. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I'm good too. Papke: You know the subject of tree removal with respect to where the house will actually be place came up as an issue earlier on. Do you have, can you shed any more light onto that at this point? Do you have any idea yet? Mark Senn: Yeah if you could, if Angie can throw up the, if you look at the lot there, it's a little hard to tell with the differences in the shading but essentially where the house is going to go, the only thing we're really going to be taking out mature wise is a one mature tree that's about 3 '/2 feet wide and 20 feet tall because it's been hit 3 times by lightning and it's just a big mess. That's the only tree we're really taking out, and that's one of the reasons why we're positioning the house where we're positioning it. We wanted, a lot of the early discussions between us and staff and the whole jogging over the lot. We have a couple of 100 foot pine trees you'll see there just kind of to the left side of that and we do not want to impact those and that's one of the reasons why we were having some problems sliding that back and forth and getting it in the right position to accomplish that and that was a big consideration that we just didn't want to mess with those. Other than that I mean there may be a few small scrub trees or something like that along the existing edge of the woods or whatever but like I say, the only one that will really be impacted will be that one that kind of needs to be out of there anyway. Papke: Sounds good. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. At this time we'd like to open the meeting to the public. If you'd like to give us your opinions. Your thoughts. Your feelings on this case, please step up to the microphone. State your name and address and let us know what you think. Nancy Laplatt: Hi, my name is Nancy Laplatt. I live at 7012 Cheyenne Trail and I wanted a cookie. No. Papke: Please do. Nancy Laplatt: We, in that picture you can kind of see the back of our house opposite the proposed. Right there. So naturally we're concerned about our view and when we bought our home in '92 we came to the city and we looked at how things were drawn out and potential of anything happening and we never expected that we'd be looking into another house so we're fairly upset about it but we recognize you know it's someone else's lot so, but I just want to go on record that it might be challenging for us. We're looking at whether to sell or big trees. I don't know what but thanks so much. Papke: Thank you. Cathy Velko: Hi. My name is Cathy Velko and I live at 40 Basswood Circle, which is part of the Kurvers Point community. I am a member of the neighborhood board. Okay? Newly, I'm new at this kind of stuff. ...surprise, fast project here so, I'm here to make a statement on behalf of the Kurvers Point community and board that I know Jason has been in contact with Mr. Senn but it would be nice if we could state our comments to the Planning Commission that we do Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 support the split so long as neighboring residents support it, and I think there's a few here tonight, and that they would need to comply with the architectural requirements that are stated in the neighborhood covenants. I'm very glad to have other neighbors here to help with... Papke: Now you realize that the city has no hand in enforcing those covenants. I mean that's up the homeowners association. Cathy Velko: Okay. But then I can have it on the record too, right? Papke: Yes. Yes. That will certainly be part of the public record. Cathy Velko: So, I think that was the intention that... Papke: I just didn't want any misunderstanding about what the city's responsible for. Cathy Velko: We all agree to the covenants when we move into the neighborhood and just to state that we would ask that those be respected and followed and respect given to the neighbors as well. Papke: You bet. Cathy Velko: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Those are excellent comments. Please, step up. Steve Mestitz: My name is Steve Mestitz. 7200 Willow View Cove. The property immediately south. Just one question that I have, and maybe it's a concern as we plan and this is about drainage. Every year we have a problem with, if I can go over there and show you. Papke: Please do. Steve Mestitz: This area right here is much lower, it's about 5 feet lower and the storm sewer comes in right here. You can see the line. This is a drainage line I think that comes from the other neighborhood and this whole area is under water whenever we have a large rain storm, and I know I go out there and just put my hand in and try to de -clog it. It's a big mess. So with the addition of a new parcel I'm just wondering whether that drainage is going to be adequate and whether there needs to be some looking from the standpoint of the city to see if there needs to be either a wider mouth or some sort of a better way to drain those areas because I think we're just going to have more under water with the silt coming in from construction and stuff. That would be my only concern about that. Because it backs up. It puts my property under water. Papke: Excellent observation. Is the City aware of any grading or drainage issues on this? Aanenson: No, but we can certainly look at that and be prepared when it goes to City Council to provide additional information on that. If it needs a bigger culvert or something like that... Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: Mark, do you have any comments about that? Had a problem Mark Senn: Well it floods my property more than anybody's but it only happens when there's a severe storm, and most of the flooding is actually not on that side of the cul-de-sac. It's, or on that side of the driveway. It's on the north side of the driveway because all the drainage comes through from the neighborhood to the north. Audience: I have a comment about that. Mark Senn: And it drains basically to the south at the point there where it's on our property line and Steve's property essentially there's... Aanenson: Mr. Chair, for the record he's not at the microphone. Papke: Okay. If you'd like to step back to the microphone and make a comment on this. We want to make sure we capture this for the public record so. Nancy Laplatt: It's just a quick, I don't, I don't know what changed but that drainage area used to stay wet at our place for quite a lot of the summer and about 5 years ago it started just running through a lot quicker and we don't know what changed and we wouldn't mind if it stayed a little wetter to the north and then flowed slower on down so they don't get inundated but something changed and we don't know what it is. Papke: Okay, thanks for your observation. Aanenson: We can do some looking. Papke: Would you like to step back up to the microphone Cathy Velko: For the record. Papke: Yep. Cathy Velko: Observation. I walk the neighborhood 4 times a week. It is more than just in storms. It is wet. I think we had a wet year last year and it was, that end of the cul-de-sac was standing water quite a bit. Thank you. Papke: Thanks. Great comments. Anyone else like to, have any comments or questions or observations? Okay. Hearing none I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission here for comments and discussion and a decision. Keefe: You know I just had one additional question, and maybe staff can help out with this. You know for a subdivision I assume we typically have landscaping requirements. Like if they're going to take out trees, don't they need to re -plant. I mean is that something that would apply in this case or not? I know it's just a single lot. W Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Aanenson: Yeah. Let me give you some background on that. Because the original application was so divergent and the request that we weren't sure where you were going to go with that so some of those things were not put in place. As Ms. Auseth showed you there's a list of things that we need to get before it can be done. This is also a little bit different. It's not a straight subdivision. It's a metes and bounds so technically there will be another public hearing. It's at, I believe it's set for March 23'a so it will be noticed again for a metes and bounds subdivision but those things will be required before the permit's issued. We need to see where the driveway's going to go. Check those drainage, where the utilities are coming in so we want the additional information. Regarding the trees itself, because there is a large lot, it has a significant amount of trees, we do allow some tree loss but we would, normally we would have it staked and then we'll verify that too where the house pad's going to see if it matches up with the trees that were shown so anything beyond that would be required for a normal lot would have to be replaced so those are all the things we would do before building permit. Keefe: Would it require additional, and now I'm going a little bit to the comment you know, just in terms of any sort of landscaping, screening, anything along those lines. Aanenson: Yep. Yeah. And I think that's something that we can work with to provide the best screening to see how, it is heavily wooded on the front end but to the. Keefe: North. Aanenson: To the north, yes. That we, if that's a place to put it too so we'll look at that. Keefe: Right. That assuming that we could require it through the next, I mean is that something we would... Aanenson: If you want to make it as a condition, you can attach any reasonable condition that you think's appropriate for mitigation. Sure. Keefe: Right. But would that occur now or at the next one? Aanenson: Well I think this is going to go up to the City Council so I think you should put this on. If you want to make sure that you know landscaping. Any replacement be in a good place to provide buffer, if that's kind of the direction you're going. Keefe: Right. That's the direction, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. That'd be fine and then certainly we'll look at the drainage issue too before it goes up to council. I think there's a broader issue in that neighborhood that's certainly parochial to this end of this cul-de-sac we would look at that too. Keefe: And is the drainage from this particular house, does it drain back towards the street or does it drain... Aanenson: Well because we don't have the elevation on the type of house plan yet. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Keefe: Right. Yeah. Aanenson: You know because again we were pretty divergent on the original request and where the staff was going. We weren't sure where you were going to go with that so we will look at that too and to look at what's the finished floor elevation and where that's going so we'll provide that too and make sure we're not causing water to run off onto somebody else's property. Keefe: Okay. Other than that you know I support it. I think for the most part it meets what we're trying to do so I'm fine with it. Larson: I think I concur, yeah. Moving the house building pad over to where it's not going to have much effect on anything other than you know if we could somehow resolve the Ms. Laplatt's... having some sort of screening. I think maybe if everybody can come to terms with that, I would be in support of this too. Papke: Sounds good. Laufenburger: It appears that the applicant has worked with staff to come to a cooperative result through Alternate B so I would be in support of that too. Thomas: I too am in support of it. Papke: Okay. Yeah, I'm always happy when an applicant and city staff comes to a meeting of minds before the public hearing and we don't have to grind that out so that's fantastic. So with that, I will entertain a motion. Thomas: Sure, I'll do a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7 ton design and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 17 below and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate B. Larson: I'll second that. Keefe: Can I friendly amendment? Thomas: Okay. Keefe: That the applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. Thomas: Yeah, I accept your motion. Papke: Okay. Mark Senn: Mr. Chairman, could I address that? 0 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Papke: I'm sorry. The public hearing is closed at this point. That's what I warned about early on. Once the public hearing is closed, it's closed. So I apologize for that but that's the way we conduct the meetings. So with that we'll take a vote. Thomas moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and denial of the lot area variance to create a lot less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100-foot lot width and a 40 x 60 foot house -pad, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. Conditions of Approval: 1. Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. c. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. 9. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staffs layout (Alternate B). " 18. The applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Papke: Thank you very much. With that we're off to the Fountain Conference Room I guess. Thomas: Don't you have to close the meeting? Papke: Oh! Actually we should approve the minutes quickly before we adjourn. There are no minutes this time to approve because we had just a working session last time so we don't have anything there. We have no commission presentations that I'm aware of so with that, we'll adjourn the meeting at 7:29. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:29 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 12 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Laurie A. Harunann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PLANNING CASE agent of the publisher of the new known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- g P newspapers BY GIVEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal hearing on Tuesday, February 17, newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, amended. 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. y��. Ling n fora subdivision creating an was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said P sP additional lot with variances on Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit..Said notice was cut from the columns of property located at 7160 Willow the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both View Cove. Applicant: Mark & inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Suzanne Senn. A plan showing the location of and publication of the Notice: the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at abcdefghijklmnopgrstu www ci c' nob ma a � a nl /0� or at City Hall during regular business hours. All gy_ interested persons are invited to Laurie A. Hartmann attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Subscribed and sworn before me on Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: (Published in the Chanhassen �s S� .day of 2009 �Ctivu February Si Villager on Thursday. February S 2009; No. 4164) JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA No blic +- My Commission Expires 01/3112013 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.43 per column inch SCANNED C9 -o ,;- CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Builrfing lnspecfions Phone: 952.227.1190 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Fina Phone:952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Reraeadon Phone:952.227.1120 Far:952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 CadlEr Boulermd Phone:952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Plane: 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Waft 1591 Park Pad Phone:952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior carter Plaoe:952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mn. us February 20, 2009 Mark and Suzanne Senn 7160 Willow View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Subdivision with Variance Review Deadline Planning Case 09-02 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Senn: Your subdivision with variance request has been scheduled for the March 23, 2009 City Council meeting. This date exceeds the application review deadline as required by State Statute. Being that staff is unable to process this application within the 60-day review deadline; the City is taking an additional 60 days to complete its review. The review deadline for this item is now May 16, 2009. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1132 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director &Aplanx2009 planning c \09-02 senn subdivision &. va iancekxlension letter.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Angie Auseth, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Mestitz 7200 Willow View Cove Regina Herron 1380 Thrush Court Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Cove Nancy Laplatt 7012 Cheyenne Trail Cathy Velko 40 Basswood Circle PUBLIC HEARING: SENN SUBDIVISION: REOUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LOT WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE. APPLICANT: MARK & SUZANNE SENN. PLANNING CASE 09-02. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Okay, questions for staff. Dan, start with you. Keefe: So really looking at one variance, right? Auseth: Yes. Keefe: And you had indicated that they're willing to go with Alternate B, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Keefe: And so are we still kind of deciding between the two or are we really just focusing on B in the variance? It isn't clear to me. Auseth: We're focusing on B. Keefe: B alone? $CANNED Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: (Yes). Keefe: Okay. And okay. So if you don't know exactly where this house is going to go, I mean how can you say that you're actually going to save a bunch of trees because the one area that's on your, you know it's got a lot of trees. It looks to be right where this pad is but how do we know? We don't at this point do we? Auseth: We don't know exactly where it's going to be but it'll be in the buildable area which is more west onto the property. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Larson: Okay, can you go back to that picture? That one. Okay. Where it has the white buildable area and where this proposed road widening would happen. Would that, if they go and widen the road so the, well people can access, or the other people, the Senn's, does that change the buildable area? Auseth: No. What really, the driveway would stay exactly as is. That's one of their. Larson: Okay, where the hash marks are. Auseth: That's just the easement and so the lot lines will stay in that dark black and then that's just showing that that lot area will have to be removed from the calculation. So it won't impact the buildable area at all Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I think Angie's done a pretty good job. I just want to clarify again, there's 3 components of a private street. One is that it has to have a 30 foot wide easement, which we are going to require. The other is the 7 ton design, and the other is a 20 foot pavement width. And the 20 foot pavement width and the 7 ton design is the area that we're agreeing to support a variance on. Not the 30 foot easement but what Angie is saying is that the easement area can't be included in the lot area. So we believe there's adequate, the driveway could come off quite a ways sooner so we're just building in that flexibility. We want to see how the house fits on there so the only portion that would be the 30 foot is the portion that's, once the driveway starts, then the 30 foot goes away. We don't know so what was looked at there was the worst case scenario. Larson: Well my thought was, you know you've got it plunked right here. What if they put it closer to that road_ That's what I was wondering if it would be too close then because your buildable area is in where the hash marks, you know they meet. Auseth: Right and the driveway could come in up there. Larson: Okay. That's all I have. a3�r� sa Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I did have a question. Angie, does the gray on this depict the present driveway? In other words is the present driveway, will that be used as the same corridor for the private driveway? Auseth: Yes. It will be as is as shown on this drawing. Laufenburger: Okay. And then a couple other questions. The private street, as we call it. That will be, the maintenance of that will be the responsibility of the owner of which lot? Auseth: They'll have a joint agreement for the private street. Laufenburger: Okay. But it will be maintained totally by Auseth: Privately. Laufenburger: By privately. Okay. Are there requirements, does the 20 foot requirement meet code for movement of emergency vehicles and stuff like that? On the private street. Aanenson: The fire marshal did, to talk about it right now, that's how it's servicing that property so if you had to service that property today, the fire truck would be at the hydrant at the end of the street so that was one of the issues that we looked at. If they did have to go to the driveway, that's how it'd be serviced today. I think the measure that we want to look at is where that new driveway comes in and it's not impeding stacking. We've had some of those issues so that's certainly something staff would want to look at. Where that tie comes in I think and that's where Commissioner Larson is looking at too. Where's the best place for trees and access so you're not plugging that driveway. One place has additional guests that there's adequate, so those are something that we would work on with the house plan as that was evolved. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. I think one last, actually two last questions. The while, what's called the buildable area, that's an area defined by appropriate setbacks within current code. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. So that building pad could really be positioned anywhere within that as long as it's a 60 by 60 or a 3,600 square foot pad, it could fit anywhere in that white buildable area. Is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Then the last question that I had, I noticed it in this, in the information that was sent to us, there was a statement sent to you by an area hydrologist. Can you just explain that a little bit for me? Auseth: Get to that real quick. This was based on the original design. Laufenburger: Original A? Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: Yes. Where it did not meet the 90 foot width. Laufenburger: Okay. So this really doesn't come into play since we're really focusing on B. Auseth: Yes. Because the 100 foot width supersedes that 90 foot that's required within the shoreland. Laufenburger: Okay. Do we have, what's going to be the property address? If this is approved. Auseth: That's determined by. Aanenson: The building official. Laufenburger: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you Chairman. Thomas: I just have one little question Angie. This property at the moment, it's being, the subdivision is for, they're going to subdivide it and potentially the second building could be owned by anyone at any time but at the moment isn't it owned by, going to be family, is that the plan or the reason they're subdividing it? It's not. Auseth: I believe that's the intent but it could be sold as an individual lot. Thomas: As an individual lot on the cul-de-sac. Okay. Aanenson: And for the record I think it's always best to look at it, it can always change hands and make it the best lot you can and that's why we proceeded with making it meet code as much as we could. You never know. Thomas: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Alright, if we have an applicant here tonight, if you'd like to step up to the microphone and color in the lines for us. That'd be great. Mark Senn: I don't have a whole lot to say. I mean we're. Papke: Could you state your name and address. Mark Senn: Oh I'm sorry. Mark Senn, 7160 Willow View Cove. We're in concurrence with staffs Alternate B. Kind of came up at the last minute and once we saw it, it was very similar and solved most of the problems so we were fine with it so. Other than that I'd be happy to answer whatever questions you have. Papke: I think you were last so why don't you go ahead first. Thomas: Yeah, actually I don't. I'm good. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I'm good too. Papke: You know the subject of tree removal with respect to where the house will actually be place came up as an issue earlier on. Do you have, can you shed any more light onto that at this point? Do you have any idea yet? Mark Senn: Yeah if you could, if Angie can throw up the, if you look at the lot there, it's a little hard to tell with the differences in the shading but essentially where the house is going to go, the only thing we're really going to be taking out mature wise is a one mature tree that's about 3 Vh feet wide and 20 feet tall because it's been hit 3 times by lightning and it's just a big mess. That's the only tree we're really taking out, and that's one of the reasons why we're positioning the house where we're positioning it. We wanted, a lot of the early discussions between us and staff and the whole jogging over the lot. We have a couple of 100 foot pine trees you'll see there just kind of to the left side of that and we do not want to impact those and that's one of the reasons why we were having some problems sliding that back and forth and getting it in the right position to accomplish that and that was a big consideration that we just didn't want to mess with those. Other than that I mean there may be a few small scrub trees or something like that along the existing edge of the woods or whatever but like I say, the only one that will really be impacted will be that one that kind of needs to be out of there anyway. Papke: Sounds good. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. At this time we'd like to open the meeting to the public. If you'd like to give us your opinions. Your thoughts. Your feelings on this case, please step up to the microphone. State your name and address and let us know what you think. Nancy Laplatt: Hi, my name is Nancy Laplatt. I live at 7012 Cheyenne Trail and I wanted a cookie. No. Papke: Please do. Nancy Laplatt: We, in that picture you can kind of see the back of our house opposite the proposed. Right there. So naturally we're concerned about our view and when we bought our home in '92 we came to the city and we looked at how things were drawn out and potential of anything happening and we never expected that we'd be looking into another house so we're fairly upset about it but we recognize you know it's someone else's lot so, but I just want to go on record that it might be challenging for us. We're looking at whether to sell or big trees. I don't know what but thanks so much. Papke: Thank you. Cathy Velko: Hi. My name is Cathy Velko and I live at 40 Basswood Circle, which is part of the Kurvers Point community. I am a member of the neighborhood board. Okay? Newly, I'm new at this kind of stuff. —surprise, first project here so, I'm here to make a statement on behalf of the Kurvers Point community and board that I know Jason has been in contact with Mr. Senn but it would be nice if we could state our comments to the Planning Commission that we do Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 support the split so long as neighboring residents support it, and I think there's a few here tonight, and that they would need to comply with the architectural requirements that are stated in the neighborhood covenants. I'm very glad to have other neighbors here to help with... Papke: Now you realize that the city has no hand in enforcing those covenants. I mean that's up the homeowners association. Cathy Velko: Okay. But then I can have it on the record too, right? Papke: Yes. Yes. That will certainly be part of the public record. Cathy Velko: So, I think that was the intention that... Papke: I just didn't want any misunderstanding about what the city's responsible for. Cathy Velko: We all agree to the covenants when we move into the neighborhood and just to state that we would ask that those be respected and followed and respect given to the neighbors as well. Papke: You bet. Cathy Velko: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Those are excellent comments. Please, step up. Steve Mestitz: My name is Steve Mestitz. 7200 Willow View Cove. The property immediately south. Just one question that I have, and maybe it's a concern as we plan and this is about drainage. Every year we have a problem with, if I can go over there and show you. Papke: Please do. Steve Mestitz: This area right here is much lower, it's about 5 feet lower and the storm sewer comes in right here. You can see the line. This is a drainage line I think that comes from the other neighborhood and this whole area is under water whenever we have a large rain storm, and I know I go out there and just put my hand in and try to de -clog it. It's a big mess. So with the addition of a new parcel I'm just wondering whether that drainage is going to be adequate and whether there needs to be some looking from the standpoint of the city to see if there needs to be either a wider mouth or some sort of a better way to drain those areas because I think we're just going to have more under water with the silt coming in from construction and stuff. That would be my only concern about that. Because it backs up. It puts my property under water. Papke: Excellent observation. Is the City aware of any grading or drainage issues on this? Aanenson: No, but we can certainly look at that and be prepared when it goes to City Council to provide additional information on that. If it needs a bigger culvert or something like that... 0 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: Mark, do you have any comments about that? Had a problem. Mark Senn: Well it floods my property more than anybody's but it only happens when there's a severe storm, and most of the flooding is actually not on that side of the cul-de-sac. It's, or on that side of the driveway. It's on the north side of the driveway because all the drainage comes through from the neighborhood to the north. Audience: I have a comment about that Mark Senn: And it drains basically to the south at the point there where it's on our property line and Steve's property essentially there's... Aanenson: Mr. Chair, for the record he's not at the microphone. Papke: Okay. If you'd like to step back to the microphone and make a comment on this. We want to make sure we capture this for the public record so. Nancy Laplatt: It's just a quick, I don't, I don't know what changed but that drainage area used to stay wet at our place for quite a lot of the summer and about 5 years ago it started just running through a lot quicker and we don't know what changed and we wouldn't mind if it stayed a little wetter to the north and then flowed slower on down so they don't get inundated but something changed and we don't know what it is. Papke: Okay, thanks for your observation. Aanenson: We can do some looking. Papke: Would you like to step back up to the microphone. Cathy Velko: For the record. Papke: Yep Cathy Velko: Observation. I walk the neighborhood 4 times a week. It is more than just in storms. It is wet. I think we had a wet year last year and it was, that end of the cul-de-sac was standing water quite a bit. Thank you. Papke: Thanks. Great comments. Anyone else like to, have any comments or questions or observations? Okay. Hearing none I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission here for comments and discussion and a decision. Keefe: You know I just had one additional question, and maybe staff can help out with this. You know for a subdivision I assume we typically have landscaping requirements. Like if they're going to take out trees, don't they need to re -plant. I mean is that something that would apply in this case or not? I know it's just a single lot. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Aanenson: Yeah. Let me give you some background on that. Because the original application was so divergent and the request that we weren't sure where you were going to go with that so some of those things were not put in place. As Ms. Auseth showed you there's a list of things that we need to get before it can be done. This is also a little bit different. It's not a straight subdivision. It's a metes and bounds so technically there will be another public hearing. It's at, I believe it's set for March 23`d so it will be noticed again for a metes and bounds subdivision but those things will be required before the permit's issued. We need to see where the driveway's going to go. Check those drainage, where the utilities are coming in so we want the additional information. Regarding the trees itself, because there is a large lot, it has a significant amount of trees, we do allow some tree loss but we would, normally we would have it staked and then we'll verify that too where the house pad's going to see if it matches up with the trees that were shown so anything beyond that would be required for a normal lot would have to be replaced so those are all the things we would do before building permit. Keefe: Would it require additional, and now I'm going a little bit to the comment you know, just in terms of any sort of landscaping, screening, anything along those lines. Aanenson: Yep. Yeah. And I think that's something that we can work with to provide the best screening to see how, it is heavily wooded on the front end but to the. Keefe: North. Aanenson: To the north, yes. That we, if that's a place to put it too so we'll look at that. Keefe: Right. That assuming that we could require it through the next, I mean is that something we would... Aanenson: If you want to make it as a condition, you can attach any reasonable condition that you think's appropriate for mitigation. Sure. Keefe: Right. But would that occur now or at the next one? Aanenson: Well I think this is going to go up to the City Council so I think you should put this on. If you want to make sure that you know landscaping. Any replacement be in a good place to provide buffer, if that's kind of the direction you're going. Keefe: Right. That's the direction, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. That'd be fine and then certainly we'll look at the drainage issue too before it goes up to council. I think there's a broader issue in that neighborhood that's certainly parochial to this end of this cul-de-sac we would look at that too. Keefe: And is the drainage from this particular house, does it drain back towards the street or does it drain... Aanenson: Well because we don't have the elevation on the type of house plan yet. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Keefe: Right. Yeah. Aanenson: You know because again we were pretty divergent on the original request and where the staff was going. We weren't sure where you were going to go with that so we will look at that too and to look at what's the finished floor elevation and where that's going so we'll provide that too and make sure we're not causing water to run off onto somebody else's property. Keefe: Okay. Other than that you know I support it. I think for the most part it meets what we're trying to do so I'm fine with it. Larson: I think I concur, yeah. Moving the house building pad over to where it's not going to have much effect on anything other than you know if we could somehow resolve the Ms. Laplatt's ... having some sort of screening. I think maybe if everybody can come to terms with that, I would be in support of this too. Papke: Sounds good. Laufenburger: It appears that the applicant has worked with staff to come to a cooperative result through Alternate B so I would be in support of that too. Thomas: I too am in support of it. Papke: Okay. Yeah, I'm always happy when an applicant and city staff comes to a meeting of minds before the public hearing and we don't have to grind that out so that's fantastic. So with that, I will entertain a motion. Thomas: Sure, I'll do a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7 ton design and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 17 below and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate B. Larson: I'll second that. Keefe: Can I friendly amendment? Thomas: Okay. Keefe: That the applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. Thomas: Yeah, I accept your motion. Papke: Okay. Mark Senn: Mr. Chairman, could I address that? V] Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Papke: I'm sorry. The public hearing is closed at this point. That's what I warned about early on. Once the public hearing is closed, it's closed. So I apologize for that but that's the way we conduct the meetings. So with that we'll take a vote. Thomas moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and denial of the lot area variance to create a lot less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100-foot lot width and a 40 x 60 foot house -pad, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. Conditions of Approval: 1. Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. 5. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. 10 Planning Commission Meeting -February 17, 2009 b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. c. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. 9. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively bei worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staff's layout (Alternate B). " 18. The applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Papke: Thank you very much. With that we're off to the Fountain Conference Room I guess. Thomas: Don't you have to close the meeting? Papke: Oh! Actually we should approve the minutes quickly before we adjourn. There are no minutes this time to approve because we had just a working session last time so we don't have anything there. We have no commission presentations that I'm aware of so with that, we'll adjourn the meeting at 7:29. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:29 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.09-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 9, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a metes and bounds subdivision with a variances on property located at 7160 Willow View Cove. Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/olan/09-02.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 26, 2009) CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: PC DATE: February 17, 2009 CC DATE: March 9, 2009 11 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 17, 2009 CASE #: 09-02 BY: AA, JM, JS, ML, TJ A. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 as shown in plans dated received January 16, 2009, with variances to permit a lot area less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet, and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100-foot lot width and a 40 x 60-foot house pad, allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-15 below and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate A. Or, B. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and denial of the lot area variance to create a lot less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100- foot lot width and a 40 x 60 foot house -pad, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-17 below and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a two -lot metes and bounds subdivision with variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. There are two alternative motions: 1. Approve the applicant's proposal (Alternate A). 2. Approve staffs recommendation (Alternate B). LOCATION: 7160 Willow View Cove — Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109 APPLICANT: Mark and Suzanne Senn 7610 Willow View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2-4 units/acre) ACREAGE: 3.66 Acres GROSS DENSITY: 0.54 units per acre NET DENSITY: 0.54 units per acre sc"Kab Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 2 of 14 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a metes and bounds subdivision is limited to whether or not the proposed subdivision meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the subdivision. This is a quasi-judicial decision. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article XII Single -Family Residential District Sec. 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is requesting a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a parcel into two single- family lots with variances. A metes and bounds subdivision is permitted when the resulting parcels meet the minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance. The applicant's proposal does not meet the zoning ordinance requirements (area, depth and setbacks.) The proposal does not meet all subdivision ordinance requirements (60'x60' house pad). In order to proceed with a metes and bounds subdivision, the city must approve these variances. Staff is proposing an alternate design (Alternate B) that eliminates all zoning variances. Both the applicant's request and staffs alternate design require a variance to allow a private street to serve both parcels. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 3 of 14 The property is a riparian lot, zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential District and gains access via Willow View Cove. The current site density is 0.27 units per acre. The site is guided Low Density (1.2-4 units per acre). The existing site density is well below the density permitted in the district. The lot area is 3.66 acres (159,429 square feet). The RSF district requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for a non riparian lot, and 20,000 square feet for a riparian lot. The existing lot area far exceeds the minimum requirements of the zoning district. There is currently a single -fancily home located on the parcel. The existing structure meets the requirements of the RSF and Shoreland Management Districts ordinances. Staff is proposing an Alternate B with a variance to allow a substandard private street with conditions outlined in the staff report. A metes and bounds subdivision requires City Council action only; due to the nature of the request the Planning Commission should review the complete application. The subject site is a riparian lot located on the east side of Lotus Lake and is part of the Kurvers Point Subdivision. The Kurvers Point Subdivision was created in 1987 and consists of 42 single-family lots. The subject site is the largest lot within the subdivision with an area of 3.66 acres. When the subdivision was originally approved the subject site was platted as Lot 4, Block 3. In November 1989, the City Council passed a resolution to approve an administrative subdivision of Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, transferring a portion of land from Lot 4 to Lot 5. MlY LN« W« MY \« ,N« w r<w M1 141. s aN w u, INr M M1 r « « ur M. vn« w 1NY M. v� u« MAY Was Mr ersPointdivision F MtY M.« .."M Nopelh Late (LM I. HNk S) wi FN raxr xo Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 4 of 14 The applicant is proposing a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a 3.66 acre site into two single-family lots served by a private street. As previously stated, a metes and bounds subdivision is permitted when both resulting parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance (area, width, depth, etc.) and abut a public or private street. The applicant's proposal (Alternate A) does not meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of several variances in order to be able to create a metes and bounds subdivision. CFRnrtcATE of Sutnrer hayvM v: va.1 Sent. Ml.VY111 M. - \ Prcposetl Trott D a { gars.,—_."" I'm ]A]5 Q Proposed New Lot (Tree[ Q n Alternate A (Applicant's Layout): Regulations governing lots served by a private street: The applicant's proposal requires the following variances: Zoning Variances • Lot area variance -The private street serving the parcel must be located within a 30-foot easement. The area of the easement and the private street may not be calculated as part of the total lot area. • Lot Depth Variance. • Setback variances. Subdivision Variances • 60x60 house pad • Private Street \ I" wide eate]IM]d _.. Propdud ` J0k60' Horse Pad 100' Prvwl lnl Lim.,\ Thchont setbxk of a lot served by Prho]Re Atet a"Wate suety begins where dye wiAh xhieves 104 feet Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 5 of 14 Alternate B (staff as Proposal) Staff has developed an alternative layout that will meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff proposes extending the easterly property line to the north edge of the private street. The lot will achieve a width of 100 feet 35 feet west of said line. The front yard setback and lot depth are measured from the 100-foot line. The lot depth is increased from 96 feet to 131 feet. By extending this property lines, all zoning variances are eliminated and the only variance request necessary is for the private street. Zoning Ordinance Regulations — All Requirements Met Minimum Lot Area. The City Code requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The private street serving the parcel must be located within a 30-foot easement. The area of the easement and the private street may not be calculated as part of the total lot area Staffs layout proposes a parcel with an area of approximately 15,500t square feet. Since the driveway access to the proposed Tract C is not shown on the plans, staff is unable to determine the exact area of the private street. The lot area must be adjusted accordingly to maintain a minimum of 15,000 square feet as required in the RSF zoning district. !` Ofootmil easemem t0'xe0• . � ` 100' Pmnt Int Line The h oid setbach of a lot served by a private sb eet begins where the Rnate Sreet width achieves 100 feet Lot Depth. On lots served by a private street, the front property line is measured where the lot achieves 100 feet in width. The front yard setback and lot depth are then measured from the front property line. All plans must demonstrate that a 60x60 house pad can be accommodated on a newly created parcel. Staffs proposal shows a lot width of 100 feet. The lot depth is 131 feet. The buildable area on the site can easily accommodate a 60 x 60 house pad leaving room to accommodate improvements. Setbacks. A structure must maintain a 30-foot setback from the 100-foot front property line. Staffs layout maintains all required setbacks. Subdivision Ordinance Regulations • The City Code requires a minimum 60' x 60' house pad (3,600 square feet) be shown on the plans or the proposed house type. Staffs proposal reflects a 60' x 60' house pad. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 6 of 14 STREETS The plan proposes accessing the lots via a private street utilizing the existing private driveway. The existing driveway gains access from the cul-de-sac located on the easterly side of the parcel, Willow View Cove. Once the commonality of the private street ends, any portion of the private driveway serving Tract D, located on Tract C, shall be placed in a cross -access easement. An easement over the private street must be provided. Section 18-57 (p) of the City Code requires private streets to be constructed to a 7-ton design, with 20-foot pavement width and located within a 30- foot easement. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing width of 10 feet. The intent is to minimize disturbance to the mature trees on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Private Street Criteria Section 18-57. Streets. (s) Private streets serving up to four lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF, R4 and RLM (when less than four units per acre) districts if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (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 a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city s natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 7 of 14 COMPLIANCE TABLE Compliance Tract C Existing Lot Alternate A Alternate B Tract D 15,000 sq ft 15,500 sq ft 142,500 sq ft Lot Area Non -Riparian Less than 15,000 sq ft (less private street (less private 20,000 sq ft access and easement street access and Riparian sq ft) easement sq ft) Lot Frontage (Private 100, 68.04' 78' 95'+ Street) Lot Depth 125' 97' 158.61' 682'+ Front yard 30, extends 14 feet outside of 30' 470' Setback buildable area Rear Yard 30' non riparian 30' 30' 320' Setback 75'riparian Site Covers 25% May not exceed 25% May not exceed 25% 11.5% e *There are a number of items that are needed in evaluating a subdivision that the applicant has not addressed. They include: • Location of existing and proposed utilities. • Location of the proposed driveway access to the proposed lot. • Tree survey. • Necessary easements. • House Plan. These items must be addressed and submitted prior to recording. WETLANDS The property abuts Lotus Lake, a DNR Public Water. In addition, a review of topographic data, historic aerial photography, the Web Soil Survey Data and the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan indicates that a fringe Type 1/3 wetland exists adjacent to Lotus Lake. Based upon the proposed lot split as submitted, it appears that no wetland impacts will result from the proposed activity. In addition, the proposed new lot is located well outside of any wetland buffer areas or setbacks required under City Code. LAKES and BLUFFS The proposed project is located within the shoreland district for Lotus Lake. Lotus Lake is classified as a recreational development lake. Riparian lots must have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet while non -riparian lots within the shoreland management district must have a Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 8 of 14 minimum size of at least 15,000 square feet. Both proposed lots as shown in Alternate B will meet the pertinent area requirement. Based upon topography provided by Carver County, there does not appear to be any areas which meet the criteria to be classified as a bluff. Erosion and Sediment Control In the event that a building permit is issued for the property, adequate erosion control best management practices will need to be installed to prevent sediment from being discharged off the site or into any water features such as wetlands, lakes, or stormsewer. Silt fence should be provided in areas where sediment may otherwise be carried off -site. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed covered with mulch or sodded according to the following table. Type of Sloe Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days Daily scraping and sweeping of streets shall be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential development rates of $3,410 per acre. Total area of proposed Tract C equals 0.344 acres. Therefore, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,173.04. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single Family Residential developments have a connection charge of $2,360 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $811.84 for the proposed Tract C. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 9 of 14 SWMP Credits This project proposes no on -site water quality features. Therefore, no credit will be applied to the proposed subdivision. At this time, the estimated total SMW fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A grading plan was not submitted with the proposal. If the subdivision is approved a grading plan must be submitted for review and approval. The grading plan shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Code. UTILITIES A utility plan was not submitted with the proposal. According to the utility as -built information for this area, sanitary sewer lies along the shoreline of Lotus Lake and within Willow View Cove. It appears that the sanitary sewer service to the existing home on proposed Tract D extends from the sewer along Lotus Lake. The as-builts do not show a sanitary sewer service stub for proposed Tract C. According to the utility as -built information, the water service for the existing home on proposed Tract D extends from a six-inch lateral on the property to the south. The as -built does not show a water service for proposed Tract C. If the subdivision is approved, a utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home, and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that cross another property. The easement width shall extend minimum of 10 feet from the service. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these hookup charges. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 10 of 14 PARK DEDICATION The nearest neighborhood park to this subdivision is South Lotus Lake Park. South Lotus Lake Park is 7.42 acres in size and features a playground, boat access, tennis/basketball court, and an open field. Off- street parking is available at the park. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TRAILS The subject site can access the Highway 101 North pedestrian trail. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. It is recommended that full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected as a condition of approval for the metes and bounds subdivision. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon subdivision approval. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has not submitted tree preservation calculations or survey. If this subdivision is approved, the calculations and survey will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Even without specific calculations, it is evident from aerial photos and a site visit that the applicant will not exceed canopy coverage limits for the subdivision. It appears that the proposed lot will have significant tree removal. Existing conditions within the proposed lot (Tract Q include mature, native sugar maple - basswood woods on the east and central portions of the lot and lawn and mature spruce on the west side of the lot. The proposed location of the home will remove a significant area of existing trees due to grading and construction activities. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page II of 14 Staff strongly recommends the preservation of the wooded area for the following reasons. The wooded area provides greater diversity and is self-sustaining (younger trees growing and replacing older). It also provides greater environmental benefit by producing more oxygen, sequestering more carbon, alleviating more urban heat island effect, providing wildlife habitat, and sheltering a greater area of land thereby reducing runoff, an important consideration for a lakeshore property. Due to the location of the proposed building pad in relation to the wooded area, tree preservation seems most applicable around the edges of the lot. The wooded area lies between the road access and the house pad. The equipment used for construction will need a perimeter of access around the building pad which is generally 15 — 20 feet. The northwest comer of the house pad lies 21 feet from the driveway. This proximity will lend itself to the most convenient and efficient access to the house pad and placement of the driveway and therefore will be cleared. The picture below represents the tree removal on the proposed lot; the area is outlined in red. Staff recommends that, at a minimum, the applicant be required to preserve all trees outside of the red area. Reducing the size of the removal area should be a priority in order to retain as many trees on the lot as possible. Additionally, staff supports the recommendation to allow the private street to remain at its current width. Widening the private street will necessitate additional significant tree removal. The tree loss will be greater than the benefit of a short section of a widened drive. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 12 of 14 The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. RECObIMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt one of the following motions: A. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 as shown in plans dated received January 16, 2009, with variances to permit a lot area less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100 foot lot width, a 40 x 60 foot house -pad and allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-15 below and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate A. or, B. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and denial of the lot area variance to create a lot less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100-foot lot width and a 40 x 60 foot house -pad, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-17 below and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 13 of 14 Conditions of Approval 1. Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2. A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3. A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home, the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. 5. If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 6. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. b. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. c. No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. 9. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Senn Subdivision with Variances Planning Case 09-02 February 17, 2009 Page 14 of 14 Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1to3:1 14Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13. Submit a revised survey showing the following: a. Drainage and utility easements. b. All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c. Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14. Submit a 30-foot wide private cross -access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15. A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16. Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non -riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17. The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staff s layout (Alternate B). " ATTACHNIENTS 1. Findings of Fact Alternate A. 2. Findings of Fact Alternate B. 3. Application. 4. Email from John Gleason dated February 6, 2009. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 6. Survey dated received January 16, 2009. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-02 senn subdivision & variance\staff mpon.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATE A ftml:$ Application of Mark and Suzanne Senn for a two -lot subdivision with zoning variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. On February 17, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision with variances 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF) 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential —Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre) uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109. 