Loading...
CAS-14_LAKE HARRISON (4)Generous, Bob From: Generous, Bob Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:22 PM To: 'paulseng @juno.com' Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Generous, Bob; Knutson, Roger; Labatt, Steve; Lundquist, Brian; Oehme, Paul; Peterson, Craig; Tjornhorn, Bethany Subject: 0711123538.pdf, Lake Harrison 0711123538.pdf (169 KB) Janet: Attached is a response to your email of July 10. EJ Response to Janet Paulsen.doc ... Bob Response to Janet Paulsen's Issues: Issue # 1. The wrong OHW. The OHW for all lakes in Chanhassen was first added to the code in the May 24, 2004, council meeting addressing code revisions, an entire year ago! Before that time staff had ample time to check with the DNR about correct OHW levels and would have discovered the DNR had no OHW for Lake Harrison. Instead, a wrong OHW for Lake Harrison was placed in code. Even now a wrong OHW for Lake Harrison has been incorrectly placed on the preliminary plat for the Lake Harrison development as 994 instead of 993.6. Since the City of Chanhassen plans to own the wetland on Lake Harrison and the OHW is required for all preliminary plats wouldn't the city need this OHW to be recorded accurately on the plat for their own records? Staff Response Issue # 1. Minnesota Statutes do not require the inclusion of the OHW on the final plat. However, the applicant has included an OHW elevation of 994 on the construction plan and used it to determine building pad locations. The developer's engineer states that this is based on NAD 1984 datum. The DNR elevation of 993.6 is based on NAD 1929. Based on information available from the DNR, the data the developer is using is more conservative, i.e., higher elevation, than the 1929 datum. This provides addition protection for the city. Issue # 2. A private street requires fire marshal approval. The fire marshal report provided for Lake Harrison development does not address the private street and is dated March 25, 2005, before a private street was proposed. Notice that the city attorney states: "The street was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal." He does not say PRIVATE street. Lawyers use careful language to stay out of trouble. Perhaps the fire Marshal report for the private street is not present because the private street does not meet required standards. I refer you to the required standards for a requested private street in the upcoming meeting under new business for Monday, July 11 (the Story property). It should be in your packet. Staff Response Issue # 2. The fire marshal has reviewed the proposal. His code addresses only fire apparatus access road (driveways) for three or more residential units. The specific language of Chapter 18 is as follows: "(1) The common sections of a private street serving two units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven -ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes." [emphasis added] Issues #3 & #4. The difference between a private street and a driveway. I am glad the city attorney agrees with me that a private street is not a driveway according to our code. However staff seems to have the two confused. They keep referring to a "private street driveway." There is no such term in our code. Staff also refers to the private street as a "private drive." Again, there is no such term in our code. Bob Generous in an e-mail to Mr. Broughton claimed, "A private street is merely a driveway serving up to four lots." In reality a driveway can only serve one lot according to our code. Staff Response to Issues 3 & 4. Code defines a private street as follows: "Street, private means a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties." And the code defines driveway as follows: "Driveway means a private access from a street to an individual lot." As soon as the common portion of the private street ends, we have a driveway. Issue # 5. Shoreland The city attorney agrees that the Lake Harrison development is classified as shoreland and is subject to shoreland rules. It has recently been brought to my attention that there is a mistake in our code regarding non -riparian lots 1000 feet from a sewered natural environment lake. The state minimum is 20,000 square feet, 125 feet width at the building line, not 15,000 square feet, 90 feet width. Unless the city applied for relief from these standards at the time the shoreland code was adopted, lots which do not meet the required minimums must be reconfigured. See Chapter.6120.3300 subp.2a D of DNR Shoreland Management Rules. Staff Response Issue # 5. City code, which was approved by the DNR, permits 90 foot lot widths. See attached letter from the DNR to the City. Issue # 6. Structure setback in shoreland. The city attorney agrees that a retaining wall is a structure but disagrees that it needs a 20 -foot setback from the private street (required by shoreland rules) because the private street needs those retaining walls for stability. Doesn't this situation indicate that the private street needs more room? But more room doesn't exist in this area BECAUSE OF THE BLUFF. The private street should not be placed there and no lots should be platted there. In addition, is the utility company aware that 8 -foot retaining walls (some with a fence on the top) are going to be within their easement? If so, where is the letter from the utility company giving permission for such a structure? This is required for the preliminary plat and is missing. Staff Response Issue # 6. The retaining wall is an element of the private street and does reduce the amount of grading necessary in this area. The bluff ordinance states as follows regarding driveways in the bluff or bluff impact area: Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause adverse impacts. As part of the development review, the Utility company was sent a copy of the plans for review and comment. They had no objection. The utility company does permit structures within the easement which do not interfere with the use of the easement. Prior to construction, the utility company will again have an opportunity to review the proposed plans and comment on the construction plans. Issue # 7. Front lot line for lots accessed by private streets. The city attorney agrees that the front lot line on lot 11, block 1 faces the public street and that the front yard must be a full 30 feet back from the lot line and the private street turnaround on the north. However the plans show the front yard as less than 30 feet. It appears that only a very small, small home can fit within the building area BECAUSE OF THE BLUFF. Or does staff plan to exchange lot lines back and forth between lots 11 and 10 to temporarily accommodate a larger building area? Staff Response Issue # 7. The applicant is preparing a revision to the private street and a plan schematic to show house pads which comply with the ordinance. The plans show a house pad that is 65 feet wide at the narrowest point. Issue # 8. Variance for a 5 -foot front yard setback. The city attorney states that the council can use discretion in approving a variance. As a member of the public I only ask that you remember the awesome power of government to get its way. Staff response to Issue # 8. No comment. JUL-11-2005 13:10 From:WRTERS DIV. 6512960445 To:6517727977 P.112 tM ��S'(,iTATE OF H LE22007Z/ 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS - 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4032 EN0- PHONE NO. (612) 296-4800 December 19, 1994 The Honorable Don Chmiel Mayor, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 Dear Mayor Chmiel: APPROVAL of CHANHASSEN'S sHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Thank you for submitting your city's request for flexibility from the statewide shoreland rules and your community's amended shoreland management controls (which were adopted August 22, 1994) for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review. I will address the flexibility request first. Your city staff presented memoranda which requested flexibility from statewide standards in the following areas: 1. Shoreland Districts - 15,000 square foot lots (versus 20,000 square feet in statewide standards) and 90 foot lot width (versus 125 feet in statewide standards). 2. Building Height - 35 feet (versus 25 feet in statewide standards). 3. Impervious Surface - 35 percent impervious cover limit in medium and high density residential zones and 70 percent impervious cover limit for industrial land within the shoreland district of Lake Susan (versus 25 percent impervious cover limit in statewide standards). The city's letters and attached materials adequately describe those situations and justifies its request. I am hereby fully approving the city's request for flexibility. I also am informing you that the city's land use controls fully comply with Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and are hereby approved. AN EOUAI Post -it' Fax Note 7671 oaa 9 , / 1 N—" To r From CoAxpt, ca. Plane a Plane Fax R Fax e JUL-11-2005 13:10 From:WRTERS DIV. 6512960445 To:6S17727977 P.212 The Honorable Don Chmiel Approval of Chanhassen's Shoreland controls Page 2 We remain available to assist the city with implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. As required by the ordinance, notices of all hearings and notices of decisions for variances, conditional uses, and amendments in shoreland areas must be submitted to the Department. These should be sent directly to Area Hydrologist Coil Strauss at the following address: DNR - Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. I wish to congratulate you for the efforts of the city council, planning commission, staff, and local citizens have taken towards protecting the water resources of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota through the adoption of its land use controls which include the statewide shoreland management standards. Sincerely, DIVISION OF WATERS O zghA, SuperV sor Land Use Management Unit OS/CCS C! Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist Coil Strauss, Area Hydrologist Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Diane Desotelle, Chanhassen Water Resources coordinator Pam Albrecht, Division Accountant Generous, Bob From: Generous, Bob Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 2:07 PM To: 'jbroughton @ discdyn.com' Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Knutson, Roger; Labatt, Steve; Lundquist, Brian; Oehme, Paul; Peterson, Craig; Tjornhorn, Bethany; 'dancook@pemtom.com' Subject: Lake Harrison Jim: I prepared a response to your email. Please review the attached. If you have any questions, please contact me. :.78 EJ LAKE SONYROBLEMS1A F7 Generous, Bob (bgenerousft.ch... LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION ISSUES: I. VARIANCES NOT IDENTIFIED Numerous additional variances impacting the Bluff will be required for any home construction on Lots 11 & 12, Block 1. These variances have not been specifically identified or discussed by the Developer or City Staff. These variances are contrary to the Conditions of Approval from the 9 -May -05 Council Meeting Minutes (preliminary plat approval) and the City Staff Report prepared for the 11 -Jul -05 City Council Meeting. These variances are based on economic considerations and not hardship. Allowing final plat approval without resolving the variance issues is short-sighted and makes a mockery of the City Ordinances. Page 6 of the City Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on 19 -Apr -05 stated: "One area on the property has been identified as a bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). This area must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the buff impact zone (Le., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. " The final plat drawings submitted to the city have blatantly shown a house pad and retaining wall (structure) in the Bluff setback zone on Lot 11, Block 1. This is not allowed per City Ordinances and is in direct violation of the resolutions documented in the 9 - May -05 City Council Meeting Minutes. The structure setbacks for Lot 11, Block 1 do not meet the structure setbacks defined in City Ordinances for the front lot line (30 feet from front lot line and/or street) and the rear lot line (30 feet from the Bluff). The driveway to Lot 12 will cross the Bluff & Bluff Impact Zones. Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances do not allow fill or excavated material to be placed in the Bluff Impact Zone. No grading permit should be issued until all of these ordinance violations have been resolved. Given the setbacks and topography of Lot 11, Block 1, a house that meets the standards of the rest of the Lake Harrison development and the adjacent Highover homes cannot be built. A home on Lot 11, Block 1 that meets all city ordinances, without variances, would be unusual and small and negatively impact the market value of adjacent homeowners (reference Sec. 20-58 (6)). Removing trees and grading on Lots 11 & 12, Block 1 should not be allowed until all variances issues have been resolved. These lots should not be developed at all to preserve the Bluff and to mitieate lona term environmental impacts. Staff Response: The applicant is preparing a revision to the private street and a plan schematic to show house pads which comply with the ordinance. Section 20-1405 states: Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause adverse impacts. The ordinance clearly states that if no alternatives exist, then it may be placed within the bluff or bluff setback areas. The use of a driveway, rather than a public or private street, is designed to avoid adverse impacts. VAR VARIANCE DESCRIPTION CODEIDOCUMENT COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE # REFERENCE City Attorney's Statement: Structure will meet setback. I Lot 11, Block 1: House Structures and not allowed in the Sec. 20-1401; CFA- CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Pad in Bluff Setback bluff setback or impact zones 7/11/05, #17 Minutes Lot 11, Block 1:The Retaining Walls (structures) not City Attorney's Statement: ordinance defines bluff impact 2 Retaining Walls Behind allowed in the Bluff setback or impact Sec. 20-1401; CFA- CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of as the bluff and the land within 20 House Pad in Bluff 7/11/05, #17 Minutes feet of the top of the bluff. Setback zones The applicant is preparing a schematic to show a 30 foot setback from the north property line. In the 3 Lot 11, Block 1: Front Front Yard Setback is not 30 feet Sec. 20-615; City Attorney's Statement: CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Shoreland management district, Yard Setback from private street or lot line. Minutes there is a 20 foot setback from the private street easement, which ends where the common use of the street/driveway ends. City Attorney's Statement: The applicant is preparing a 4 Lot 11, Block 1: Rear Lot Rear Yard Setback is not 30 feet from Sec. 20-1401; CFA- CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of schematic to show a 30 foot setback Setback Bluff line. 7/11/05, #17 Minutes from the bluff. Pemtom/Westwood Grading Sec. 20-1404; 20-1405;City Attorney's Statement: Section 20-1405 permits a street or 5 Lot 11, Block 1: Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan of 20-1403; MN Chapter CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of driveway within these areas. The in Bluff Impact Zone 20 -Jun -05 shows grading in the Bluff 6120, Subp 4, B. (8) ; Minutes bluff impact zone is not located to Impact Zones CFA -7/11/05, #17 the side of a bluff. Lot 11, Block 1: Retaining Walls are structures and are Sec. 20-1401; CFA- City Attorney's Statement: The retaining wall in conjunction 6 Retaining Wall Along not allowed in the bluff setback or 7/11/05, #17; Sec. 7-19 CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of with the street reduces the amount Street in Bluff Setback impact zones 6 Minutes of grading for the driveway, II. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES/ POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Other significant issues have not been resolved. All of these issues must be resolved prior to final plat approval. The final plat approval should be delayed / tabled pending the resolution of unidentified variances and incomplete final plat requirements. ISSUE DESCRIPTION CODE COMMENTS RESPONSE limiting grading into the bluff. REFERENCE Pemtom/Westwood Grading Grading for the driveway is permitted. The house pad for Lot 7 Lot 12, Block 1: Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan of CFA -7/11/05, #17 12 will custom graded at the in Bluff Impact Zone 20 -Jun -05 shows grading in the Bluff Lot 12, Block 1 does not meet Fire Code for MN Fire Code Sec. 503.2.1; Sec. time of building permit and will be three 3 ( ) or more residential units. Does I Impact Zones 503.2.5; Sec. 503.2.3 City Staff in Planning Case required to meet the ordinance. Lot 12, Block 1: Sec. 20-1404; 20-1405; Section 20-1405 states: ". If no alternatives exist, they may Y be 8 Driveway (structure) & Required Fill Crosses Bluff filling and/or encroachment for 20-1403; MN Chapter placed within these areas, and Bluff & Bluff Impact a driveway requires a variance 6 ; must be designed to not cause Zone CF 7/11ubp 0 , 17 CFA -7/11/05, #17 adverse impacts." II. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES/ POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Other significant issues have not been resolved. All of these issues must be resolved prior to final plat approval. The final plat approval should be delayed / tabled pending the resolution of unidentified variances and incomplete final plat requirements. ISSUE DESCRIPTION CODE COMMENTS RESPONSE REFERENCE fire apparatus access road are required for I Lot 12, Block 1 does not meet Fire Code for MN Fire Code Sec. 503.2.1; Sec. Refer to Jerry Story requirements documented by three 3 ( ) or more residential units. Does turnaround & 150 ft. Access 503.2.5; Sec. 503.2.3 City Staff in Planning Case not apply to two homes 05-19. accessed via a private street. The fire marshal has reviewed the proposal. Fire Marshal has not reviewed the Private His code addresses only 2 Street plans fire apparatus access road (driveways) for three or more units. Private street is shown on the final plans. A private 3 Private Street is not on Final Plat submitted Sec. 18-40 (2) d. street provides access to for approval two or more units. The driveway for Lot 12 shows a proposed centerline. 4 Private Street is not named in the Final Plans / Sec. 18-40 (2) d. This is a condition of Plat approval. The utility company does permit structures within 5 Retaining Wall Structure in Power Line the easement which do Easement not interfere with the use of the easement. The utility company does permit structures within 6 Private Street in Power Line Easement the easement which do not interfere with the use of the easement. The utility company does permit structures within 7 Proposed Driveway Structure in Power Line the easement which do Easement not interfere with the use of the easement. Minnesota Statutes do not require the inclusion of the OHW on the final plat. However, the developer has included 8 OHW is not designated on final plans; NWL Westwood Engineering — June the O.H.W. on the is shown incorrectly at 993.5 20, 2005 construction plans. The 994 elevation is based on NAD 1984 datum. The 993.6 elevation is based on NAD 1929 datum. Pemtom / Westwood Post- Interception of uphill Bluff water supply will be cutoff by Development Drainage Area flows should reduce or 10 development. Vegetation impacts will have a Map of 20-Jun-05 shows eliminate erosion. The negative and lasting effect on the Bluff. Bluff drainage water diverted bluff will continue to to Hi hover Trail receive rains as before. Private Street referred to as "Private Drive" The City Council 11 on all Final Plan Drawings from Pemtom / Why this nomenclature? approved a private street. Westwood I It is not dedicated ublic right-of-way which will be recorded on the plat. The easement document is a separate document that is recorded with the final plat. Generous, Bob From: paulseng@juno.com Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 6:36 PM To: Furlong, Tom; Lundquist, Brian; Peterson, Craig; Tjornhorn, Bethany; Labatt, Steve Cc: kaannenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Generous, Bob Subject: Lake Harrison Pemtom development Dear Council members, I am writing to you in regard to the Lake Harrison development and the city attorney's response to issues I raised in the May 9th e-mail. Issue # 1. The wrong OHW. The OHW for all lakes in Chanhassen was first added to the code in the May 24, 2004, council meeting addressing code revisions, an entire year ago! Before that time staff had ample time to check with the DNR about correct OHW levels and would have discovered the DNR had no OHW for Lake Harrison. Instead, a wrong OHW for Lake Harrison was placed in code. Even now a wrong OHW for Lake Harrison has been incorrectly placed on the preliminary plat for the Lake Harrison development as 994 instead of 993.6. Since the City of Chanhassen plans to own the wetland on Lake Harrison and the OHW is required for all preliminary plats wouldn't the city need this OHW to be recorded accurately on the plat for their own records? Issue #2. A private street requires fire marshal approval. The fire marshal report provided for Lake Harrison development does not address the private street and is dated March 25, 2005, before a private street was proposed. Notice that the city attorney states: "The street was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.' He does not say PRIVATE street. Lawyers use careful language to stay out of trouble. Perhaps the fire Marshal report for the private street is not present because the private street does not meet required standards. I refer you to the required standards for a requested private street in the upcoming meeting under new business for Monday, July 11 (the Story property). It should be in your packet . Issues #3 & #4. The difference between a private street and a driveway. I am glad the city attorney agrees with me that a private street is not a driveway according to our code. However staff seems to have the two confused. They keep referring to a "private street driveway.' There is no such term in our code. Staff also refers to the private street as a "private drive.' Again, there is no such term in our code. Bob Generous in an e-mail to Mr. Broughton claimed, "A private street is merely a driveway serving up to four lots.' In reality a driveway can only serve one lot according to our code. Issue #5. Shoreland. The city attorney agrees that the Lake Harrison development is classified as shoreland and is subject to shoreland rules. It has recently been brought to my attention that there is a mistake in our code regarding non -riparian lots 1000 feet from a sewered natural environment lake. The state minimum is 20,000 square feet, 125 feet width at the building line, not 15,000 square feet, 90 feet width. Unless the city applied for relief from these standards at the time the shoreland code was adopted, lots which do not meet the required minimums must be reconfigured. See Chapter.6120.3300 subp.2a D of DNR Shoreland Management Rules. Issue #6. Structure setback in shoreland. The city attorney agrees that a retaining wall is a structure but disagrees that it needs a 20 -foot setback from the private street (required by shoreland rules) because the private street needs those retaining walls for stability. Doesn't this situation indicate that the private street needs more room? But more room doesn't exist in this area BECAUSE OF THE BLUFF. The private street should not be placed there and no lots should be platted there. In addition, is the utility company aware that B -foot retaining walls (some with a fence on the top) are going to be within their easement? If so, where is the letter from the utility company giving permission for such a structure? This is required for the preliminary plat and is missing. 