Loading...
6. Preliminary Plat of Lot 5, block 1, Maplewood into Two Single Family Lots, Arundel Additionf 1 I G a L 1 1 i a r u CITY OF PC DATE: 5/1/96 CC DATE: 5/20/96 it it CASE & 96 -7 SUB By: Al -Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.3 Acres into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, Arundel Addition. LOCATION: 3531 Maplewood Circle. Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood. APPLICANT: Steve Arundel Steve Arundel & Sven Arne Wasberg 3130 Groveland School Road 3130 Groveland School Road Minnetonka, MN 55391 Minnetonka, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District Aejm 5Y CW AMMWtMW ACREAGE: 1.3 acres Emlornd ,/ T)WA DENSITY: 1.5 Units per Acre - Gross { ADJACENT ZONING AND DW, LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family District Date submitted to Commissim S - RSF, Residential Single Family District E - RSF, Residential Single Family District Data submitted to Council W - RSF, Residential Single Family District y io 6 -io - 96 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is flat. Mature trees are scattered on the site. A single family home occupies the northeast comer of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density c M � � I ' Arundel Addition May 20, 1996 Page 2 On May 20, 1996, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY ' The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.3 acres into 2 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. ' Lot 1 contains a single family home and is proposed to have an area of 30,025 square feet. Lot 2 is reserved for future development and is proposed to have an area of 27,475 square feet. The ' resulting gross density of this subdivision is 1.5 units per acre. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. An existing shed located on Lot 2 is proposed to be removed. The structure must be removed prior to recording of ' the plat. The site is located southwest of Maplewood Circle and is proposed to gain access from the cul -de -sac. Lot 2 will have a cross access easement over Lot 1, to gain access to the public right -of -way. ' The site has mature trees scattered on the site. Some of these trees will be removed due to the construction of the new single family home and the driveway. A 30 inch silver maple is located ' southeast of the proposed house. Staff is recommending the new home be moved further to the west to minimize impact on the silver maple. The majority of the remaining trees will be saved. ' Park and trail fees will be required in lieu of land in accordance with City Ordinances. ' In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. t BACKGROUND Maplewood Subdivision was approved in 1964. It consisted of 8 lots. The applicant is ' proposing to divide Lot 5 into two parcels. This is one of the largest parcels in the subdivision. There is an existing residence on Lot 5, which was built in 1977. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.3 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of ' the proposed subdivision is 1.5 units per acre. Both lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with Lot 1, which contains a single family home, having an area of 30,025 square feet. Lot 2 is reserved for future development and is proposed to have an area of 27,475 square feet. ' The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. An existing shed located on Lot 2 Arundel Addition May 20, 1996 Page 3 is proposed to be removed. The structure must be removed prior to recording of the plat. The site is located southwest of Maplewood Circle and is proposed to gain access from the cul -de- sac. Lot 2 will have a cross access easement over Lot 1, to gain access to the public right -of- way. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel slopes from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. This lot is a low point of the neighborhood and conveys most of the neighborhood drainage from the northeast. A 10 inch storm sewer culvert conveys storm water runoff from Maplewood Circle along the east lot line towards the rear of the lot where it discharges into a drainage swale down to Lake Minnewashta. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a water quality pond down by the lake to pretreat storm water runoff before discharging into Lake Minnewashta. This subdivision creates an opportunity to acquire additional easements just upstream of the lake to provide the water quality pond. A very small sediment basin currently exists just south of this proposed subdivision. The small sediment basin could be expanded to overlap into this development to provide for the necessary storm water quality pond. Construction of this pond is not necessary with this development. Staff believes it would be prudent to work with the applicant to acquire additional drainage easements over the southerly portion of the lot which will not impair construction on the lot. The applicant will receive credits against their SWMP fees for the additional land dedication. Based on 0.63 acres of new development (the existing lot is exempt), the applicant will be responsible for storm water quality and quantity connection fee of $1,751. The final plat should also dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing drainage culvert as well as along the southerly 20 feet of the lot to maintain the drainage pattern through the parcel. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the city. Since the lot elevation is lower than Maplewood Circle, utility extension to the house will require filling a portion of the lot for the driveway and dwelling. An emergency overflow will need to be maintained adjacent to the driveway to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle should the catch basin become inoperable. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available from Maplewood Circle. The applicant will need to extend an individual sewer and water line to the property which will result in excavating the street. The elevation of the sanitary sewer in the street is too low to service the new lot via a gravity system. An ejector pump system will be required in order to lift the sewage from the lot I ' Arundel Addition May 20, 1996 Page 4 to Maplewood Circle. The plumbing codes (Sec. 4715.2430) requires specific design and construction elements which must be adhered to when installing this sanitary sewer from the house to the street. The applicant should make all prospective homeowners and builders aware of these specific requirements. The new lot will also be subject to a hook -up fee in the amount of $2,575 for the sewer and water. This fee is payable at time of building permit issuance. The connection fee of $7,000 will be waived assuming the applicant will be responsible for extending the sewer and water line to the property. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the city with a $2,500 escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash to guarantee street and storm sewer restoration. STREETS A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed along the east side of the lot for access to the new parcel. The driveway access will require removal of some of the pines /spruce trees. The addition of one lot will not adversely increase traffic on Maplewood Circle. The driveway may require modifications to the storm sewer and catch basin in Maplewood Circle depending on the driveway's exact location. If a new catch basin casting is needed, the applicant will be responsible for providing and installing the casting. The applicant will also be responsible for any modifications to the curbs and storm drainage system as a result of extending the driveway to the lot. PARK AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear/ 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 30,025 118' 220' 30730' 10' Lot 2 27,475 125' 220' 30730' 10' Arundel Addition May 20, 1996 Page 5 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The Arundel Addition is a nicely wooded property with approximately an 80% canopy coverage. Since the Addition is in a low density residential area, minimum canopy coverage requirement is 55% of the lot. Tree removal for driveway and house will take out approximately 28% of the canopy, leaving 52 %. The developer is required to replace the 3% difference at a rate of 1.2 times and must plant two trees on the site. There are two large trees on the proposed lot, a 30" silver maple and a 30" ash. Both of these trees are tolerant of root severance and compaction and are therefore excellent candidates for preservation. Staff recommends developer work to move the proposed home in between the large trees. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On May 1, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. The main issue of concern dealt with the drainage of the neighborhood. Many neighbors were concerned that the new development will impede the natural drainage way. Staff explained that the drainage will not change. The second issue was in regard to the future subdivision of the remaining seven parcels within the subdivision. At the meeting, staff explained that if they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, then they would be able to subdivide the property. After the Planning Commission meeting, staff researched the remaining properties within the subdivision for division potential and discovered that six of the eight parcels would not meet the depth and setback requirements of the City Code. One parcels will need a variance to the width of the cross access easement to serve a structure if the lot was subdivided. In all cases, the City would have a reason not to approve a future subdivision within this neighborhood. The basic concern with this subdivision was the issue of privacy. All members of the Planning Commission agreed that there will be an invasion of privacy for the property located east of the subject site, however, City ordinances do not address this issue. This is a legal subdivision and meets ordinance requirements. To protect the neighbors, the Planning Commission recommended the applicant shift the proposed driveway to the westerly edge of the driveway easement and keep it as far as possible from the easterly property line. The Planning Commission also recommended the applicant place the two trees required by ordinance in a location that would maximize screening to the property to the east. I Arundel Addition May 20, 1996 Page 6 ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for (Subdivision #96 -7) Arundel Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be ' placed along the edge of trees showing grading limits prior to grading. 2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water ' quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1. 3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer. ' 4. The applicant will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the city, $2,500 in the form of a letter or credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible per the staff s approval. 