4. VARIANCES - There are two types of variances associated with this application. The first set are zoning ordinance related while the other is subdivision related. Zoning Variance Findings 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 these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. Due to the lot configuration and the location of the driveway and the location of the trees on the site, the granting of the variance will permit the applicant to locate a building on the property that minimizes its impact. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all Single Family Residential properties since this property was platted prior to the adoption of the Private Street variance requirements. 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: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship since the location of the existing drive and treed areas on the site constrain its development. 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 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. 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 or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Subdivision Variance Findines Sec.18-22.Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: Variances Within Subdivisions The subdivision variance is required to allow a private street to serve the subject development. Staff is also recommending the applicant be permitted to maintain a substandard private street (Less than 20 feet wide and less than 7 ton design). a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves site features. Reconstruction of the private street will cause environmental impact. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. The subject parcel is the largest lot within the Kurvers Point subdivision. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. d. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal. 5. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The applicant's proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RSF district subject to the zoning variance approval. b. 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 the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the private street standards variance is approved. 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; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. f. 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. 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. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. The planning report #09-02, dated February 17, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a subdivision creating two lots with a variance for the use of a private street and approval of the zoning variance requests to permit a reduced lot area, lot depth and a front yard setback variance to be 30 feet from the front property line rather than 30 feet from the point where the lot meets the 100 foot lot width. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17'b day of February, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M Its Chairman 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATE B Application of Mark and Suzanne Senn for a two -lot subdivision with zoning variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. On February 17, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision with variances 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre) uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109. 4. VARIANCES - There are two types of variances associated with this application. The first set are zoning ordinance related while the other is subdivision related. Zoning Variance Findings 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 these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The proposed development could comply with the minimum zoning ordinance requirements. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all Single Family Residential properties since this property complies with the City's zoning requirements. 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: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship since the property could be developed in conformance with the zoning ordinance. 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 granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located since it does not comply with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of fight 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 fight 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. Subdivision Variance Findings See.18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: Variances Within Subdivisions The subdivision variance is required to allow a private street to serve the subject development. a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves site features. Reconstruction of the private street will cause environmental impact. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. The subject parcel is the largest lot within the Kurvers Point subdivision. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. d. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal. 5. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the RSF district. The proposed lot can comply with the minimum zoning requirements b. 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 the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the private street standards variance is approved. 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; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 3 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. f. 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. 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. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. The planning report #09-02, dated February 17, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the variance for the use of a private street and deny the zoning variances. The Planning Commission further recommends that the subdivision be approved conditioned upon the applicant reconfiguring the lot to eliminate the need for the zoning variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17`s day of February, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMNIISSION IM Its Chairman CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: Mark Senn ZOTUS6 %� v Proposed Tract D 144000F Sq Ft 228! A. \4 \Y Pm,e Tract C• Rant part of Tract A. Registered Land Survey Na 109, Rise 1 Registrar of Ri/ea, Carvees r Count, Minnota, described as %allows: Commencing of the northeast comer of sold Tract A. them. on ae aseumsf bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 .atonal West along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 het; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24yys.d. West c distance of 42.52 feet to the point of be5inning9f the frocf to be dumbed' thence p degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 76.40 het; thence South 6 degrue 57 minutes 57 second. West a distance of 72.W het to the southerly line of sold Tract A; thence South QJ degrees 02 minutes 0J second. East along said southady line, o a/afance of 158,61 het to a point distant 77.W bet /rant the tight of 51 of Was Wear Co.. thence North 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 aeronds Coat a distance of 6804 feet thence North 55 minutes 26 mM,tes /6 scord. West a distance of 1/0.86 Met to the point of beginning and there terminating fire of Tract A --a.aa (E—t In.) c, q k0 N� 42.52 . .. , . ,. % s5 c, 7mye Proposed Propose w Tract C n5'o.J4 Aar ooi�t �esed $I use W 57 - _60 -{III, r SBJb?'O3 E- 32326 reset ! S2 Szy the of i co, Proposed t ct D. Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 109, /Nee of Registrar of Note, Carver County, Mhnemt¢ EXCEPT the tract of land described as knows. - Commencing at the northeast come, of said Tract A, thence on an assumed beachyy of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds ft t, u/any the north line of said ifact e. a distance of 106.47 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described' thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds Weet a distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly Ifie of said hoot A; thence South eJ degrees 02 minutes W seconds East. along mold southerly line, a distance of IM61 feet to a point distant 7Z00 hef from the right of way of Wilow Kew Co., thence North 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 secwndo East a distance of 6604 reef; thence North 55 minutes 26 minutes /6 seconds West a distance of 110.86 Het to the point of beginning and there ferminot/n9. Rmhpsed Easemene Met part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey Na 109, Nee of Registrar of NO., Corwr Count, Minnesota, 1*9 a°utheastMx northeasterly and eutedy of a line described ae folki. Commencing at the northeast toner of said Tract A, thence an an assumed beorfnyy of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, dong the north the of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 Met to the point of beginning of the line to 6e dumbed' thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 second. West a dlafance of 42.52 feet thence South 55 degrees 26 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 110.66 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 s.cand. West. a distance of 68.04 feet, to a point an the southerly line of said Tract A distant 77.W feet than the light of way of Willow New Co.. and said llne there terminating. mill.w 6 JAN 1 6 �409 View Cove misting f,a,/ aesonletla^ (sueelpd bee client) boot A, Registered Land Surveyy Na. 109, loss of Registrar of Rtles, Carver Count, Minnesota. Hardeaver Calculations (sa. it, EXeting House 4,561 £sfsting Driveway 11.662 Total Haracover 16,42J Total Area (Tract A) 158. 0003 Percentage Hamad., f0.4x l hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me ab Number. 6967 SCHOSORG or under my direct supervision and that i am a duly Registered Book a w 7t LA D SERVICES Lon. Surveyor der the ows of the State of Minnesota. Surw Dots: Dmekig Nome: 9-19-08 L,d scN ..n.dwg • Found Iran Monument o as ea ¢e INC. �Oen by,RLB O Set Iran Monument (LS 14700) Paul B. Schoborg R.H.lo a ® Found stakes (set by ther) le.T-972-J12I eB9l Ca Rd 13 SE p I inch - 6o feet r xsaoewptmasen odene, MN 55J2e Oote: _-l_____ Registration No. 74700 Bearings based an asuumso datum. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: Mark Senn -North line of Tract A N8874'20"W 881.99 -P.O.B. (Easement Line) LOTUS \ 106.47- -- LA" Bituminous Driveway 1 '-s5910924"w 3 ; .09 S., 42.52 W 559 I6 Proposed M nN h �Z Proposed Tract D Propose 1,a0001 Sq Ft Existing j `Tract C 1° �As asemen t p ��0 1 \u 2.28t Ac. House �3 ® r n 15,000 Sq jFt ) to h a34 Ao. Proposed j \� n House VI ,W o ` y - 51 _ — so N05 44'40'W ry�Hs S 30.15--------- S83-02'03"E 323,p6 158.61 M S8835'40"W � \ �\ \ 4 .E 251' 0 S%y fine Tract \ �s N6� �� sf=• ��s 0 169.51 Proposed Tract C.