1 Issue #7. Front lot line for lots accessed by private streets. The city attorney agrees that the front lot line on lot 11, block 1 faces the public street and that the front yard must be a full 30 feet back from the lot line and the private street turnaround on the north. However the plans show the front yard as less than 30 feet. It appears that only a very small, small home can fit within the building area BECAUSE OF THE BLUFF. Or does staff plan to exchange lot lines back and forth between lots 11 and 10 to temporarily accommodate a larger building area? Issue #8. Variance for a 5 -foot front yard setback The city attorney states that the council can use discretion in approving a variance. As a member of the public I only ask that you remember the awesome power of government to get its way. Sincerely, Janet Paulsen 934-7032 Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month! Unlimited Internet Access with 250MB of Email Storage. Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today! 2 LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION ISSUES: I. VARIANCES NOT IDENTIFIED Numerous additional variances impacting the Bluff will be required for any home construction on Lots 11 & 12, Block 1. These variances have not been specifically identified or discussed by the Developer or City Staff. These variances are contrary to the Conditions of Approval from the 9 -May -05 Council Meeting Minutes (preliminary plat approval) and the City Staff Report prepared for the 11 -Jul -05 City Council Meeting. These variances are based on economic considerations and not hardship. Allowing final plat approval without resolving the variance issues is short-sighted and makes a mockery of the City Ordinances. Page 6 of the City Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on 19 -Apr -05 stated: "One area on the property has been identified as a bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). This area must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the buff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. " The final plat drawings submitted to the city have blatantly shown a house pad and retaining wall (structure) in the Bluff setback zone on Lot 11, Block 1. This is not allowed per City Ordinances and is in direct violation of the resolutions documented in the 9 - May -05 City Council Meeting Minutes. The structure setbacks for Lot 11, Block 1 do not meet the structure setbacks defined in City Ordinances for the front lot line (30 feet from front lot line and/or street) and the rear lot line (30 feet from the Bluff). The driveway to Lot 12 will cross the Bluff & Bluff Impact Zones. Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances do not allow fill or excavated material to be placed in the Bluff Impact Zone. No grading permit should be issued until all of these ordinance violations have been resolved. Given the setbacks and topography of Lot 11, Block 1, a house that meets the standards of the rest of the Lake Harrison development and the adjacent Highover homes cannot be built. A home on Lot 11, Block 1 that meets all city ordinances, without variances, would be unusual and small and negatively impact the market value of adjacent homeowners (reference Sec. 20-58 (6)). Removing trees and grading on Lots 11 & 12, Block 1 should not be allowed until all variances issues have been resolved. These lots should not be developed at all to preserve the Bluff and to mitigate lona term environmental impacts. VAR # VARIANCE DESCRIPTION CODE/DOCUMEN T REFERENCE COMMENTS 1 Lot 11, Block 1: House Pad in Structures and not allowed in the Sec. 20-1401; CFA- City Attorney's Statement: CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Bluff Setback bluff setback or impact zones 7/11/05, #17 Minutes Lot 11, Block 1: Retaining Retaining Walls (structures) not Sec. 20-1401; CFA- City Attorney's Statement: 2 Walls Behind House Pad in allowed in the Bluff setback or impact 7/11/05, #17 CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Bluff Setback zones Minutes 3 Lot 11, Block 1: Front Yard Front Yard Setback is not 30 feet Sec. 20-615; City Attorney's Statement: CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Setback from private street or lot line. Minutes 4 Lot 11, Block 1: Rear Lot Rear Yard Setback is not 30 feet from Sec. 20-1401; CFA- City Attorney's Statement: CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Setback Bluff line. 7/11/05, #17 Minutes Pemtom/Westwood Grading Sec. 20-1404; 20- 1405; 20-1403; MN City Attorney's Statement: $ Lot 11, Block 1: Grading in Drainage & Erosion Control Plan of Chapter 6120, Subp CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of Bluff Impact Zone 20 -Jun -05 shows grading in the Bluff 4, B. (8) ; CFA- Minutes Impact Zones 7/11/05, #17 Lot 11, Block 1: Retaining Wall Retaining Walls are structures and are Sec. 20-1401; CFA- City Attorney's Statement: 6 Along Street in Bluff Setback not allowed in the bluff setback or 7/11/05, #17; Sec. 7- CC Mtg. May 9; Page 33 of impact zones 19 (6) Minutes Pemtom/Westwood Grading 7 Lot 12, Block 1: Grading in Drainage & Erosion Control Plan of CFA -7/11/05, #17 Bluff Impact Zone 20 -Jun -05 shows grading in the Bluff Impact Zones Sec. 20-1404; 20 - Lot 12, Block 1: Driveway 1405; 20-1403; MN 8 (structure) & Required Fill Bluff filling and/or encroachment for Chapter 6120, Subp Crosses Bluff & Bluff Impact a driveway requires a variance 4, B. (8) , CFA Zone 7/11/05,#17 II. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES/ POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Other significant issues have not been resolved. All of these issues must be resolved prior to final plat approval. The final plat approval should be delayed / tabled pending the resolution of unidentified variances and incomplete final plat requirements. ISSUE DESCRIPTION CODE REFERENCE COMMENTS MN Fire Code Sec. Refer to Jerry Story requirements 1 Lot 12, Block 1 does not meet Fire Code for turnaround & 503.2.1; Sec. 503.2.5; documented by City Staff in Planning 150 ft. Access Sec. 503.2.3 Case 05-19. 2 Fire Marshal has not reviewed the Private Street plans 3 Private Street is not on Final Plat submitted for approval Sec. 18-40 (2) d. 4 Private Street is not named in the Final Plans / Plat Sec. 18-40 2 d. 5 Retaining Wall Structure in Power Line Easement 6 Private Street in Power Line Easement 7 Proposed Driveway Structure in Power Line Easement OHW is not designated on final plans; NWL is shown Westwood Engineering — June 20, 8 incorrectly at 993.5 2005 Pemtom / Westwood Post - Bluff water supply will be cutoff by development. Development Drainage Area Map of 10 Vegetation impacts will have a negative and lasting effect 20 -Jun -05 shows Bluff drainage water on the Bluff. diverted to Hi hover Trail 11 Private Street referred to as "Private Drive" on all Final Plan Why this nomenclature? Drawings from Pemtom / Westwood Date: May 9, 2005 Subject: Lake Harrison development Dear Mayor and Councilors: Both the report and the plans for development are faulty. In the report to the Planning Commission some staff obscured the truth and in some cases were guilty of outright lies. The Planning Commission, whose job it is to apply code, failed to perceive the errors. (Nearly all of these commissioners were your appointees, some so recent they could not possibly know code well enough to refute staff). Please reject this application outright and return it to the Planning Commission to be revamped. Otherwise you as councilors will appear to be culpable in this mistake. It should not matter how worthy an owner is or how honorable and influential a developer is. Only the development itself should stand on its merits and this one fails to pass the test. Citizens become outraged when lied to and taken advantage of by the bureaucrats who supposedly serve them, the very people whose salaries citizens pay. We certainly do not expect our elected officials to become co-conspirators. You have a public trust. Here are the truthful points about the difficulties with this development: 1. The Planning Commission report stated the OHW was not available for 1 to 2 months. The OHW for Lake Harrison is listed as 945.2 elevation in chapter 20-479 (c) (1). 2. The private street requires a fire marshal to grant approval and give a safety report (this is missing), chapter 18-57. 3. The private street is not a driveway, chapter 1, driveway definition. 4. The private street must have a 30 -foot right of way, chapter I8-57. 5. This property is classified as shoreland and as such is subject to shoreland rules, chapter 1. 6. A private street is a "street not classified" according to the DNR (confirmed in a letter from John L. Stine, June 20, 2000). Because the private street is in shoreland and is a "street not classified", it must be set back 20 feet from structures, chapter 20-481. A utility pole is a structure, a retaining wall is a structure and a house is a structure, chapter I structure, definition. Therefore three variances are required for these conditions. 7. All lots accessed by a private street must have front lot lines facing the public street chapter 20-615. And all RSF lots require a 30 -foot front yard setback. This is lacking in lot 1 I block 1, and requires a variance. 8. The variances for a 5 -foot front yard setback for block 2 do not meet all conditions for a variance. Janet Paulsen 934-7032 From: "John Linc Stine" <john.stine@dnr.state.mn.us> To: <Paulseng@juno.com> Cc: <Mary.cummins@house.leg.state.mn.us> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:39:33 -0500 Subject: Shoreland Rules Inquiry Mr. Paulsen; I am responding to a letter that was sent to Kent Lokkesmoe, DNR Waters Director by Representative Workman on May 23, 2000. 1 presume you have a coy of Rep. Workman's letter. If not, please contact me and I will end you a copy. There are two questions in Rep. Workman's letter: 1) re: Lot width - the lot width standard must be met at the OHW (near the lake) and at the building setback (from the OHW) line . Emphasis added. From DNR's perspective, there is no requirement that the lot width be met at the street setback line, unless that line is coincidental with the structure setback from the OHW line. The goal of this standard is to have consistent lot widths between the structure setback from the OHW and the lake to better provide for aesthetics and area for natural vegetative growth to better protect the lake environment. 2) re: streets not classified. A private street would be included in DNR's definition of a "street not classified" from our "Guide to Buying and Managing Shoreland" brochure. The following rules (MN Rules 6120.3300, subp. 5) apply: Subp. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. They must be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no altematives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. B. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access -related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of subpart 4, item B, must also be met. Hopefully, this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can do more to assist you. John Linc Stine DNR Waters Phone: 651.296.0440 Fax: 651.296.0445 Visit our new website @ www.dnr.state.mn.uslwaters Generous, Bob From: Julie Ekman j]ulie.ekman@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 7:53 AM To: Generous, Bob; david.weetman@westwoodps.com Subject: Harrison Lake Gentlemen, The OHW for Harrison Lake, 10-8 is 993.6'. When I receive the final Field Survey Report I will forward copies to you two. Julie Julie Ekman, Area Hydrologist West Metro, Central Region 3 Mn Department of Natural Resources -Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 (651) 772-7919 (651) 772-7977 fax julie.ekman@dnr.state.mn.us Visit DNR Waters' website at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/ 1 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 1 of 8 Generous, Bob From: Gerhardt, Todd Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:02 AM To: Aanenson, Kate; Generous, Bob Subject: FW: PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Broughton [mailto:JBroughton@discdyn.