5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. ' 6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary ' sewer. 7. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to ' maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle. 8. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee ' will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle to the property line. ■ Arundel Addition , May 20, 1996 Page 7 ' 9. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and ' recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on , Lot 2 for future storm water pond. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: ' a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise identification (copy enclosed). ' 12. Park and Recreation conditions: a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code. 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A demolition permit will be required. 14. The applicant must plant two trees on new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place the trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. 13. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed at the grading perimeters." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Charles and Pamela Rienstra. 2. Letter from Bill and Danielle Modell date April 23, 1996. 3. 4715.2430 BUILDING DRAINS BELOW BUILDING SEWER. 4. Memo from David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated April 25, 1996. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 24, 1996 and Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise Identification. 6. Application Form dated March 15, 1996. 7. Notice of Public Hearing. 8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 1, 1996. 9. City Council minutes dated May 20, 1996. 10. Preliminary plat dated April 3, 1996. 41, PRELIMINARY PLAT ARUNDEL ADDITION PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR " STEVE ARUNDEL OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA lJ 1 LJ r L I • I MA /[twooP - ' CIRCLE Iiy'it N 84°24' 17" E 207.59 i SSjQ9p / iw 1 low 0 O > j - `C7.RO I I ' i• tY tea 3 • ,r �•,r 4 y, -e I� i r i :,w 1 I I •IO. W"�0.025+- . ��`. . / "uF ,+ I ff . t I n IV IV 30 CV JO 41�w �'° i•- ' rj O ice• .�1�wd'Y_,y_nyq� fatback into (typ)' er ' .. Ot i JO 1 +A e ta' $178 aJ J , O O I��•1V' , MK , IV 27475 +— ft. j � i ; � , T I I t A 30 1 ' 1.1 �'� - -------- ------------- • �\ N 89 °25' E 10.00 ; ty ' 1 ' JIle e.fttf / ?� ' M.e i. an tea � � • � • . . S i �� Vira4fa L4ke � , I e OWNER: 1 —E STEVE ARUNDEL Minnewash[a �. - 'sd "" ,r 3130 GROVELAND SCHOOL ROAD ,, e WAYZATA. MN. 55391 [ ' t ` • f LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: - ta M Lot 5. Block 1, MAPLEWOOD i 7 —i I t VICTORIA - 1 hereby certif7• that this sunny was pretlared b• me or under me direct super- / e ' 1 eisk7n, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the taws if the State of Minnesota. Atari S. Cn,nterg Minnesota License Numder 12755 ' 9t -7S uA7[ 4.5.96 SCALE =TA loll No. 96074 Gv►z 9/6 - 6 0 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We, Charles and Pamela Rienstra, are homeowners of 3511 Maplewood Circle. We have lived here twenty years. When we purchased our lot the city had approved the Maplewood Sub - division to consists of eight lots. We have concerns about the change in drainage by building another home at 3531 Maplewood Circle(Arundel Addition). There is a substantial amount of runoff from Greenbriar Avenue which funnels through the Maplewood Addition. All lots on Maplewood Circle presently drain to a culvert which runs to the back of 3531 Maplewood Circle where the proposed addition is to be located We feel that building another home at this location may cause drainage problems. We are also concerned about the increase in traffic and snow removal with an addition of another driveway to the cul -de -sac. We hope that these issues will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made to grant this addition. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Charles and Pamela Rienstra -- 1 ' DATE: April 23, 1996 RE: Concerns regarding proposed subdivision at 3531 Maplewood Circle ' (Public Hearing to be held May 1, 1996) 1A Interruption of natural flow and drainage of storm water runoff that runs from the street and also neighboring yards through the proposed development site. ' 1 B. Possible pooling of storm water runoff in our backyard if the natural flow is interrupted. ' 1 C. Possible wet basement if water is not allowed to flow naturally around our house as it does now. ' 2A Placement of driveway leading to proposed building site being located on or near the property line considering that our house is only approximately 30 feet off the ' property line. 2B. Where would the snow from the driveway end up when removed? Over the ' property line? Out in the dead end street where it already can be a problem when there is a substantial snowfall? ' 2C. Noise from vehicle traffic using proposed driveway which would be located approximately only 30 feet from our bedroom windows. t 3. Increased traffic flow on Maplewood Circle that is an already heavily traveled dead end street. ' 4. Lack of privacy in our backyard due to front of proposed house overlooking our backyard. ' 5. Concern that all the items above would ultimately lead to decreased property values both monetary and aesthetically. ' We are adamantly opposed to this development proposal and we ask that you take the above concerns into serious consideration when making recommendations to the City Council. ' Thank you for your consideration. �� TO: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission FROM: Bill & Danielle Modell ' 3521 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 ' DATE: April 23, 1996 RE: Concerns regarding proposed subdivision at 3531 Maplewood Circle ' (Public Hearing to be held May 1, 1996) 1A Interruption of natural flow and drainage of storm water runoff that runs from the street and also neighboring yards through the proposed development site. ' 1 B. Possible pooling of storm water runoff in our backyard if the natural flow is interrupted. ' 1 C. Possible wet basement if water is not allowed to flow naturally around our house as it does now. ' 2A Placement of driveway leading to proposed building site being located on or near the property line considering that our house is only approximately 30 feet off the ' property line. 2B. Where would the snow from the driveway end up when removed? Over the ' property line? Out in the dead end street where it already can be a problem when there is a substantial snowfall? ' 2C. Noise from vehicle traffic using proposed driveway which would be located approximately only 30 feet from our bedroom windows. t 3. Increased traffic flow on Maplewood Circle that is an already heavily traveled dead end street. ' 4. Lack of privacy in our backyard due to front of proposed house overlooking our backyard. ' 5. Concern that all the items above would ultimately lead to decreased property values both monetary and aesthetically. ' We are adamantly opposed to this development proposal and we ask that you take the above concerns into serious consideration when making recommendations to the City Council. ' Thank you for your consideration. �� _ •-er ..` t'';5'.d • •tiav ..'�`,E1t:1.:�..2:•.:•�!\ �J ?.+.y "Y%`Y,iY . �h5+�'� `'.�. -.ir •' - `•i "!� .�:•� nv . � e � a `� , F'�(�`� - _. � .-.• -.��- h.1;�G - - .�f f.r..l — � � ...: �- �:'�•" ��S:W. r. -r r ' .< �<'�'i.:..+?:�:: w:: ie`.i'3.:T!� •,:._ ' � . i. _. �'� .,_WS.....t - �� :� -1;; c:._v..!. 1- ��Mi[S .\ JKi+4:�w. - _- ��,.,.�:( '>5.1•wa�t. —P_ ti:i•� +t - �.:.- _. ..� .. ` . :..!- l;rra�...�ry. f u�uaaia�S�l -- • -.—v � \ �— +�- `^� -. `v^J 1 _ — i N COP a ®" x �yna tv 0 y1 r P AM, 1 o �. 1 ►: Il 00*4- 1 i 1 G✓/Z-74e 'J"00 97 Subp. 2. Heel or side -inlet bends. A heel or side -inlet t quarter bend shall not be used as a vent when the inlet is placed in a horizontal position or any similar arrangement of pipe or fittings producing a similar effect. Subp. 3. Obstruction to flow. No fitting, connection, device, or method of installation which obstructs or retards the flow of water, wastes, sewage, or air in the drainage or venting system in an amount greater than the normal frictional ' resistance to flow shall be used unless it is indicated as acceptable to this code by having a desirable and acceptable function and as of ultimate benefit to the proper and continuing functioning of the plumbing system. The enlargement of a ' three -inch closet bend or stub to four inches shall not be considered an obstruction, provided the horizontal flow line or insert is continuous without forming a ledge. Subp. 4. Dead ends. In the installation of a drainage system, dead ends shall be avoided except where necessary to extend piping for a cleanout so as to be accessible. ' STAT AUTH: MS s 326.37 to 326.45 4715.2430 BUILDING DRAINS BELOW BUILDING SEWER. Building drains which cannot be discharged to the sewer by gravity flow shall discharge into an approved watertight, gas -tight vented sump or receiving tank, so located as to receive the sewage or wastes by gravity. From such sump or receiving tank the sewage or other liquid wastes shall be lifted ' and discharged into the building gravity drain by approved automatic pumping equipment. The system or drainage piping entering such sump shall be installed and vented as required in this section for a gravity system. STAT AUTH: MS s 326.37 to 326.45 HIST: 9 SR 1557 4715.2440 DESIGN OF SUMPS. Subpart 1. Construction. Sumps and receiving tanks shall be constructed of poured concrete, metal, or other approved materials. If constructed of poured concrete, the walls and bottom shall be adequately reinforced and designed to acceptable standards. Metal sumps or tanks shall be of such thickness as to serve their intended purpose and shall be treated internally and externally to resist corrosion. Subp. 2. Discharge line. The discharge line from such pumping equipment shall be provided with an accessible backwater valve and gate valve, and if the gravity drainage line to which ' such discharge line connects is horizontal, the method of connection shall be from the top through a wye branch fitting. ' The minimum size of any pump or discharge pipe from a sump having a water closet connected thereto shall not be less than two inches. 97 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: April 25, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Arundel Addition Land Use File No. 96 -6 (Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood) Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated April 3, 1996, I offer the following comments and recommendations, GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel slopes from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. This lot is a low point of the neighborhood and conveys most of the neighborhood drainage from the northeast. A 10 inch storm sewer culvert conveys storm water runoff from Maplewood Circle along the east lot line towards the rear of the lot where it discharges into a drainage swale down to Lake Minnewashta. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a water quality pond down by the lake to pretreat storm water runoff before discharging into Lake Minnewashta. This subdivision creates an opportunity to acquire additional easements just upstream of the lake to provide the water quality pond. A very small sediment basin currently exists just south of this proposed subdivision. The small sediment basin could be expanded to overlap into this development to provide for the necessary storm water quality pond. Construction of this pond is not necessary with this development Staff believes it would be prudent to work with the applicant to acquire additional drainage easements over the southerly portion of the lot which will not impair construction on the lot. The applicant will receive credits against their SWMP fees for the additional land dedication. Based on 0.63 acres of new development (the existing lot is exempt), the applicant will be responsible for storm water quality and quantity connection fee of $1,751. The final plat should also dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing drainage culvert as well as along the southerly 20 feet of the lot to maintain the drainage pattern through the parcel. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the city. Since the lot elevation is lower than Maplewood Circle, utility extension to the house will require filling a portion of the lot for the driveway and dwelling. An emergency overflow will need to be r ' Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II April 25, 1996 Page 2 maintained adjacent to the driveway to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle should the catch basin become inoperable. ' [TTILITIES ' Municipal sewer and water service is available from Maplewood Circle. The applicant will need to extend an individual sewer and water line to the property which will result in excavating the ' street. The elevation of the sanitary sewer in the street is too low to service the new lot via a gravity system. An ejector pump system will be required in order to lift the sewage from the lot to Maplewood Circle. The plumbing codes (Sec. 4715.2430) requires specific design and ' construction elements which must be adhered to when installing this sanitary sewer from the house to the street. The applicant should make all prospective homeowners and builders aware of these specific requirements. The new lot will also be subject to a hook -up fee in the amount of ' $2,575 for the sewer and water. This fee is payable at time of building permit issuance. The connection fee of $7,000 will be waived assuming the applicant will be responsible for extending the sewer and water line to the property. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the city ' with a $2,500 escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash to guarantee street and storm sewer restoration. ' STREETS ' A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed along the east side of the lot for access to the new parcel. The driveway access will require removal of some of the pines /spruce trees. The addition of one lot will not adversely increase traffic on Maplewood Circle. The driveway may ' require modifications to the storm sewer and catch basin in Maplewood Circle depending on the driveway's exact location. If a new catch basin casting is needed, the applicant will be responsible for providing and installing the casting. The applicant will also be responsible for ' any modifications to the curbs and storm drainage system as a result of extending the driveway to the lot. ' RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 1. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1. ' 2. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during ' construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer. Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II April 25, 1996 Page 3 3. The applicant will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the city, $2,500 in the form of a letter or credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. 4. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 5. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary sewer. 6. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle. 7. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle to the property line. 8. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1. 9. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on Lot 2 for future storm water pond. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer ARUNDEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION .FOR., STEVE ARUNDEL OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA N $4.24' 17" E 207.59 e — ,y fo• �roaw,,,:• _ � ruc � y r• / � 1 Ito• ,Pr,lo C i I 0 to• n ,025 + - 10• aq. 1t. ni fo• •Pnlc• ` �fo " wry to Ito• .Pr,�. i to. 1 •wvw fo' 30 " .Prot. UJ I • p �.� T 1 O 1� - ilding setback lines , t E,Wo' ` sd of 30 v ' '% / S _ LL � ,ee�t She z 0 f ��_ 1 ] 27475 + -`� L-t_ oh xo \� 1 � rtrl, \ 4� `L c 16 • I z I t pa po-W 1 i2 I , 1 1 �. 1 ao• ah 1 ' NNN dwrY t \ _ 1 ► 1 N 80 E 10.00 ; V /C /A/ /TY MAP hy*• t I M 4111110110 l I A OWNER: STEVE ARUNDEL sch tz 3130 GROVELAND SCHOOL ROAD ' WAYZATA, MN. 55391 � i �► s° LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: 1 - 13 Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLEWOOD "° s L ✓Arr/ r I.M MA /LFL✓oolo CACC46 I •v= . .45 of . t/irjiaia / 3JJ/ N� /LI(✓�00 J /fF e / /ttt a ,s• Lake Minnewashta rW n �rrt rp0 rrnr u ` VICTORIA =� A ;4 . I \ m•rt• • � a i rt' 0 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared byme or ider my direct super- un i 1 4 -3 -96 vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil EngineCr an, and Surveyor under CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 24, 1996 RE: Request for preliminary plat of Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood into two single family lots on property zoned RSF and located at 3531 Maplewood Circle, Arundel Addition, Steve Arundel. Planning Case: 96 -7 SUB I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed: 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise identification (copy enclosed). g: /safety /m1/96 -7SUB i 1 i 1 1 General CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION 1 Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall 1 contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. 1 Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. 1 Otlrer Reaulrcrnents - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from'the background. 1 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 1 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement *3 must still be met 1 S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Resldentlal Reaulrenwft f2 or less dweMna until 1 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department 1 Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12 ". 1 2. Strip Malls a. MuM tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 1 3. If address numbers are located on a diniciory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department 1 Fire Prevention Policy 129 -1992 Date: 06/15/92 1 Revised: Approved - Public SaVty Director Page 1 of 1 �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ■ Ar j CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 �� �. �r_.- f �,._.• (612) 937 -1900 - ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION , • ����� ��4n,f p E_ L APPLICANT: Pa ln\ C\,eLr OWNER: —' —� f" rQA, e� ADDRESS: Gwve— li a ^A S of Rcl ADDRESS: Mi Ct 1 ' TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ' Temporary Sales Permit I _ Conditional Use Permit I _ Vacation of ROW /Easements ' I Interim Use Permit I _ Variance Non- conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit I , _ Planned Unit Development" I _ Zoning Appeal I ' I _ Rezoning I e Zoning Ordinance Amendment ' Sign Permits I _ Sign Plan Review I Y Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attomey Cost" ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 1 r ' ]Subdivision" I TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the ' application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. • Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 %" X 11" reduced copy of ' transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 1 F PROJECT NAME �2�.ar�.1 35 31 LOCATION �-.� 1�1 afJ`e Qc `C—� �2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION tr�C Y 1�bCfJ ' TOTALACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO ' PRESENTZONING REQUESTED ZONING ' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ' A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with ' all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person ' to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ' authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ' The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ' extensions are approved by the applicant. _� 3 /s -9G ' Signature of Applicant Date Signature Owner Date - - — Application Received on 34 '$ Fee Paid Receipt No. 59317 ' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. WARRANTY DEED STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ - 39(,00 Date: F uary 22 , 1996 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Transamerica Financial Services Inc., a Minnesota corporation (a /k /a Transamerica Financial Services), grantor, hereby conveys and warrants to S hen D. Arundel —and., Sven Arne Wasberg, grantees, an undivided onealr interest each I s tenants in common, real property in Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot Five (5), Block One (1), "Maplewood" together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record. Grantor certifies that grantor is not aware of any wells on the described property. GRANTOR: TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. By Its • �Tto t L. e Asst. Secretary STATE OF rA ) By: }ss. - COUNTY OF ANNF. EPTr] ) Its Bu Sanders Asst. Secretary The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 22 day of Fahri,ary 1996, by Robert L. White and Rnd9iP R_ Snndt- s , the Asst. Secretary and aact- cccrc4 y , respectively, of Transamerica Financial Services Inc., 'a Minnesota corporation (a /k /a Transamerica Financial es), behalf of corp oration. KELLY d DALBEC � NOTARY RI CO N TI MpCauowltn�&0UJt71.M ota y blic Kelly J dalbec THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: RETURN TO: Kevin J. Dunlevy Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick 1190 Capital Centre 386 North Wabasha Street St. Paul, MN 55102 l: \WOBR \M:SO \ARUMCEL.W'v 11451 -43 Tax statements for the real property described ' in this instrument should be sent to: �fi�phe n 0. N`U06Q_I 3130 Cxox, . j(Xr 1 Sc bool e L �a�ZatcA , ►� N 5531 f I HC 1007 (5/" Affidavit of Purchaser of Registered Land ' State of Minnesota Countyof Carver } ' Stephen D. Arundel being duly sworn on oath says that he makes this affidavit on behalf of ' the purchaser(s) of REGISTERED LAND situated in Carver County, Minnesota. The name of said purchaser is Stephen D. Arundel ' The purchaser resides at 3531 Maplewood Circle Cltyof Chanhassen �Co Carver Stateof Minnesota Tip 55317 IxJ is T� of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal incapacity is not ' andis married to Zuzana K. Arundel whose XIS res iidenceis above set forth 3130 Groveland School Road, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ' who of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal incapacity R is not Subscribed and ' My commi i Verse on to l Signed 'Ap'_ o c - Stephen D. Arundel to bef0TeTne4hiA 26th try — i c ' wm KAISTINEL.FRIEDERICHS NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA Inn. My C4mmasion Exam Jan 31 2wo CCD451 AFFID 8/94 HC IW7 R/aq Affidavit of Purchaser of Registered Land State of Minnesota Countyof Carver 88• Sven Arne Yasberg being duly sworn on oath says that he makes this affidavit on behalf of the purchaser(s) ofREGISTERED LAND situated in Carver County, Minnesota. The name of am of the purchasers is Sven Arne llasberg The purchaser resides at 3531 Maplewood Circle Cityof Chanhassen Countyof Carver Stateof Minnesota Zip 55317 is of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal incapacity isnot andis married to Arlene DeCandia whose residence is above set forth who Via of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal. incapacity is not Signed � Sven Arne berg Subscribed sworn to before me this i day of ebruary 6 N lay Pu c, a pin ny. Minn. Mycom issionexpirec i 1 / E�� , !(,�' r'�'COnNn3san E+pircs An )I 7W0 Venbn I M CC0451 AFF102 8/94 I 1 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, MAY 1, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Arundel Addition Developer: Location: Steve Arundel 3531 Maplewood Ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ao Ln d� M ri ri ri M M on St �p�f D►L., Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Steve Arundel, is proposing a preliminary plat of Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood into two single family lots on property zoned RSF, and located at 3531 Maplewood Circle, Arundel Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: ' 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. ' 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. ' Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City ' Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. ' Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager April 25, 1996. r / Minneva hta Heights Parl David L. Obee Stephen Spartz Kenneth Durr 2060 Majestic Way 3670 Hwy. 7 4830 Westgate Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55345 William & Vonnie Barnett 6321 Church Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Daniel & Barbara Stoflet 3502 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Gerald & Janice Kruse 3510 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Terry & Kathryn Sherwood 3520 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Charles & Pamela Rienstra 3511 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Claud & L. Johnson 6331 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863 James & Elizabeth Thompson 6231 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8861 Thomas & Sharon Wright 3611 Ironwood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890 Robert & Dianne Swearingen 3530 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Robert & Paula Crippa 3503 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Brian & Patricia McCarthy 6311 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863 Marvin & Patricia Onken 6221 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8861 Annalee M. Hanson 6400 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8864 William & Danielle Modell 3521 Maplewood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Olive Schmierer 6341 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863 Joel Mellenthin & Katharine Kocina 6301 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863 David & Donna Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890 Steven & Judy Emmings 6350 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8862 Robert & Sally Hebeisen Richard & Ann Zweig Harlan Waterhouse 3607 Ironwood Rd. 3601 Ironwood Road 6321 Greenbriar Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890 Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890 Excelsior, MN 55331 -886 C ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 ' areas. As Jeff pointed out, the residents are frequently input their feelings on this. I'd be reluctant to approve an interim use for this site. ' Mancino: Kevin. ' Joyce: I basically agree with the other commissioners. I agree with Don. I feel that there's some overkill out there with those boats and I'm real uncomfortable with all those boats being ' out there and suddenly this is an issue a year after the fact. I appreciate the business and economic issues to the applicant. I mean this is part of their business and they need to lease that space but I'd have to say that I couldn't support it either unless there was some way of ' working out a very, very specific methodology there of 1 or 2 boats and a certain time frame but you know they've shown them now in the past that they just put boats out there regardless of any sort of enforcement so I guess I'd have to say I'd deny it at this point. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I think staffs report is right on the money. Nothing new to add. When we put in highway business, we worked real closely over many years with the neighborhood. It was real clear what we intended to do and it was not to put in a boat dealership there. It obviously doesn't work. It just doesn't work there. Mancino: My comments are not any different than those that were just previously said. It is a neighborhood business district. The intent is in keeping it to serve the neighborhood, and I do go over and frequent the shopping center quite a bit and it just doesn't seem, I agree, to belong in a neighborhood district. So may I have a motion please. Conrad: Can I just make one comment? ...a neighborhood business is not really a boat sales. It's clearly not intended to sell boats. It's not. Yet there are some ways to make a center site, even on a neighborhood level and a boat event on a weekend could do that so I'll end my discussion with that. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the interim ' use permit based on the findings presented in the staff report dated April 17, 1996, 1 through 5. ' Mancino: A second please. ' Joyce: I'll second that. 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: All those in favor, oh. Any discussion? Farnakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Interim Use Permit #96 -1 based on the following findings: 1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN District. 2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district. 3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and intent of interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance. 4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning district. 5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the neighborhood oriented retail center and residential developments. All voted in favor and the motion carded. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 5. BLOCK 1. MAPLEWOOD INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. AND LOCATED AT 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE. ARUNDEL ADDITION. Public Pmsent: Name Robert Crippa Pam & Chuck Rienstra Bill & Danielle Modell Paul Modell Bob Hebeisen Leo & Carole Breitman Gerry Wenkus Gary Peterson Bob Swearengin Address 3503 Maplewood Circle 3511 Maplewood Circle 3521 Maplewood Circle 3441 Shore Drive 3607 Ironwood Road 8549 Ironwood Road 3531 Maplewood Circle 315 East Lake Street, Wayzata 3530 Maplewood Circle 10 I i Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 ' Sharmin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: So Dave there would be a pond created on Lot 2. Hempel: Part of Lot 2 and it would expand south into the neighboring property. Where it ' exists today. Mancino: Into the adjacent property. And will there still be, what I saw, will there still be the pipe that goes down underneath? Hempel: The pipe will remain as it is today. It may be necessary to extend that with the ' construction of the house on the design of the house. Mancino: How much, I don't know how easy this is for you to show us but how many ' people's property drain into this now? Now that we have Highway 7 and that re- routing, where is the water coming from? Where is most of the water coming from? ' Hempel: Most of the water is coming from Lots 3, 4, 6 and 5. There may be some additional from Lot 7 going through there. Plus all of the runoff from Maplewood Circle. ' You have the front yards draining out to the street and going down through that property today. ' Mancino: And what about the lots on Maplewood Circle that are north there that you didn't circle? Where do those drain? Hempel: The front yards drain out to Maplewood Circle. The rear yards drain out back towards Highway 7. ' Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Dave at this time? Joyce: I do have one question in regards to the water, holding water where you suggest there. ' Is that going to be a condition in the recommendation or are you going to use that as kind of an incentive type thing? ' Hempel: No. We're working with the applicant to acquire the easement for it and credit their SWMP fees in turn for the easement. We're not looking at constructing a pond at this time. That would be at a later date. ' Joyce: Would that be something we would look at as a condition? 