• That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Tract A, thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the pant of beginning of the tract to be described, thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly line of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees 02 minutes 03 seconds East, along said southerly line, a distance of 158.61 feet to a point distant 7700 feet from the right of ktto of Willow View Cove; thence North 6 degrees 57 minutes seconds East a distance of 68.04 feet, thence North 55 es 16 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 110.86 the point of beginning and there terminating. Proposed Tract D: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the northeast come of said Tract A, thence on on assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described, thence continuing South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 76.40 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 72.56 feet to the southerly ins of said Tract A; thence South 83 degrees 02 minutes 03 seconds East, along said southerly line, a distance of 158.61 feet to a point distant 77.00 feet from the right of way of Willow View Cove; thence North 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 68.04 feet; thence North 55 minutes 26 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 110.86 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. . Proposed Easement: That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly, northeasterly and easterly of a line described as follows. Commencing at the northeast comer of said Tract A, thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds West, along the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 106.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 42.52 feet; thence South 55 degrees 26 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 110.86 feet; thence South 6 degrees 57 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 68.04 feet, to a point on the southerly line of said Tract A distant 77.00 feet from the right of way of Willow View Cove, and said line there terminating. \ 1 a�l%fOIO`ir View Cove Existing Legal Descr' ti�ion_(supplied by client) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, riles of Registrar of Pities, Carver County, Minnesota. Hardcover Calculations (sq. ft.): Existing House 4,561 Existing Driveway 11,862 Total Hardcover 16,423 Total Area (Tract A) 158,000t Percentage Hardcover 10.4X SCHOBORG �/� �+ DSERVICES INC.rown ls, .3221 8997 Co. Rd. 1J SE be� Delano, MN 55328 l hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duty Registered Land Surveyor der theAaws of the State of Minnesota. ob Number 6967 Legend Found Iron Monument O Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) ® Found stakes (set by other) Bearings based on assumed datum. SCALE so 0 J0 so 120 Book age: 71 Survey Date: 9-19-08 Drowing Name: senn.dwg by. KLB 1 inch = 60 feet Revisions: Paul B. Schoborg _%�/'-. Date: = 2&_�1 __ Registration No. 14700 INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Phone:952-227-1180 Fax:952-227-1190 INSPECTION FOR , `^� DATE TIME & DATE INSPECTION K�7aftNT MOT:1 WATER METER NO. REMOTE NO LOCATION CORRECTIONS RN TIME EM Make corrections as listob above and schedule a re -inspection. You may not cover, conceal or proceed with construction in any areas that require correction until author ze2�ru�ildi�n�g�o/�ffic�ial. Wntf- {D &.- e55 W�f �11,e h �j In_sp@ctor q t/O-r Revised Recommendation "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions w and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B." CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATE B Application of Mark and Suzanne Senn for a two -lot subdivision with zoning variances to create a second building lot and a variance to allow a private street to serve the parcels. On February 17, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a,public hearing on the proposed subdivision with variances 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre) uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Tract A of Registered Land Survey 109. 4. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: The subdivision variance is required to allow a private street to serve the subject development. a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves site features. Reconstruction of the private street will cause environmental impact. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. The subject parcel is the largest lot within the Kurvers Point subdivision. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. d. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal. 5. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the RSF district. The proposed lot can comply with the minimum zoning requirements b. 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 the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the private street standards variance is approved. 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; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. 2 f. 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. 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. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. The planning report #09-02, dated February 17, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots based on these findings of fact for Alternate B." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17a day of February, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ON Its Chairman Auseth, Angie Subject: Comments about 7160 Willow View Cove Subdivision From: Betsy LePlatt [mailto:ebetsy@msn.comj Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:57 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Comments about 7160 Willow View Cove Subdivision Planning Commission Members, City Councilors and Concerned Citizens, These comments are in response to the postcard we received regarding the subdivision and subsequent building of an additional home on the single family home zoned lot belonging to Mark and Suzanne Senn. We were very surprised and are heart sick to hear of this potential change. We purchased our home in 1992 in large part because of the natural setting. We did not want to live in a house where our view would be right into someone else's house. We went to the City before purchasing our home to check out the way the surrounding properties were laid out and felt safe to assume there would be few changes. It certainly appeared we would not face the prospect of staring directly into another home. We have just finished another remodeling project and had planned to enjoy it. This is so disturbing, we are contemplating selling our house. However,this is not a good time to sell a home. Plus, we will be loosing some value in our home as a result of this proposed project. So, needless to say, this is a very upsetting proposition to us. Other concerns include: *There are several other larger lots in this area. This could set a precedence for subdividing. •Creating a "hodge podge" neighborhood by placing a house in a way that is not consistent with the surrounding homes. Would the proposed house be consistent with the quality or level of the neighborhood? *This would be a subdivision without a proper access road - not that we want a city street at the edge of our backyard. *This project asks for variances to the city code as well as subdividing. Why have regulations and zoning, if they can so easily be changed? A neighbor from Kurver's Point also mentioned that part of their covenants prevent member properties from subdividing. We are not sure of the validity of this or even whether the Senns are part of that association, but thought it was worth mentioning. Sincerely, Herb and Betsy LePlatt Windows Liver"': E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out. Legal Description (supplied by client) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 109, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. based on assumed datum. SCHOBORG INC. ,,1 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE a can Delano, MN 55328 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: MOrk .Senn �ai7 L410 E 681.99 \ Bituminous Driveway 1 \ 3 9 0 9 c 15, 000 Sq F 6' N coo p \ Existing i 0,34 Ac. O �� \cd House w \� G :o R � I "��se o y�y v N ^ I so.D 4e m N05' 40"W az _-- 30. --- \ S830203'E- 323. 6 M 15.6i Z+— �S8835'40"W- ` G 00 14.36 3 c w s sr�p? 3 ` wuo :os4 169.51 View ��O \ Cove -P Number: 6967 late: 9-79-08 Leaen SCALE Name: senn.dwg Found Iron Monument 60 0 30 60 120 r KLB O Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) ® ANEEMIL- Found stakes (set by other) 1 inch = 60 feet City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 C"UF (952) 227-1100 Date: January 26, 2009 Review Response Deadline: February6, 2009 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Angie Auseth, Planner I Subject: Request for a Two -Lot Subdivision with Variances on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 7160 Willow View Cove. Applicant/Owner: Mark and Suzanne Senn. Planning Case: 09-02 PID: 25-6950010 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on January 16, 2009. The 60-day review period ends March 17, 2009. 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 future utility services, stone 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 February 17, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than February 6, 2009. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason Area Hydrologist 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Senn Subdivision with Variances 7160 Willow View Cover Planning Case 2009-02 VARIANCES REQUEST 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE We purchased this property approximately 20 years ago. Our property is just shy of 4 acres and has approximately 430 feet of lakeshore on Lotus Lake. Our long term plan was to always place one if not two additional structures on the property to accommodate future family needs. When we purchased this property there were no rules which prohibited us from doing so. My mother is now 85 years old and wishes to maintain her independence, something that we support. It is however now necessary to get her closer to us so we can better help her. She is now ready to move so I subsequently contacted the City and was told that ordinances had now been put in place that prohibited us from 1). adding additional dwellings to the property, or 2). do a lot split to construct another dwelling. It is our strong preference to always keep the property as one, and in the family, because we never want to nor intent to dispose of any property created by a split. The City suggested the only possible way to proceed was to request variances to allow us to subdivide. We were then informed that other ordinances passed even more recently prohibited us from proceeding without variances unless we upgrade the driveway to a city street and remove a lot of significant number of mature trees and vegetation which would negatively alter the character of the property. Rather than argue over the effective taking caused by new ordinances being put in place that we were not notified of, in the spirit of cooperation we proceeded down the track to subdivide. We are willing to cooperate and do so even though it is our strong desire not to subdivide. We have had a updated survey completed and sited the proposed structure keeping in mind all things considered important about the character of the property. Subsequently, we are seeking approval of several variances which will allow us to maintain the character of the property, place the structure where it best fits without destroying a lot of mature vegetation, and likewise not allowing construction to do the same. These more recently passed ordinances don't allow private driveways any longer serving multiple lots without being constructed to the standards of a city road. To do so would wipe out and destroy a large wooded area surrounding the current driveway which by the way is over a thousand feet long. Another more recently passed ordinance does not allow lot splits with less than 100 feet of street frontage and while we have just shy of four acres we only have about 70 feet of street frontage. Again due to a more recent ordinance passed, our proposed lot size of 15,000 square feet and house pad size (60'x 40') or 2400 square feet require variances only because of where we placed the structure. To move the structure from the current proposed location would either wipe out a lot mature woods one way, or a cluster of approximately 100 foot pines the other way. If we move the structure approximately 30 feet to the west to avoid a variance it would wipe out the above mentioned pine cluster. In that none of the variances impact setbacks from existing neighboring properties, we seek the approval of all necessary variances due to hardships at any number of levels. First, if our property right to add additional dwellings to our acreage had not been taken, no variances would be necessary. By cooperating with a lot split instead these variances are created. Each of these variances then necessitated by the split are being caused again by the elimination of or taking of our property rights through ordinances passed since we have owned the property, which we were never made aware of Most importantly, to proceed with any plan other than the proposed would substantially alter and destroy much of the character of the property through the elimination and damages to mature wooded areas and vegetation. What we are proposing, given our acreage, will have no practical spill over effects to any one else other than us. Our current hard surface coverage is 10.4% overall. Splitting off the lot changes the coverage on the primary lot to 11.4%. On the split lot or secondary lot the coverage would be 16%. O (7'0 N C f .