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:25 PM To: Furlong, Tom; Tjornhorn, Bethany; Labatt, Steve; Lundquist, Brian; Peterson, Craig; City Council CC: Gerhardt, Todd; Generous, Bob Subject: PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDMSION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 May 6, 2005 Mayor Tom Furlong City Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom City Councilman Steve Labatt City Councilman Brian Lundquist City Councilman Craig Peterson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed LAKE HARRISON Subdivision — CASE No. 05-14 Dear Mayor Furlong and Chanhassen City Council Members, We appreciate the timely response from Bob Generous on City Staff to our May 4, 2005 letter concerning the Lake Harrison Subdivision, Case No. 05-14. We would like to clarify that we are not opposed to the development of the Lake Harrison Subdivision. However, we are concerned about liberal and questionable interpretations of the Chanhassen City Ordinances and approving numerous variances in order to increase the value and income potential of a subdivision at the expense of the environment and the adjacent homeowners. In our opinion, the City Ordinances are enacted to be followed, with few exceptions. Numerous variances to City Ordinances 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 2 of 8 greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ordinances and their original legal purpose. In this particular case, variances significantly increase the probability of environmental damage, long term environmental impacts, diminishing wildlife habitats, and the creation of an unusual neighborhood situation. We question why there needs to be such complex maneuvering and discussion concerning the variances surrounding Lots 11 & 12, Block 1, when they are being developed strictly on the basis of increasing the value and income potential of the parcel in question. This is contrary to City Ordinances. We believe the City Ordinances should be diligently enforced in the spirit in which they were enacted. Instead, attempts are being made to find ways around the rules in order to increase the value and income potential of a parcel of land for the benefit of a developer. Furthermore, the wetland and environmental issues are a serious concern to all of us. Why not just develop the beautiful Lake Harrison parcel in strict accordance with the City Ordinances which serve as the legal basis for the protection of the City's resources and the interests of its residents? Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Broughton et al CC: City Manager, Todd Gerhardt Bob Generous <<CCC.May 6.doc>> Specific comments on Staffs response to our May 4, 2005 letter follow: Question 1 City Staff Response: Section 20-484 does not prohibit private streets and driveways in the bluff impact zone. "If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts." Our Comments: The intent of Section 20-484 is clearly to prevent roads (private streets) and driveways from being placed in the bluff impact zone. An alternative certainly does exist in this situation. The best "alternative" is not to impact the bluff, but to protect the environment which is the primary intent and spirit of this ordinance. Question 1 City Staff Response: Section 20-1401 addresses structures, i.e., houses, garages, decks, etc. It does not deal with driveways which are addressed in Section 20-484. Our Comments: Section 20-484 requires driveways to meet structure setbacks (30 feet in this case). Driveways are structures according to the Community Development Director's comments during prior Planning Commission meetings. Additionally, ARTICLE XXVIII: BLUFF PROTECTION requires roads and driveways to meet structure setbacks and to not be placed 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 3 of 8 within the bluff impact zones. Question 2 City Staff Response: The use of the private street does enhance environmental protection vis -&-vis installing a public street. However, staffs recommendation and what the Planning Commission proposed was that the private street be revised to relocate the tum -around area from Lot 12 to Lot 11, which would provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes). Our Comments: We don't believe this is accurate. In this case, City Staff has stated the following: "Finally, the grading for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 needs to be revised. The proposal includes a private street to access Lots 11 and 12 with retaining walls along each side. The private street is being "cut -in" through an existing bluff area and the retaining walls are proposed to "hold back" the earth on each side of the street. This provides a tunnel -like access to Lot 12. Usually, when private streets are proposed, the grading is minimized versus the grading required for a public street. Staff does not believe this is the case with the current proposal." Clearly, the City Staff's opinion documented previously conflicts with this response. The relocation of the tum -around area to Lot 11 does not provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes) since it would encroach the bluff setback and impact zones. Also, the proposed house pad setback from the private street does not meet the 30 foot requirement and would need a variance which has not been proposed. Question 3 City Staff Resooase: Construction of a "private street" does not create a double frontage lot. The private street is merely a driveway serving up to four lots. There are no setback requirements from the access easement, only from the property line. If this were the case, every home would have two street frontages because their neighbor's driveway goes along the property line. Our Comments: Private streets and driveways do not have the same definition according to City Ordinances. Private streets are not merely driveways. Private streets require a right-of-way width of 30 feet and a pavement width of 20 feet. The variance allowed by the Planning Commission is for a private street per section Sec. 18-57., not a driveway. Driveway means a private access from a street to an individual lot per Sec. 1-2.: Rules of construction and definitions. Question 3 City Staff Response: Additionally, as part of Highover, an Outlot was platted between the lots to the west and this site, so the properties do not even abut. Our Comments: Thank you for the clarification.. Question 4 City Staff Response: The variance findings for private streets are found under section 18-22, not section 20-58, which states: Our Comments: It is clear that Section 20-58 is applicable and pertinent concerning variances. Part 4) of Section 18-22 states: "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. " Section 20-58 is part of the zoning ordinance. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 4 of 8 Question 4 City Staff Response; Having a driveway for a single-family home to the rear of the property will not significantly diminish the property values of homes in Highover, Our Comments The variance allowed by the Planning Commission, and proposed by the applicant, is for a private street (30 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of pavement) not a driveway. The private street requires significant tree removal and grading in the bluff impact zone. Question 5 City Staff Response: The variance findings for private streets are found under section 18-22, not section 20-58. Any development adjacent to the properties in Highover would be perceived as detrimental to adjacent properties. Our Comments: It is clear that Section 20-58 is applicable and pertinent concerning variances. Part 4) of Section 18-22 states: "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. " Section 20-58 is part of the zoning ordinance. Issue 2 City Staff ReW m• The following is the public hearing notice: 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 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 Rezoning from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3 Outlots and public right- of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on site, property consisting of 62 acres located at 6950 Galpin Boulevard - Lake Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company." While the specific variances were not named, it is clear that variances were included as part of the application. The private street was discussed within the report and as part of the public hearing process, findings for approval addressing the private street were also provided and modified as part of the Planning Commission review. In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: c. The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources specifically bluffs and forested areas. Our Comments: As we stated above, the relocation of the tum -around area to Lot 11 does not provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes) since it would impact the bluff setback and impact zones as well as require significant and unnecessary tree removal. Issue 2 City Staff Response: The city may grant a variance (street grade and private street) from the regulations contained within the Subdivision Ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a, The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 5 of 8 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. Our Comments: We believe the zoning ordinance does apply here. In particular Sec. 20-58, General conditions for granting: "A variance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. " Issue 3: Public notice was not properly documented or communicated concerning a variance for construction of a private street connecting Lots 11 & 12, Block I to Highover Trail. The private street variance was not included in the public notice printed in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 2005. The private street variance was not included or mentioned in the Staff Report for the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Lsstre 3 City Stats Response: The following is the public hearing notice: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 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 Rezoning from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3 Outiots and public right- of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration Pennit for the grading and filling of wetlands on site, property consisting of 62 acres located at 6950 Galpin Boulevard - Lake Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company." While the specific variances were not named, it is clear that variances were included as part of the application. The private street was discussed within the report and as part of the public hearing process, findings for approval addressing the private street were also provided and modified as part of the Planning Commission review. Our Comments: Specific variance requests were clearly documented in the application in an attached Table. The variances included reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 1-10 of Block 2, reduced bluff buffer and setbacks (0 feet and 10 feet) for Lot 12, Block 1, and an increase of the maximum road slope from 7% to 8%. That table did not include a variance request for a private street. Issue 4: Lack of information needed for important decision-making concerning wetlands and lot delineations: the DNR Ordinary High Water (OHW) of Lake Harrison has not been determined and will not be available for 1-2 months. Issue 4 City Staff Response: While it is true that we don't have the final determination of the OHW and we only have a preliminary wetland delineation, these items have been addressed within the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. The developer has been advised that if the wetland delineation or OHW determination create unbuildable lots, they will lose those lots. Our Comments: The OHW is clearly required by City Ordinance as an element of the preliminary plat application covered by Section 18-40: Sec. 18-40. Same --Data required. Unless waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be furnished with a preliminary plat: (2) Existing conditions: 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 6 of 8 L Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and 100 feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two -foot intervals where slope is ten percent or less; five-foot intervals where slope is ten to 15 percent; ten -foot intervals where slope is greater than 15 percent. All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater than 25 percent must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable sections or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to significant physical characteristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Location and elevations of on-site and abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high water mark plus approximate high and normal water elevations shall also be shown. A wetland delineation report and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property boundary shall be submitted. The delineation shall be no more than three years old, unless accompanied by documentation demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past three years and is accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. Floodplain areas, location of wooded areas, rocky outcrops, power transmission poles and lines and other significant physical features shall also be shown. We do not believe that the City considers this proposal limited in size and nature. Additionally, this important omission in the applicant's preliminary plat raises questions about other missing information required by Section 18-39 and Section 18-40 of the City Code. Issue 5: The current, proposed plans have not satisfied the minimum replacement requirements of replacing impacted wetlands at a 2: 1 ratio. The applicant is required to demonstrate and document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2: 1 replacement ratio for all impacted wetlands. Currently, the proposed replacement plan is deficient 69,017 square feet (1.58 acres) of wetland mitigation. Issue 5 City Stats Response: The applicant could have proposed the entire wetland mitigation on site. However, that would result in additional tree removal. The applicant is working with staff to develop some off site wetland mitigation that would not impact trees. Again, there are conditions of approval for the subdivision and wetland alteration permit that would address these concerns. Our Comments: We believe that avoidance of wetland impacts should be the driving consideration for a beautiful property like the Lake Harrison parcel. The wetland encroachment, is unnecessary, and seems to be based entirely on economic considerations. A feasible and prudent alternative certainly exists to avoid the proposed wetland impacts. Refer to Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 Subpart 3. C. (4) (e). Issue 6: The environmental impacts of the Lake Harrison Development and the opinions of the City Staff were not properly reviewed and discussed. The Staff Report raised serious environmental issues that were not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting on April 19,2005. On page 5 of the Staff Report for Case No. 05-14 under "BLUFFS" it is stated: "The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site." Although the variance was denied, the applicant is still planning to develop Lots 11 and 12, Block I. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 7 of 8 Issue 6 City Staff Response: The Planning Commission did recommend denial of the bluff setback variance. We believe that the lots can be developed without these variances. Staff was strongly opposed to permit the bluff setback encroachment. However, if the lot can be developed within the confines of the zoning requirements, including complying with the bluff setback and buffer, then the lot should be approved. Our Comments: We believe it is totally unreasonable to clear a large number of trees for a private street and 2 expensive homes that may or may not be able to be "squeezed into' the available space between the bluff setbacks and the property boundary. The front yards of these homes on Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 will face the back yards of Highover and will be immediately adjacent to the electrical transmission line easement. Certainly, the construction activities and daily use by future homeowners will have a lasting, detrimental impact on the bluff and Lake Harrison below even if no variances are allowed. The experts on City Staff have said: "The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. " Issue 7: The Compliance table on page 13 of the Staff Report shows a setback variance required for both lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The variances for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 have been denied, but the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of April 19, 2005 recommend construction of the private street and cul-de-sac on Lot 11, Block 1. This is confusing, not allowed without a variance, and could be interpreted to mean the variance was granted for Lot 11, Block 1. Issue 7 City Staff Response: The Planning Commission did vote to recommend denial of the bluff setback variance (for the house on Lot 12) and approval of the private street variance. However, these are only recommendations and will be decided by the City Council. The house on Lot 11 would meet the bluff setback. Staff had assumed then; was a setback variance. The retaining is proposed to encroach in to the setback, but not the bluff impact zone. This is permissible. Our Comments: We do not agree that encroachment of the retaining walls into the bluff setback (30 feet) is allowed. Retaining walls are structures (Section 7-19 (6)) and must meet the bluff setback. Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks. (a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least 30 feet. Additionally, as we stated above, another variance will be required to reduce the front yard setback on Lot 11, Block 1 due to the private street. Issue 8: The applicant officially requested approval for 39 lots. The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 19, 2005 documented the approval of 40 lots. Issue 8 Cft Staff Response: As a condition of approval, the city is requiring that the eastern portion of Oudot A be platted as a block and lot. Our Comments: Thank you the clarification. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 8 of 8 Issue 9: Incomplete or deficient applications should not be scheduled for a Planning Commission Meeting. Refer to City Ordinance 20-109. Issue 9 City Staff Response: The reference is to site plans. There are no site plan review requirements for single-family homes. Our Comments: Thank you for the clarification. Issue 10 City Staff Response: The majority of the wetland impacts are due to the roadway alignment. The westerly isolated wetland is being impacted by the grading for the roads and abutting lots. The easterly isolated wetland is being impacted to create acceptable building sites. The city is attempting to preserve the large wetland complexes within the development in Outlots A, B and C. Our Comments: Again, we believe the Lake Harrison parcel should be developed in strict accordance with the City Ordinances. We also believe all applicants should be required to employ the first step of sequencing, avoidance, required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. It appears to us that this approach was not taken in this case due to economic considerations. Additional Comments: It should be clarified by the City Staff whether portions of Lot 8, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 1 also qualify as bluffs according to the definition in Section 1-2 of the City Code. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 1 of 8 Generous, Bob From: Jim Broughton pBroughton@discdyn.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:25 PM To: Furlong, Tom; Tjornhorn, Bethany; Labatt, Steve; Lundquist, Brian; Peterson, Craig; City Council Cc: Gerhardt, Todd; Generous, Bob Subject: PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 May 6, 2005 Mayor Tom Furlong City Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom City Councilman Steve Labatt City Councilman Brian Lundquist City Councilman Craig Peterson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed LAKE HARRISON Subdivision — CASE No. 05-14 Dear Mayor Furlong and Chanhassen City Council Members, We appreciate the timely response from Bob Generous on City Staff to our May 4, 2005 letter concerning the Lake Harrison Subdivision, Case No. 05-14. We would like to clarify that we are not opposed to the development of the Lake Harrison Subdivision. However, we are concerned about liberal and questionable interpretations of the Chanhassen City Ordinances and approving numerous variances in order to increase the value and income potential of a subdivision at the expense of the environment and the adjacent homeowners. In our opinion, the City Ordinances are enacted to be followed, with few exceptions. Numerous variances to City Ordinances greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ordinances and their original legal purpose. In this particular case, variances significantly increase the probability of environmental damage, long term environmental impacts, diminishing wildlife habitats, and the creation of an unusual neighborhood situation. We question why there needs to be such complex maneuvering and discussion concerning the variances surrounding Lots 11 & 12, Block 1, when they are being developed strictly on the basis of increasing the value and income potential of the parcel in question. This is contrary to City Ordinances. We believe the City Ordinances should be diligently enforced in the spirit in which they were enacted. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 2 of 8 Instead, attempts are being made to find ways around the rules in order to increase the value and income potential of a parcel of land for the benefit of a developer. Furthermore, the wetland and environmental issues are a serious concern to all of us. Why not just develop the beautiful Lake Harrison parcel in strict accordance with the City Ordinances which serve as the legal basis for the protection of the City's resources and the interests of its residents? Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Broughton et al CC: City Manager, Todd Gerhardt Bob Generous <<CCC.May 6.doc>> Spec'if'ic comments on Staffs response to our May 4, 2005 letter follow: Question 1 City Staff Response: Section 20-484 does not prohibit private streets and driveways in the bluff impact zone. "If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts." Our Comments: The intent of Section 20-484 is clearly to prevent roads (private streets) and driveways from being placed in the bluff impact zone. An alternative certainly does exist in this situation. The best "alternative" is not to impact the bluff, but to protect the environment which is the primary intent and spirit of this ordinance. Question 1 City Staff Response: Section 20-1401 addresses structures, i.e., houses, garages, decks, etc. It does not deal with driveways which are addressed in Section 20-084. Our Comments: Section 20-484 requires driveways to meet structure setbacks (30 feet in this case). Driveways are structures according to the Community Development Director's comments during prior Planning Commission meetings. Additionally, ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION requires roads and driveways to meet structure setbacks and to not be placed within the bluff impact zones. Question 2 City Staff Resp: The use of the private street does enhance environmental protection vis -it -vis installing a public street. However, staffs recommendation and what the Planning Commission proposed was that the private street be revised to relocate the tum -around area from Lot 12 to Lot 11, which would provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes). Our Comments: We don't believe this is accurate. In this case, City Staff has stated the following: "Finally, the grading for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 needs to be revised. The proposal includes a private street to access Lots 11 and 12 with retaining walls along each side. The private street is being "cut -in" through an existing bluff area and the retaining walls are proposed 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 3 of 8 to "hold back" the earth on each side of the street. This provides a tunnel -like access to Lot 12. Usually, when private streets are proposed, the grading is minimized versus the grading required for a public street. Staff does not believe this is the case with the current proposal." Clearly, the City Staff's opinion documented previously conflicts with this response. The relocation of the turn -around area to Lot 11 does not provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes) since it would encroach the bluff setback and impact zones. Also, the proposed house pad setback from the private street does not meet the 30 foot requirement and would need a variance which has not been proposed. Question 3 Cid Staff Response: Construction of a "private street" does not create a double frontage lot. The private street is merely a driveway serving up to four lots. There are no setback requirements from the access easement, only from the property line. If this were the case, every home would have two street frontages because their neighbor's driveway goes along the property line. Our Comments: Private streets and driveways do not have the same definition according to City Ordinances. Private streets are not merely driveways. Private streets require a right-of-way width of 30 feet and a pavement width of 20 feet. The variance allowed by the Planning Commission is for a private street per section Sec. I8-57., not a driveway. Driveway means a private access from a street to an individual lot per Sec. 1-2.: Rules of construction and definitions. estion 3 City Staff Response: Additionally, as part of Highover, an Outlot was platted between the lots to the west and this site, so the properties do not even abut. Our Comments: Thank you for the clarification.. Question 4 City Staff Response: The variance findings for private streets are found under section 18-22, not section 20-58, which states: Our Comments: It is clear that Section 20-58 is applicable and pertinent concerning variances. Part 4) of Section 18-22 states: "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. " Section 20-58 is part of the zoning ordinance. Question 4 City Staff Response: Having a driveway for a single-family home to the rear of the property will not significantly diminish the property values of homes in Highover, Our Comments The variance allowed by the Planning Commission, and proposed by the applicant, is for a private street (30 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of pavement) not a driveway. The private street requires significant tree removal and grading in the bluff impact zone. Question 5 City Staff Response: The variance findings for private streets are found under section 18-22, not section 20-58. Any development adjacent to the properties in Highover would be perceived as detrimental to adjacent properties. Our Comments: It is clear that Section 20-58 is applicable and pertinent concerning variances. Part 4) of Section 18-22 states: "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. " Section 20-58 is part of the zoning ordinance. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 4 of 8 Issue 2 City Staff ReMoom: The following is the public hearing notice: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 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 Rezoning from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3 Oudots and public right- of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on site, property consisting of 62 acres located at 6950 Galpin Boulevard - Lake Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company." While the specific variances were not named, it is clear that variances were included as part of the application. The private street was discussed within the report and as part of the public hearing process, findings for approval addressing the private street were also provided and modified as part of the Planning Commission review. In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: c. The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources specifically bluffs and forested areas. Our Comments: As we stated above, the relocation of the tum -around area to Lot 11 does not provide additional preservation of natural features (trees and slopes) since it would impact the bluff setback and impact zones as well as require significant and unnecessary tree removal. Issue 2 City Staff Response: The city may grant a variance (street grade and private street) from the regulations contained within the Subdivision Ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a, The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 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. Our Comments: We believe the zoning ordinance does apply here. In particular Sec. 20-58, General conditions for granting: "A variance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. " Issue 3: Public notice was not properly documented or communicated concerning a variance for construction of a private street connecting Lots 11 & 12, Block I to Highover Trail. The private street variance was not included in the public notice printed in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 2005. The private street variance was not included or mentioned in the Staff Report for the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Issue 3 Cid Staff Response: The following is the public hearing notice: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 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 Rezoning from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3 Outlots and public right- of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on site, property consisting of 62 acres located at 6950 Galpin Boulevard - Lake Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company." While the specific 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 5 of 8 variances were not named, it is clear that variances were included as part of the application. The private street was discussed within the report and as part of the public hearing process, findings for approval addressing the private street were also provided and modified as part of the Planning Commission review. Our Comments: Specific variance requests were clearly documented in the application in an attached Table. The variances included reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 1-10 of Block 2, reduced bluff buffer and setbacks (0 feet and 10 feet) for Lot 12, Block 1, and an increase of the maximum road slope from 7% to 8%. That table did not include a variance request for a private street. Issue 4: Lack of information needed for important decision-making concerning wetlands and lot delineations: the DNR Ordinary High Water (OHW) of Lake Harrison has not been determined and will not be available for 1-2 months. Issue 4 City Staff Response: While it is true that we don't have the final determination of the OHW and we only have a preliminary wetland delineation, these items have been addressed within the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. The developer has been advised that if the wetland delineation or OHW determination create unbuildable lots, they will lose those lots. Our Comments: The OHW is clearly required by City Ordinance as an element of the preliminary plat application covered by Section 18-40: Sec. 18-40. Same --Data required. Unless waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be furnished with a preliminary plat: (2) Existing conditions: f. Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and 100 feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two -foot intervals where slope is ten percent or less; five-foot intervals where slope is ten to 15 percent; ten -foot intervals where slope is greater than 15 percent. All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater than 25 percent must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable sections or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to significant physical characteristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Location and elevations of on-site and abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high water mark plus approximate high and normal water elevations shall also be shown. A wetland delineation report and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property boundary shall be submitted. The delineation shall be no more than three years old, unless accompanied by documentation demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past three years and is accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. Floodplain areas, location of wooded areas, rocky outcrops, power transmission poles and lines and other significant physical features shall also be shown. We do not believe that the City considers this proposal limited in size and nature. Additionally, this important omission in the applicant's preliminary plat raises questions about other missing information required by Section 18-39 and Section 18-40 of the City Code. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 6 of 8 Issue 5: The current, proposed plans have not satisfied the minimum replacement requirements of replacing impacted wetlands at a 2: 1 ratio. The applicant is required to demonstrate and document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2: 1 replacement ratio for all impacted wetlands. Currently, the proposed replacement plan is deficient 69,017 square feet (1.58 acres) of wetland mitigation. Issue 5 City Staff Response: The applicant could have proposed the entire wetland mitigation on site. However, that would result in additional tree removal. The applicant is working with staff to develop some off site wetland mitigation that would not impact trees. Again, there are conditions of approval for the subdivision and wetland alteration permit that would address these concerns. Our Comments: We believe that avoidance of wetland impacts should be the driving consideration for a beautiful property like the Lake Harrison parcel. The wetland encroachment, is unnecessary, and seems to be based entirely on economic considerations. A feasible and prudent alternative certainly exists to avoid the proposed wetland impacts. Refer to Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 Subpart 3. C. (4) (e). Issue 6: The environmental impacts of the Lake Harrison Development and the opinions of the City Staff were not properly reviewed and discussed. The Staff Report raised serious environmental issues that were not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting on April 19,2005. On page 5 of the Staff Report for Case No. 05-14 under "BLUFFS" it is stated: "The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site." Although the variance was denied, the applicant is still planning to develop Lots 11 and 12, Block I. Issue 6 City Staff Response• The Planning Commission did recommend denial of the bluff setback