^ J HGiL I ld (-z/ '° S MEMORANDUM TO: Angie Auseth, Planner I FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: January 26, 2009 SUBJ: Review of request for a Two -Lot Subdivision with variances on property addressed as 7160 Willow View Cove. Planning Case: 09-02 I have reviewed the above request for a subdivision with variances and have no comment. G:\plan\2009planning cases\09-02 Senn Subdivision and Variance\buildingofficialcomments.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 553 O1/26/2009 Receipt No. CLERK: katie PAYEE: PLANNING ENTERPRISES ------------------------------------------------------- Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total Cash Check Change 0.00 SCANNED SENN SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 09-02 $400 Metes & Bounds Subdivision ($300 + $50 per lot) $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow Variance $450 Recording Escrow Subdivision $144 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (48 x $3) $1,444 TOTAL $250 Less Check 5727 from Sam's Enterprises, LLC $1,194 BALANCE DUE CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.09-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a subdivision creating an additional lot with variances on property located at 7160 Willow View Cove. Applicant: Mark & Suzanne Senn. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-02.htm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and.express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2009) SCANNED January 23, 2009 CITY OF Mark Senn CHMNSEN 7160 Willow View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 7700 Market Boulevard PtN 55317 Chanhasssen,en, MN Re: Subdivision with Variances Application — Planning Case 09-02 Dear Mr. Senn: Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Staff has conducted a preliminary review of your application submitted on Fax:952.227.1110 January 16, 2009. Additional fees are required prior to the scheduled Planning Commission meeting and are due upon receipt of this letter: Building_ Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 Fax:952,227.1190 • Metes & Bounds Subdivision ($300 + $50 per lot).....................................$400 • Variance.......................................................................................................$200 �9 g • Notification Sign..........................................................................................$2W Phone: 9521 • Filing Fees/Attomey Costs — Variance..........................................................$50 Fa: 952.2.227.17.1170 70 • Filing Fees/Attorney Costs — Subdivision...................................................$450 Rnaru • Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (48 x $3).............................................$144 Phone:952.227.1140 • TOTAL APPLICATION FEES................................................................$1444 Fax:952.227.1110 a Less initial payment.....................................................................................$250 Park&Beaea m • TOTAL DUE............................................................................................$1194 — Phone:952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Additionally, the following items will need to be addressed prior to recording the subdivision should it be approved by City Council: Becreatim Carta 2310CatlterBoulermd . Tree survey (10" or larger DBH) Plan: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 • Location of sewer and water connections (private utilities are located within the buildable area and will be required to be relocated prior to recording) PINWR& BaWrat Besoaas It is staff's intent to schedule this application on the February 17, 2009 Planning Phone:952.227.1130 Commission agenda. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding Fax:952.227.1110 this application at 952-227-1132 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works 1591 Park Road Sincerely, Phase:522.200 Fax: 952.227,1317.1310 ,", a�I Senior Center Angie Auseth Phone:952.227.1125 Planner I Fax: 952,227.1110 Web She ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director wwrrAchanlassen.mn.us g:\plan\2009 planning casesx09-02 saran subdivision & varia e\senn fee information k[tendm SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for life - Providing for Today and Planning forTomonow CITY OF CIIA MSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax. 952 2271170 Finance Phone: 952.227,1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.2271125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Angie Auseth, Planner I FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director ! W DATE: February 5, 2009 SUBJ: Request for a Two -Lot Subdivision with Variances on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 7160 Willow View Cove. Applicant/Owner: Mark and Suzanne Senn. PARKS The nearest neighborhood park to this subdivision is South Lotus Lake Park. South Lotus Lake Park is 7.42 acres in size and features a playground, boat access tennis/basketball court, and an open field. Off-street parking is available at the park. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TRAILS The subject site can access the Highway 101 North pedestrian trail. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected as a condition of approval for Fox Hill. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. ATTACHMENTS Park and Trail Map GAPIAN\2009 Planning Casesk09-02 Senn Subdivision & Variance\Park Conditions.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 21MII',kw-lt% , lklw-,. CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 02/05/2009 3:40 PM Receipt No. 0092314 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Sam's Enterprises, LLC Balance for Planning Case 09-02 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 600.00 Recording Fees 450.00 GIS List 144.00 Total Cash Check 5733 Check 5728 Change 1,194.00 0.00 994.00 200.00 0.00 SCANNED SENN SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 09-02 $400 Metes & Bounds Subdivision ($300+$50 per lot) $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow Variance $450 Recording Escrow Subdivision $144 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (48 x $3) $1,444 TOTAL $250 Less Check 5727 from Sam's Enterprises, LLC $200 Less Check 5728 from Sam's Enterprises, LLC $994 Less Check 5733 from Sam's Enterprises, LLC $0 BALANCE DUE SCANNED Applicable Ordinances (summarized please review all of Chapters 18 and 20) 18-75 (p) Privates streets1he portion that is a private drive shall be7-ton design 20 feet wide (7) The private drive shall have 30 feet wide easement. The area of the easement and impervious surface of the driveway shall not be included in the calculation of the lot area. 18-60 Lots (j) Homes sizes shall be shown if not a minimum pad shall be designated of 60' X 60' 20-615 RSF Lot requirements and Setbacks The minimum lost area is 15, 000 square feet. For neck or flag lots the area shall the met after the area contained in the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (4) The width on neck or flag lots accessed from privates streets shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. (5) The maximum lot coverage from all structures is 25%. (6) The setback is: Front and rear are 30 feet Sides are 10 feet See.18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; (4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Sec. 18-37. Exemption. (a) Reserved. (b) The city council may approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot into two lots if both resulting lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and abut a public or private street. To the extent possible, the new boundary line shall be parallel to a previously existing lot line. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed subdivision after notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official newspaper, and a proposed development notification sign has been erected on the subject property by the applicant, both at least ten days before the date of hearing. Written notice shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within 500 feet of the outer boundaries of the subdivision. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. At least three weeks prior to the hearing the applicant shall submit to the city: (1) A survey (prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor); (2) A list of property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the parcel to be subdivided; (3) Except as waived by the city, all information required for plats. (c) Upon approval of an administrative or metes and bounds subdivision, the city shall notify the applicant of the approval and within 30 days thereafter, the applicant or the city attorney shall file the documents with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence of such recording. Failure to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval. /rnP.�rn � baw•.�s i�L-lo� l.:oci �.�.A.nJv nti' .N� � 13 i rv�� ry � o-. n,'CL a AR} JAL-t L� a v a-t +1-1-cyy- j boQ ov,s�o�J �!w JV'A"�,ts a ,v-r— as �nl� 0., CSe ciao - Ce.1 w`,.� � � e,%, x- 5 Su1� �,��5�s� �. ,�p✓ se �o d �lnOn L-40 U5 CEO xlea� W\\ + Fib lo, ��g1 a scn�1-e - �z�,m,j,� ►� k-� �12SF� g. l ac, � a 5 a.,,-� (Y�C -) cn*tD - I,-D kp ko Fe /Y\ L- A- e_rnnns�r sn u3�.,, 4p � ) I c,g I CCrm� CA-1 BAar-CA-, 2p, 1 `kll I Irk s�rl�l•c. b Lp1U+) C -. LA oasts w��-o "N(1 u i l q 0I. I Asp € fO4CAA o �s, �cv�► PT?vNwl a� �;n(1 Flak A ar'd A241+�� V�\raj �Q , \OV �ieoo Qua i� p�P�oaed ;_Itc ( miv1 Su AD �,�ti� .3 10c) Print Prccic�% Page 1 of 1 IF i•:, -a}',, Carver i County, r . MN Man w Scale p -A 1 inch = 153 feet Disclaimer: This map 1� was created using Carver County's Geographic - �( Information Systems p (GIS), it is a compilation -,- ♦f •` + 3 xtA Of information ;ryf a and data �L"�t-y,..yY from various' r AL"O ; City, County, State, and t a, Federal offices. This 414 map is not a ,• �; surveyed or i . + legally recorded + map and is intended to •. C f Y be used as a reference. l 7' Carver \4r , County is i not responsible K \. for any t j inaccuracies contained herein. http://carvergisweb 1.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/govemment/general/landservices/printPreview.aspx?... 11 /26/2008