variance. We believe that the lots can be developed without these variances. Staff was strongly opposed to permit the bluff setback encroachment. However, if the lot can be developed within the confines of the zoning requirements, including complying with the bluff setback and buffer, then the lot should be approved. Our Comments: We believe it is totally unreasonable to clear a large number of trees for a private street and 2 expensive homes that may or may not be able to be "squeezed into" the available space between the bluff setbacks and the property boundary. The front yards of these homes on Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 will face the back yards of Highover and will be immediately adjacent to the electrical transmission line easement. Certainly, the construction activities and daily use by future homeowners will have a lasting, detrimental impact on the bluff and Lake Harrison below even if no variances are allowed. The experts on City Staff have said: "The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. " Issue 7: The Compliance table on page 13 of the Staff Report shows a setback variance required for both lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The variances for Lots 11 and 12, Block I have been denied, but the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of April 19, 2005 recommend construction of the private street and cul-de-sac on Lot 11, Block 1. This is confusing, not allowed without a variance, and could be interpreted to mean the variance was granted for Lot 11, Block 1. Issue 7 City Staff Response: The Planning Commission did vote to recommend denial of the bluff setback variance (for the house on Lot 12) and approval of the private street variance. However, these are only recommendations and will be decided 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 7 of 8 by the City Council. The house on Lot I1 would meet the bluff setback. Staff had assumed there was a setback variance. The retaining is proposed to encroach in to the setback, but not the bluff impact zone. This is permissible. Our Comments: We do not agree that encroachment of the retaining walls into the bluff setback (30 feet) is allowed. Retaining walls are structures (Section 7-19 (6)) and must meet the bluff setback. Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks. (a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least 30 feet. Additionally, as we stated above, another variance will be required to reduce the front yard setback on Lot 11, Block 1 due to the private street. Issue 8: The applicant officially requested approval for 39 lots. The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 19, 2005 documented the approval of 40 lots. Issue 8 City Staff Response: As a condition of approval, the city is requiring that the eastern portion of Oudot A be platted as a block and lot. Our Comments: Thank you the clarification. Issue 9: Incomplete or deficient applications should not be scheduled for a Planning Commission Meeting. Refer to City Ordinance 20-109. Issue 9 City Staff Response: The reference is to site plans. There are no site plan review requirements for single-family homes. Our Comments: Thank you for the clarification. Issue 10 City Staff Response: The majority of the wetland impacts are due to the roadway alignment. The westerly isolated wetland is being impacted by the grading for the roads and abutting lots. The easterly isolated wetland is being impacted to create acceptable building sites. The city is attempting to preserve the large wetland complexes within the development in Outlots A, B and C. Our Comments: Again, we believe the Lake Harrison parcel should be developed in strict accordance with the City Ordinances. We also believe all applicants should be required to employ the first step of sequencing, avoidance, required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. It appears to us that this approach was not taken in this case due to economic considerations. Additional Comments: It should be clarified by the City Staff whether portions of Lot 8, Block I and Lot 9, Block 1 also qualify as bluffs according to the definition in Section 1-2 of the City Code. 5/10/2005 PROPOSED LAKE HARRISON SUBDIVISION - PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14 Page 8 of 8 5/10/2005 May 3, 2005 Mayor Tom Furlong City Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom City Councilman Steve Labatt City Councilman Brian Lundquist City Councilman Craig Peterson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed LAKE HARRISON Subdivision — CASE No. 05-14 Dear Mayor Furlong and Chanhassen City Council Members, We would like to express our concerns about violations of Chanhassen City Ordinances, the negative impact on our properties, and the inconsistencies in the plat approval process created by the proposed Lake Harrison Development - PC Case No. 05-14. Our concerns and objections are as follows: The bluff setback variances for Lot 11, Block I and Lot 12, Block 1 were denied by the Planning Commission at the meeting on April 19, 2005. However, the Planning Commission minutes from the April 19, 2005 meeting state "The private street cul-de-sac shall be moved back from Lot 12, Block I to Lot ll, Block I ". This is not possible since construction of the private street requires grading and damage to the bluff impact zone on Lot 11, Block 1. Private street and private street cul-de-sac construction on Lot 11, Block 1 will be in violation of Chanhassen City Ordinances 20-484 (b) and 20-1401 (a). e. 20.454. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. (b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks. (a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, ane prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top 2. The use of a private street in this situation will not permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and protected (bluffs) areas. The Staff Report prepared for the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting stated: "Finally, the grading for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 needs to be revised. The proposal includes a private street to access Lots I and 12 with retaining walls along each side. The private street is being "cut -in" through an existing bluff area and the retaining walls are proposed to "hold back" the earth on each side of the street. This provides a tunnel -like access to Lot 12. Usually, when private streets are proposed, the grading is minimized versus the grading required for a public street. Staff does not believe this is the case with the current proposal. " Considering these facts, the construction of the private street is in violation of Chanhassen City Ordinance 18-57 (r). (3). Pagel of 4 See. 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands andprotected areas. 3. The construction of the private street creates a double frontage lot situation for lots 1, 13, and 14, Block 3 in the Highover subdivision. This violates Chanhassen City Ordinance, Section 18-60 (g). See. 18-60. Lots. (g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an additional depth of ten feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line. 4. The private street variance may allow development and home construction on Lots 1 I and 12, Block 1. This creates a very unusual and detrimental neighborhood where the front yards in Lake Harrison Development directly abut to the back yards of residents in Highover across the electrical transmission line easement. Effective barriers cannot be considered due to the electrical transmission line easement and the bluff impact zone. Development of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 will significantly diminish the property values of homes in Highover and Longacres adjacent to the proposed private street and Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This is in violation of Chanhassen City Ordinance 20-58 (6). Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the The improperly proposed and documented private street variance is not in accordance with city code and should not have been approved. The sole reason for constructing the private street is based upon the desire of the applicant, Pemtom Land Company, to increase the value and income potential of the parcel of land. The construction of the private street is detrimental to the adjacent homeowners. This is in violation of Chanhassen City Ordinance 20-58 (3). During the Planning Commission Meeting on April 19, 2005, the applicant commented that the Lake Harrison Development may not be financially viable without Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Page 2 of 4 We respectfully request that the City Council votes to prohibit the construction of a private street off of Highover Trail and prohibit any development, grading, tree removal, or construction of homes on Lot 11, Block 1 and Lot 12, Block 1. We also request that these conditions and restrictions be clearly documented in the final plat approval for the Lake Hanson Subdivision. We make these requests in accordance with the requirements of Chanhassen City Ordinances. We believe that the application submitted by Pemtom Land Company was incomplete, did not consider all the important facts, and was not evaluated in the proper detail before being sent to City Council for approval. Some of the significant issues include: 1. Violations and misinterpretations of Chanhassen City Ordinances 2. Variances improperly documented, proposed, & approved 3. Public notice was not properly documented or communicated concerning a variance for construction of a private street connecting Lots 11 & 12, Block 1 to Highover Trail. The private street variance was not included in the public notice printed in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 2005. The private street variance was not included or mentioned in the Staff Report for the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Lack of information needed for important decision-making concerning wetlands and lot delineations: the DNR Ordinary High Water (OHW) of Lake Harrison has not been determined and will not be available for 1-2 months. 5. The current, proposed plans have not satisfied the minimum replacement requirements of replacing impacted wetlands at a 2: 1 ratio. The applicant is required to demonstrate and document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2: 1 replacement ratio for all impacted wetlands. Currently, the proposed replacement plan is deficient 69,017 square feet (1.58 acres) of wetland mitigation. 6. The environmental impacts of the Lake Harrison Development and the opinions of the City Staff were not properly reviewed and discussed. The Staff Report raised serious environmental issues that were not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 2005. On page 5 of the Staff Report for Case No. 05-14 under "BLUFFS" it is stated: "The applicant has located two lots on the western bluff and is requesting variances to build homes on Lots 11 and 12. Staff strongly recommends denial of the variances. Construction activities, location of structures and future use of the area by the property owners will have lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland, Lake Harrison below. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. " Although the variance was denied, the applicant is still planning to develop Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. 7. The Compliance table on page 13 of the Staff Report shows a setback variance required for both lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The variances for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 have been denied, but the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of April 19, 2005 recommend construction of the private street and cul-de-sac on Lot 11, Block 1. This is confusing, not allowed without a variance, and could be interpreted to mean the variance was granted for Lot 11, Block 1. 8. The applicant officially requested approval for 39 lots. The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 19, 2005 documented the approval of 40 lots. Page 3 of 4 9. Incomplete or deficient applications should not be scheduled for a Planning Commission Meeting. Refer to City Ordinance 20-109. Sec. 20-109. Applications. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by the city and shall be filed 30 days in advance of the planning commission meeting at which it is to be considered. Incomplete or deficient applications shall not be scheduled for a meeting unless the community development director has determined that official action is warranted. 10. The applicant is proposing to entirely fill two Type 3 wetland areas (Wetland F and Wetland G) to accommodate additional housing pads. This proposal and insensitive approach to wetland encroachment is unnecessary and based entirely on economic considerations. A feasible and prudent alternative certainly exists to avoid the proposed wetland impacts. Refer to Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 Subpart 3. C. (4) (e). 8420.0520 SEQUENCING. Subp. 3. Determination of impact avoidance. C. Alternatives analysis: (4) The local government unit shall consider the following in evaluating alternatives as applicable: (e) the physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economic considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent. Due to the unusual number of neighborhood concerns, the significant inconsistencies, and the incomplete application submitted by the applicant, this matter may need to be referred back to the Planning Commission for the proper review, scrutiny, and input from Chanhassen residents. Thank you. Sincerely, 1. 5James &Cheri Broughton y Alstadt & Jacgie Et)hero 6927 Highover Court N. 2423 Highover Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 �aiys�� i✓,�,lo�f:, V4,n, E98yy�cylc�E2 �,P.�v., Page 4 of 4 (Octq I' 41o6jo- C-1 . No. l Jsw\e TA't C-0 r— LCI(4 /L!, ` r ss I`f�hover cf-/� 0 .3o'O — O/�o i --0r31'6 hiCY,. S. 1170 — 5/ 75'" 9'7-V X q Agkovw T/V. i 1 , 'J %30) 6&" A May 9, 2005 Mayor Tom Furlong City Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom City Councilman Steve Labatt City Councilman Brian Lundquist City Councilman Craig Peterson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed LAKE HARRISON Subdivision—CASE No. 05-14 Dear Mayor Furlong and Chanhassen City Council Members, Attached are the signatures of twenty-five (25) households in Highover and other subdivisions surrounding the proposed Lake Harrison parcel. We are all concerned about the following major issues: 1. Numerous variances to the City Ordinances that are required for this subdivision 2. Developments based solely on economic issues at the expense the environment and adjacent homeowners 3. Wetland and wildlife impacts 4. Unnecessary removal of valuable trees 5. Rushing the City's approval process without the required preliminary plat information Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, aoh"��e -- Jim Broughton et al May 6, 2005 Mayor Tom Furlong City Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom City Councilman Steve Labatt City Councilman Brian Lundquist City Councilman Craig Peterson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed LAKE HARRISON Subdivision — CASE No. 05-14 Dear Mayor Furlong and Chanhassen City Council Members, We appreciate the timely response from Bob Generous on City Staff to our May 4, 2005 letter concerning the Lake Harrison Subdivision, Case No. 05-14. We would like to clarify that we are not opposed to the development of the Lake Harrison Subdivision. However, we are concerned about liberal and questionable interpretations of the Chanhassen City Ordinances and approving numerous variances in order to increase the value and income potential of a subdivision at the expense of the environment and the adjacent homeowners. In our opinion, the City Ordinances are enacted to be followed, with few exceptions. Numerous variances to City Ordinances greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ordinances and their original legal purpose. In this particular case, variances significantly increase the probability of environmental damage, long term environmental impacts, diminishing wildlife habitats, and the creation of an unusual neighborhood situation. We question why there needs to be such complex maneuvering and discussion concerning the variances surrounding Lots 11 & 12, Block 1, when they are being developed strictly on the basis of increasing the value and income potential of the parcel in question. This is contrary to City Ordinances. We believe the City Ordinances should be diligently enforced in the spirit in which they were enacted. Instead, attempts are being made to find ways around the rules in order to increase the value and income potential of a parcel of land for the benefit of a developer. Furthermore, the wetland and environmental issues are a serious concern to all of us. Why not just develop the beautiful Lake Harrison parcel in strict accordance with the City Ordinances which serve as the legal basis for the protection of the City's resources and the interests of its residents? Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Broughton et al CC: City Manager, Todd Gerhardt Bob Generous We respectfully request that the City Council votes to prohibit the construction of a private street off of Highover Trail and prohibit any development, grading, tree removal, or construction of homes on Lot 11, Block 1 and Lot 12, Block 1. We also request that these conditions and restrictions be clearly documented in the final plat approval for the Lake Harrison Subdivision. We make these requests in accordance with the requirements of Chanhassen City Ordinances. Lake Harrison and Pinehurst Developments Generous, Bob Page 1 of 1 From: John Moberg [mo@wolfmotell.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:34 PM To: Labatt, Steve; Oehme, Paul; Peterson, Craig; saljaf@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhorn, Bethany; Aanenson, Kate; Generous, Bob; Lundquist, Brian Subject: Lake Harrison and Pinehurst Developments Importance: High Dear City Council Member, I realize you may get many e-mails in a day's time, so I will keep this short and to the point. I am writing with deep concern over upcoming decisions regarding the segment of Lake Lucy Road from Galpin to 41 and the traffic levels arising from the Lake Harrison and Pinehurst developments. I live on the comer of Lake Lucy and Manchester Drive, and have been disappointed for years that we do not have a 4 -way stop. Regardless of the posted speed limit I would estimate 4 of 5 autos travel at 40+ across Lake Lucy Rd. Not necessarily assuming that the increased traffic from these new developments will also be speeding; I do have concerns for the safety of children and adults in our neighborhood. Why has the entrance to Lake Harrison been moved to Lake Lucy Rd? Galpin would be far more suitable. Lake Lucy Rd simply does not make clear sense. In regards to the proposed water treatment plant, why would you consider squeezing it into this area when there is more remote (less residential) locations south of Hwy 5? I also plan on attending tomorrow (Tues 19th) night's public hearing to voice my concerns as well. Sincerely, John Moberg 6738 Manchester Drive 4/19/2005 Generous, Bob From: Generous, Bob Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:47 PM To: paulseng @juno.com' Cc: Furlong, Tom; Lundquist, Brian; Aanenson, Kate Subject: RE: Lake Harrison Pemtom development _, Bluff Lot Detail.pdf p1rev05-14.doc (26 (2 MB) KB) Janet: City staff was concerned about the lot areas for these lots also, so we had the developer provide the lot area for those lots, excluding all the area within both the wetland and lake. (It should be pointed out that the developer showed a normal water level (NWL) elevation of 963.5 on the plan.) Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, did not meet the minimum 40,000 square feet lot area. Therefore, staff recommended that "Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards" and 'The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width if it is a lake shore lot". However if the developer includes all of the wetland within Outlot C as recommended in another condition of approval, then these lots will no longer be lakeshore property and they would then need comply with the non -riparian standards, which the lots exceed. ("Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into Outlot C." and "All non -riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot area." ) The fire marshal reviewed the plat. A copy of his entire review is attached for your review. The fire marshal did not express any concern regarding fire access to Lot 12. I am not sure if you are aware, but the developer did prepare a alternate access plan, which was reviewed at city council. This plan responded to a condition of approval from the planning commission, moving the cul-de-sac to lot 11 and having only a driveway going on to lot 12. City Council modified the conditions of approval to incorporate the plan: "The private street driveway shall be as shown on the Lot 11 & 12 detail plan dated 5/09/05'. 1 have attached the bluff lot detail for your information. While it is not to scale, it shows that the future building will be setback 30 feet from the north property line. Bob Generous -----Original Message ----- From: paulseng@juno.com [mailto:paulseng@juno.comj Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:33 PM To: Generous, Bob Cc: Furlong, Tom; Lundquist, Brian Subject: Lake Harrison Pemtom development Bob: Thank you for confirming the OHW for Lake Harrison (993.6', provided by the DNR on May 6, 2005), not 945.2' as stated in code, Sec. 20-479. Riparian (lakeshore) Lot Areas: Maps in the staff report are ambiguous. Neither the shoreline nor the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line for Lake Harrison are clearly delineated (is the lake on the map?). Since the OHW line of lake determines the lakeshore property line of a riparian lot. And since the property lines determine the lot area. And since no land below the OHW can be included in lot area. And since the report claimed that the OHW was not available for the Planning Commission meeting of April 26th. Yet the riparian lots Lots 10 through 14, Block 3 all had defined areas in that report. Since the OHW is 48 feet higher than stated in code, the riparian lot lines would be moved back, resulting in less lot area. How were the areas for the riparian lots determined, and using which OHW? Do these lots meet code for lot area (40,000 sq ft) using the correct OHW? Fire Marshal Report: A fire marshal report (missing from the staff report) is required by code for private streets (18-57(0)). I have always seen a fire marshal report for every private street in the past. Lots 11 & 12, Block 1 would be accessed by a private street and a driveway. The first lot would be accessed by a private street over 300 -feet long with a 30 -foot wide easement and a 20 -foot wide paved surface bordered on each side by a 4 -foot high retaining wall plus a high voltage line on the west side. The private street would end in a small turnaround bordered by another retaining wall on the edge of a forested bluff. Access to the 2nd lot (an isolated forested lot to the south) would be over the private street and then a 12 - feet wide driveway some 400 -feet long. The access route to these two lots is characterized in the staff report as being a tunnel. Does the access to these two lots meet applicable fire codes? Is that why there is no fire marshal report? Would access to these two lots present a problem for fire equipment? Cordially, Janet Paulsen 934-7032 Get Juno Platinum for as low as $4.97/month! Unlimited Internet Access with 250MB of Email Storage. Visit http://www.juno.com/hal£ to sign up today! N