11 0 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: When you saw at a later date, does that mean when the house is constructed on that lot? Hempel: I think it has to do more with the capital improvements with the Surface Water Management Plan. I think it is outlined 5 years maybe down the plan. I'm not positive on that but we can certainly check on it. It's not a high priority at this time, and adding one additional house will not significantly increase runoff to the area. Skubic: Wouldn't it be more timely to put it in when the construction is going on on that lot? Hempel: There's really not much construction other than sewer and water service into the house. It's a little excessive to put that type of condition I believe... Mancino: Because everybody's generating. Hempel: That's correct. It should be more of a public improvement project or a Surface Water Management Project. Aanenson: Maybe just to add to what Dave is saying is that part of the storm water management plan, we put together a long capital improvement plan identifying high priority problem areas. As Dave indicated, this is on the program, it's just years down the road. As Dave has stated that we don't believe that this is making the situation worst. We have identified that there needs to be some correction in there and we're programming into the long term plans to fix it but we felt it would be onerous at this time to expect one person to solve the problem when it's a little bit larger. But it is being programmed in the capital improvements. Mancino: So it certainly adds to the problem. Aanenson: No. Mancino: It won't take it away. Or are you telling me there's a net. Hempel: There's an opportunity here to ... impact the current situation down there. Mancino: Thank you. Done with the staff report? Al -7aff: I'm done. We're recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. 12 I I 0 U Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission. Gerry Wenkus: Good evening Madam Chair, commission members. My name is Gerry Wenkus. My address is 3531 Maplewood Circle. The property being discussed tonight. I'm here representing the current owners of the property, Steve Arundel and Arne Wasberg and as stated, we're trying to do a subdivision for a future building site upon which I would possibly construct another home. That's my business. I'm in the building business. I think that the applicants would be receptive to the proposed drainage pond that Dave is talking about and I think currently the situation that we're in now, it seems to work quite well but I think Dave's concerns were the water quality into the lake and I think that by enlarging it a little bit it will create more of a sediment than carry out. But the amount of water going into that pond right now has been significantly reduced with Mr. Durr developing the property to the west. So if there's any questions, I'm here to answer those. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing please, and a second. Mehl moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up. State your name and address. Charles Rienstra: Hi. My name's Charles Rienstra. I live at 3511 Maplewood Circle. I have a couple, a few concerns about the property that's been developed. I've lived in this area for 20 years. It was originally developed as 8 lots. Even the majority of the lots there have been subdivided ...concerned about that continuing through the neighborhood. About the drainage. I've been there 20 years. I've seen what drainage comes down there. Every lot there, 8 lots, some part of them drain down that road. All the lots on the south side of the road, basically the entire lot drains down there. We get a half inch rain, there's a river down Maplewood Circle. Until Gerry put that culvert in, and it wasn't a city put culvert, there were times in the winter where it was a skating rink down there, where the water puddled. The runoff also comes from Greenbriar. It comes across my back yard in the lots behind me drains towards my house and then turns in the swales down in this property. I've seen it first hand. I'm not an engineer but it doesn't take a scientist to know water goes downhill. And it's a problem. I think it's addressed properly and the concerns are met, I don't think they are to be handled but I think it's a major problem that has to be addressed. The other thing, you have 8 lots there. There's 31 licensed vehicles on that 8 lots, 3 boats and 4 dogs. They say it's not going to affect the traffic. It is. I sat Sunday, 13 cars, none of them belonging to Maplewood Circle drove up and down that road in a 2 hour period. This is a dead end. Are we going to have a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 problem with traffic? This is our access is going to be limited on that circle. I bring it up. Snow removal is another point that's got to be brought up. It's a tight area down there. So those are my basic concerns. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Bill Modell: Hello. I'm Bill Modell. My wife Danielle. We live at 3521 Maplewood Circle and.. just being here tonight that I have concerns about the proposed development. I'm the closest resident that's most affected by this proposed development. I'm just to the east on Lot 6, right next to number 5. I have many personal concerns affecting my own property and I've submitted a list which is in your staff report. She's got the pointer there on number 6. That's my lot. One of my personal concerns is turn to your page in your staff report. There are many. I'll make it as brief as possible. The key concern is the interruption of the natural flow and the drainage of the storm water that runs around, down the street, through the neighboring yard and my yard's the last one so what my concern is, if this is changed or stopped up or if the natural flow is changed or lost in any way, what's going to happen? Am I going to have a wet basement? Things like that. Now my back yard now already has like a creek almost, or just a low spot where all the water comes in the back yards and down into the neighboring Lot 5. I'm concerned that there's going to be pooling of water ... and then the second concern. Mancino: Excuse me. You did hear Mr. Hempel or Dave say that it shouldn't be any worse than it is now? Bill Modell: Right. Mancino: And that it is a priority on the city's list. Bill Modell: Sure. Mancino: Now when that will actually come up to the top, we don't know. I mean I can't answer that for you tonight. Bill Modell: Well yeah, no. I understand that. What I thought I heard from him is that adding another house isn't going to add any more water or more drainage. Mancino: More runoff. 14 i I ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Bill Modell: Runoff towards the lake. What I'm concerned about is adding another house. What's going to happen upstream. You know if we change things down there, how it's going ' to affect the water that's running through this empty lot now. Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that at this point. Right now there is a house ' on the lot. The drainage does go on the property line. The east property line. Until you get towards the southern part of the lot and then it does head westerly through the back portion of the lot. When they built on that lot, one of the requirements in the conditions of approval is that they submit a grading and drainage, erosion control, tree removal plan for staff to review and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. At that time there's another opportunity for us to assure that the drainage patterns for that neighborhood is maintained. That's another reason why we suggested to push the house further to the west on the lot. Leave the eastern part of the lot alone as it drains today. Mancino: Could it possibly even be better? ' Hempel: It would not be any better. Mancino: It would not be any better, okay. Bill Modell: Okay ... we can talk further on that but my second concern is where this proposed driveway would be getting access to the property. From what I see there, from what I've got ' according to the city's staff report, it shows a driveway on or near the property line on the eastern property line which abuts my property and I'm wondering about a couple things that have to do with that as far as like when the snow removal goes on in the winter, where is the ' snow going to go? Is it going to end up on my property? Is it going to make more trouble out in the street where we already have problems when there's a significant snowfall. And also it's a big concern because my bedroom window's like 30 feet from the property line and I ' just don't want a driveway there... Mancino: Let me see if we can answer a couple of those questions. Sharmin, as far as the ' private driveway goes back to that second lot that will be constructed, how far away from the Modell's property line does it need to be? Can it be right on the property line? ' Al -Jaffa By ordinance it can go up to the property line. Mancino: Okay. Does that mean the paving part? Al -Jaff. Correct. There is a 30 foot wide easement. Most probably it will be in the middle. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I'll touch on that a little bit too. There is currently a storm sewer pipe running along that easterly property line. We would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the westerly portion of that 30 foot easement to maintain that storm sewer and also maintain an overflow drainage swale should the water, we get an intense storm with spring runoff and icy conditions, that the water has the capability of going over the curb and following that property line back, as it does today. So we don't want to disturb that drainage pattern that's out there today so we would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the westerly point. Mancino: At least 10 feet over? Hempel: Right. Mancino: To allow an easement. Bill Modell: You're saying that would be 10 feet off the property line? Mancino: Yes. It could go there. And you can certainly talk with the applicant and have discussions with the applicant about where that does go. Bill Modell: Okay. I guess another concern also that I stated in my list of concerns in the staff report would be again noise from the driveway being on the bedroom side of my house or on the sleeping areas. And also increased traffic flow, which my neighbor touched upon as well. As far as how many cars are going to be coming past my house. That is a dead end street and it gets plenty of traffic as well. Another big concern for my wife and I is we like privacy in our back yard because this house, if you look at that picture would, that would... my back yard and I have a very private back yard now and that was part of my reason for purchasing the property and I was hoping it would stay that way. And now I didn't see this coming. That's a key concern is privacy. There are ways that that can be addressed with trees, with fences, that kind of stuff but I'd like... I guess I think all these different concerns could lead to decreased property value, and it's not the money I care about you know monetary wise. It's the neighborhood in general aesthetically. I don't think, you know I guess if it was me in that house, I wouldn't want a driveway within you know, from me to him from our front door and that's what, it brings that driveway over to the other side, it's going to be cutting right through the front yard of this other house, which is virtually non- existent or very small the way it is. The front of that house would be all driveway. And it's like I say, from studying the staff report, this is some of my personal concerns. I mean they're there. You can look at them but what I see from studying the staff report, it appears to me that the city has a major concern with the drainage. They've addressed it. They've addressed it in a large couple of paragraphs in the report and I think it's a problem and they 16 I i Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 know it's going to be a problem and if it's not dealt with properly, you know it's going to be a future problem. And what happens if they grant the... working at the time but what happens in a year or two when it does back up or something does go wrong. Where do I turn? Mancino: What is the process Dave for that? If there has been construction and it's not, ' something wasn't done correctly. Hempel: It would revert back to the applicant to resolve the problem. ' Bill Modell: I guess in closing I just wanted to say that I do believe that the development would have a very negative impact on the existing neighborhood because the neighborhood is ' totally developed in my opinion and after hearing the concerns that I have, I hope that the city and the neighborhood would support me in seeing that the approval of this development ' be denied. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them right now. Joyce: I have a question, maybe for you Dave. You said a key point was the house looking into your house. Isn't this area lower than the other homes on the other lots? I thought I read in there that it's a few feet lower than most of the other. ' Hempel: Ifs probably equal in elevation to the property to the east, as you continue. The south part of the lot is lower but where the building pad is for this whole, and the type of home that would be constructed, I'm envisioning the house would be up a little bit higher. ' Joyce: Okay but it's not, what I'm trying to say is equal to the other houses. Is it going to be overlooking any house there now? Hempel: It depends on the house type. If they do a rambler. If they'd like a rambler lookout, then they would elevate the homes somewhat. ' Joyce: I'm trying to remember how, I went out and looked at the site and I'm just thinking, it felt to me it looked lower but you know I couldn't tell. Thank you. That's my only question. Bill Modell: Anybody have any other questions? Okay, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Paul Modell: My name is Paul Modell. I live at 3441 Shore Drive and the person you just heard from is my son. Bill lives around the corner from me on Maplewood Circle. I'd like to refer to Bill and Danielle's property as the Modell property and of course the proposed as the subject property. My understanding that the Modell property has 130 feet of frontage on 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Maplewood Circle. It has one driveway. My understanding is that the subject property has 50 feet, or there abouts, on Maplewood Circle and it's proposed that that have two driveways. I've been in the real estate business for 23 years. I helped Bill and Danielle find their house. Searched it out and did the transaction... One of the major factors when they selected that house. It was advertised with a large, private, wooded back yard. The whole block had large lots and that's what they purchased. That's what we found three years ago and now less than three years later, they're going to give up their entire privacy of their back yard. What Bill was talking about with the house overlooking his house, it's not higher or lower or whatever. The point is he has a private living room, dining room, kitchen, back yard. Now we put a house in his back yard. Essentially that's what it is. It's right next to his back yard. And that house overlooks his formerly private yard and house. I can tell you from being in the real estate business for 23 years that this will significantly reduce the value of the Modell property, and I would propose to you that unless the developer is willing to look at a significant dollar amount for that reduction, I strongly suggest that this proposal be denied. Because the damages are significantly monetarily devaluing the Modell property. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions? Dave, it isn't two driveways. It will be one driveway with a cross access easement, correct? Hempel: One driveway access point from the cul -de -sac, which is currently there. Paul Modell: What about the driveway that's currently there? Are you talking about one driveway will come off of the other driveway? Hempel: That's correct. Paul Modell: So the house in the back will drive, they'll drive right next to the existing house? Hempel: It will be like a Y. As you turn off the cul -de -sac and go into the driveway, the existing driveway, there will be another driveway that Y's off to the left. Mancino: So you'll either be able to go straight into the existing house or go left. Paul Modell: I guess I wouldn't want to own either of those two properties... Mancino: Thank you. Paul Modell: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 ' Bob Swearengin: My name is Bob Swearengin. I live at 3530 Maplewood Circle. Just to the north of the proposed development. My neighbors have addressed the technical issues in ' regards to the development of the property. I guess I'd like to address a different point of view, and that's that a neighborhood isn't all technical specifications and setbacks and requirements. There are other factors involved in what makes up a neighborhood. I think we ' all purchased property in this neighborhood because of it's larger lots. Relatively low density. We've all seen Chanhassen develop. I grew up here. I remember when Chanhassen was a two lane highway and the farm store and Pauly's were the only thing on the street. I've seen ' what the City Council and the Planning Commission has done to improve Chanhassen. I've seen the development behind my property, which has made a drastic improvement from a field to a very nice development. I've seen my grandfather's farmhouse support close to 400 ' houses, which is now Longacres. Chanhassen has become very prestigious and a welcome place to live and I would like to see it stay that way. I'm not opposed to development. I ' don't think any of us are. I think what we are concerned about though is, it's not our neighbor anymore that is developing this house. He is no longer the one that owns that property. This is another person that is going to come in and simply profit because there's an extra piece of land available to subdivide. I would hope that the City Council could say there are many places we have in Chanhassen to develop, but let us retain the quality in this particular neighborhood and not maximize each parcel of land that's possible and retain what ' we have in our neighborhood. And so I would hope the Council would vote no for this proposal. ' Mancino: Thank you. Robert Crippa: My name's Robert Crippa. I live at 3501 and 3503 Maplewood Circle. I ' have a duplex at that address. I have a few concerns. The number one is the drainage problem. I am the one that is butted up against Greenbriar Avenue. Every time it rains, I see the water come up Greenbriar, through my back yard and... He didn't say anything about the ' back yard drainage off of Greenbriar Avenue. Off of the houses across the street on Greenbriar, which are higher than us. I have had city crews, when they've been coming in and repairing the streets, put tar to build up the road so that it won't wash down my yard. It ' comes down and it takes all the pine needles with it. Mancino: Robert, could you point to where your home is. Robert Crippa: I own this parcel right here. Mancino: Okay, thank you. 19 H Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Robert Crippa: We get all the drainage from these lots. It comes right through here and comes right through our back yards. My other concern is, I have three young children. The people across the street have two young children. More cars coming down that road, we're right at the tip where everybody turns in. They come around that corner pretty fast sometimes and my concern is, if there's two more vehicles, that's two more chances. There's enough traffic on that road. The other concern is, hey. I have enough land. I can subdivide and put up another house too. Do you want to see another house there? You know we all own big lots. We could put, every one of us could put another house up. Is that what Chanhassen wants? That's my concern. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Sharmin or Kate, basically what the applicant is asking for is legal. Al -Jaff: Correct. It meets ordinance requirements. Conrad: For a private drive, are there any special requirements when we allow a private drive? Al -Jaff: If you have more than one person, one household using the driveway, it has to be built up to a 7 ton standard. Other than that, all we need is a 30 foot easement where the driveway's going to go. Conrad: In terms of the invasion of privacy, we really don't have anything that protects that. I did see in the staff report that we may have to take down some trees. That's significant. Al -Jaff. There are some spruce trees. There's one specific spruce tree that will go. Conrad: But you didn't make an issue out of it so I'm assuming, and you're claiming it's not an issue. That's tough. I understand what the neighbors are saying. I think on the other hand, our role is to review this. I guess I've been looking for, my preference would be not to add a house there. Yet on the other hand it is legal. I don't know if I can give you anything that's solid tonight to be honest with you. I think it's maybe another commissioner might see something different than I but I think the staffs done it's job. I think what you'll find is that, what you've got is engineering looking at the issue and paying far more attention than you Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 might have had otherwise. I think engineering staff certainly is looking at the major issues. We certainly, one house shouldn't make a major difference. I'm always concerned that we ' don't delay water projects, especially if they impact the lake but as long as I know it's on our task for making sure that all the area runoff is pre- treated, that's important. I agree with the staff report. I just have a tough time dealing with this but I think the applicant has the right ' to do this and it does affect privacy and I can relate to that. The only thing I'd like to do with the staff report is make sure that we shift that driveway to the left as much as we can. I'd really like to get it. I really don't like allowing private drives on that property line. It just ' bothers me and maybe we should look at that sometime because that just really does seem like an invasion of privacy. I don't like it. It's there. The neighbors are stuck with it but maybe we, it won't help you out but maybe we can take a look at it for other people and see ' if there's something we can do. So again I'd like to shift it. I think the staff report's good. It's looking at the issues and if we make sure that the staff follows them up, it will protect it ' as much as I think we can in the city. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Well I think the staff did a great job of addressing all the issues that the neighbors brought up. I mean I think you did an excellent job. I think the drainage issue certainly has ' been addressed. As Dave said, they're looking into a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan so I think the city is certainly taking it seriously. It's not taking it lightly. I think it's basically an aesthetic problem and listen, I can agree with you. I mean, ' particularly the Modell's. They're going to be the ones, I think you're going to be the ones that are going to have the biggest impact because it's going to be right next to your property. The rest of the neighborhood, you know I can accept the cars going through and things like ' that but what Ladd said is right. I mean they have a right to, someone bought this property and intended to use it for something. It's in the guidelines. I don't have anything else to add. I just, I am concerned about the drainage issue but if they're comfortable not putting it in as a part of the condition but that it will be looked at, and I think it will be, I'd be in favor of it. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Well I think staff dealt with the issues that they could. Drainage and the grading and such and it's unfortunate that there is that invasion of privacy with the private drives so ' close to the adjacent land and we've encountered this in the past. I can recall two or three occasions and I agree with Ladd that that's something that we should probably take a look at. I have a question, what is the subdivision potential of the other lots on Maplewood Circle ' here in regards to traffic? Future traffic congestion. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Aanenson: How the other lots could be subdivided in the future? A lot of it depends on the home placement of the lots. Whether or not you could get the common driveway. I think Ladd's right on the mark as far as the private driveway issue. You have to realize that staff struggled with this application for several months. When it first came in there was a lot of discussion as to how it could be, whether or not we even could support it but our hands were tied as we worked a lot closer with the City Attorney's office and based on the fact that he could do a private driveway, which is allowed by ordinance, it did allow it. Again this is the largest lot in the subdivision. It's well over an acre and as you look over time, that's what we're seeing subdividing. The pressures for taxes become onerous for some people and they have an acre and a half and an opportunity to subdivide. Certainly this is an issue we struggled with because it does change the character of the neighborhood, which we are concerned about. But there is an opportunity, the minimum lot size is 15,000 and people have enough to meet the standards of the ordinance. They have that opportunity. I think based on the discussion we're hearing tonight, that you would like the staff to revisit the private driveway issue and see what other opportunities to prevent this sort of situation. But I think based on the fact that because it is a large lot and we see that all the time, the pressures to subdivide are great based on financial reasons. So there may be other opportunities maybe just look at it just a broad brush approach to see. It depends on how the house is sitting on the lot, whether or not you can get other driveways. The neighbors have indicated that's not always the most desirable if you're going to split, to have a driveway come closer. But that doesn't mean people can't... common one down between two lots where they're set back further ...but you raise a good point. Skubic: Yeah, I don't have the basis to deny this or vote against this application. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Pretty much everything's been covered here. We've seen this issue several times when older developments come into play with someone who wishes to either finance development through subdivision or we get into the issue of buffering next to a higher density development next to a larger lot development. There's no solution for this outside of where our ordinances are, and we have to follow what is legal. The property owner's entitled to legally develop their property. Chanhassen does not have a large lot, single family resident zone. We have a minimum development that is required in this city as far as square footage goes on the lot. In fact there are a lot of forces both in the city and outside the city to reduce that even further and a lot of times neighborhoods come in where there's larger lots are in place and they talk about that they've lived here for a considerable length of time and having lived here for a considerable length of time myself, it's true. There is an ... there's a feeling that is not in some of the smaller lot developments and I think it's unfortunate that there is no recourse for that but that's simply the way that it's set up. We have looked at that. There is 22 I ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 ' no support that I know of for large lot minimums, as a separate zone. And it is the only way that that issue would ever be tackled. We have I think a record out there, if we look at some ' of these older urban areas from Minneapolis to Edina to Minnetonka to Eden Prairie. Eventually all these lots get subdivided because eventually what happens is that somebody comes in to purchase the property and uses that subdivision capability to finance the purchase. ' And eventually areas are just maximized out for that development under what the minimums are. There's always exceptions to the rule but primarily if you look around, that's what ' happens. Mancino: Eventually. ' Farmakes: Eventually. And as planners we have to look at the long term development situation and we also have to deny or approve based on what the city's ordinances are and I ' don't see any way to not approve this. That's it. Mancino: Don. Mehl: I agree with what's been discussed here. They definitely have a right to develop it. One major concern I've got is that the street and circle does slope quite heavily down toward ' that end. Down toward that property and there's a potential for a lot of water to go down there. And the thing I'd be concerned about is the, well I support the driveway being shifted to the west. The driveway's certainly going to perhaps be raised some more so that the ' immediate grassy areas, so the water then may be channeled into a tighter, smaller area or something. I guess I'd be concerned that the drainage problem be worked out, not so it should work but it will work. If that can be done. You know so the city and the developer ' and the applicant can work that out. Mancino: Will work that out. Okay, thank you. I have a question about the private drive. ' You say a 30 foot private drive with 20 feet has to be paved because it's serving two houses. Oh, excuse me. ' Hempel: Sorry Madam Chair. The private driveway, the common portion of the private driveway would have to be 20 foot wide. The remaining portion of the driveway could be on up to I believe probably 10 feet. Mancino: Oh good. So as you go into the existing house, you're going straight and then when you bear off to the left, that left arm could be 10 feet so it doesn't have to take down as many trees. Doesn't have to, it can be even go over to the west even more. Great. Good. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Hempel: Madam Chair, that's a minimum of 10 feet. I guess it's typically up to a builder. Homeowner. Standard driveway width's probably 14 or 15. Mancino: 14 or 15 feet, okay. And that would still, one of the other questions that was asked was, it would still give enough room for snow removal, etc on each side of the driveway. Correct Dave? Hempel: With the driveway being shifted westerly and reduced in width, yes. Mancino: Okay. Are there trees that need to be added to this development, and could they be added in a place that would serve the new lot and the existing homeowner to have some privacy. Could we have the trees placed there so that we do have a little bit of buffering, a little bit of privacy provided? Al -Jaff: It's all going to depend on how many trees they take down after they finish development of the site. That's when we will. Mancino: Assess how many trees. At this point did you make a general calculation Shemin? Al -Jaff. Correct. Yes we did. Mancino: Isn't it, was it 2 trees? Al -Jaff: The requirement is 55 %. The tree removal and the house would take approximately 28 %. So it leaves 52 %. So the developer will be required to replace 3% difference. Mancino: And we could say in our conditions that any other trees that are taken out, that those be placed so that they can buffer or make it be the adjoining property? Al -Jaff: We can require that. Mancino: Okay. Al -Jaff: There is a drainage way in that area also so we need to make sure that it... Mancino: Okay. Okay, I understand. Anything that we can do there, I would like to see the applicant do so there could be some natural buffering. Aanenson: I think that's probably the best way to word it. Leave it so we can work with it. 24 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: So we can work with that. This will continue happening in areas like this, correct. Sad. It's hard. Aanenson: You're going to see a lot more of it, yeah. ' Mancino: And it's legal and it's what we do and it is going to continue happening over the city and that's too bad. Do I have a motion? ' Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion Madam Chairman that the Planning Commission ' recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96 -7, according to the staff report dated May 1, 1996 with the 13 points listed in the staff report but with addition to point number 4 that the driveway be shifted to the west a minimum of 10 feet or that ' recommended by the staff. Moving the private drive to the west from the property line. My other, I want to add, it won't be a point but it will be a strongly worded statement to the applicant that the city's Planning Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work with the staff to minimize the visual impact to the property to the east through whatever means possible and I think they should do this just in terms of being a good neighbor and I would hope that staff could work with the applicant on this aspect of the recommendation. ' Mancino: And you did not want to make that a point in the conditions? ' Conrad: Well I just don't know how to do that. It's not legal. It's not, I just would like it there but I don't know that we can force it to happen. ' Mancino: Okay. Do you accept a friendly amendment to item 14 that says at this point, the applicant must plant two trees on a new lot to meet ordinance requirements and I would just like to add to say, to reword that to say the applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to ' meet city, to meet ordinance requirements and to add buffering to the lot on the east. To Lot 6. I didn't say that very well. ' Conrad: Boy, I couldn't figure that out. Aanenson: The way I understand it is, if we worked to place those strategically so they ' provide the best buffering. If we can't put it in that area because of the drainage swale, that we work to provide the best screenage for the neighboring property. Whether it's so you can't see into their living room or their back yard, whatever we work to strategically place that tree, is that what you're looking for? ' Mancino: Exactly. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Aanenson: Provide the best screening. Mancino: So can you say that in 5 words or less? Aanenson: And place trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. Mancino: To the abutting property to the east. Conrad: Yeah, I would accept it. That's in addition to what point Madam Chair? Mancino: 14. Conrad: 14. And maybe staff could note that we have two 13's on the page. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 996 -7, Arundel Addition for two single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the trees showing grading limits prior to grading. 2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1. 3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer. 4. The application will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow 26 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 ' 12. Park and Recreation conditions: a Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code. 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A demolition permit will be required. 14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place the tires in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. 27 with the city $2,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final ' plat a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible per the staffs approval. ' 5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary ' sewer. 7. An emergency overflow Swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle. ' S. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle to the property line. ' 9. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on Lot 2 for future storm water pond. ' 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise identification (copy enclosed). ' 12. Park and Recreation conditions: a Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code. 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A demolition permit will be required. 14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place the tires in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 15. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed at the grading perimeters. All voted in favor and the motion carded. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 17, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: There were light items on as far as planning issues. Just to update you. Southwest Metro is working on a transit hub located on Highway 5 between Prairie Center Drive and what will be the new alignment of Technology Drive. They did present those plans to the City Council. Since we are one of the partners, along with Eden Prairie and Chaska in Southwest Metro, Sharmin is active in working on, that's one of the areas that we'll be looking at putting some housing. We're working with Carver County HRA to do a housing project there so it'd be the transit hub, some commercial and some houses so we're working on the design of that. Just wanted to let you know that even though it's in Eden Prairie, that we're pursuing some hopefully some creative designs on that piece of property to meet some of our housing goals. Then the other thing, there was a planning issue on that Council meeting was the wetland alteration permit and then I have quite a few ongoing items I'd like to update you on. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: The Masse request, which was the property off of Lyman and Galpin which was requesting for the multi - family project, has been withdrawn based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. So it will not go to the Council. In that same vein, Mr. Hoben has withdrawn his application on his subdivision too. Mancino: On Melody Hill? Aanenson: Correct. Yes, he withdrew the application. Other ongoing items. Met Council held a meeting out here regarding the growth options. There's three different options. I'll be providing a report to the Council and also I'll include that to you. There were three different options in that same vein. The builders commissioned their own study to present, kind of lobbying their position on that. Obviously one of the positions is to not extend the MUSA. What that does is, what they're trying to do is create more infill and when you can see the pressures of some of that is to provide, where we do have a lot of large lots, is to provide 28 I City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 ' is able to develop some off site storage, and is able to show a good faith effort to comply with some fairly stringent restrictions that we would put on displays, I think we would be spiteful if we didn't at least entertain it. And our job is not to be spiteful. ' Mayor Chmiel: True. As long as it's in conformance with what the ordinances are. ' Councilman Berquist: That's true. And also within the variances allowed. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. But with this there are no variances to what's on the books right now. We would have to do some changes of that. Councilman Berquist: No. All we'd be doing is issuing a conditional use permit. ' Mayor Chmiel: Does that specifically conditional use permits John? John Rask: Well, it is. It's an interim use in that district. The reason I didn't put all this, the past history of ' what happened out there and the violations that occurred is trying to focus on the fact that it's not consistent with what's there in the zoning district now. It's not consistent to what the district was created for and it's for those reasons where the staff has recommended denial of it and I think I heard the motion where you referenced the staff report and I was assuming you were adopting those same reasons. So if something can be worked out. ' You know we felt that 2 would be too many in this instance and that it wasn't consistent with the district and anything short of rezoning the property wasn't acceptable. And rezoning we didn't seem to think was acceptable either so. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to deny the Interim Use Permit 096 -1, and that all boats be removed from the premises by Friday, May 24, 1996, based on the findings presented in the staff report, and more specifically, the Council rinds the following: ' 1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN district. 2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district. ' 3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and intent of interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance. ' 4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning district. 5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the neighborhood ' oriented retail center and residential developments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELMMgARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 5. BLOCK 1. MAPLEWOOD INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE. ARUNDEL ADDMON.. 30 1 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 Sharmin Al -Jaff: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. There's a correction on this application. The applicant had requested this be a preliminary plat only. And the staff report indicates that but the agenda reflects preliminary and final. The site is located south of Maplewood Circle. Briefly, just to give you a background on this subdivision. In 1964, Maplewood Subdivision was approved. It consisted of 8 lots. Lot 5 had an area of 1.3 acres. It is the largest parcel within this subdivision. This is an established neighborhood. All of the parcels have homes on them. The applicant is requesting to subdivide this lot into two single family lots. There's an existing single family home on this site. Lot 2 is proposed for future development of a single family home. It will be accessed off of Maplewood Circle, off of the cul -de -sac via a cross access easement. One of the issues that came up at the Planning Commission meeting was in regard to privacy and specifically by the neighbor to the east. Our ordinances do not address this issue. However, what we had recommended was the driveway be pushed as far as possible to the west and keep it as far as can be from the property line to the east of this site. Another suggestion that we made was to push the single family home house pad as far as possible to the west. This will increase the setback from the property to the east. It will also save an existing 32 inch silver maple tree. We are recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions of Sharmin? Steve. Councilman Berquist: Not right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Gerry Wenkus: Good evening. My name is Gerry Wenkus. I live at 3531 Maplewood Circle. I'm here tonight representing Steve Arundel. I guess what we wanted to mention was, as we looked, Sharmin had mentioned that staff was recommending. We do want to work with the city to get the necessary drainage easements that they requested. We'd also like to address the concerns of the adjacent property owner and install a minimum of two additional trees along the lot line to help screen in addition to the city would require. And then also we'd like to locate the driveway equal distance from both houses to minimize the impact of the driveway to the neighbors house. Or to both houses really. I guess that's about it. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer those for you. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: As far as the other conditions that are contained in there, we have approximately 14 or is there 15 Sharmin? As I looked at those two, we had two 14's. Sharmin AI -Jaff: 15 conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address anything specific on this issue that's before us? Okay. If not, Steve. 31 I 1 L I I 1 11 1 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 Councilman Berquist: I had a hard time with this one. This one tastes, smells, feels completely different than the one that we did down on Great Plains Boulevard back in March. This one disturbs an existing neighborhood that was platted as large lots. It is a large lot. It does have drainage problems. But it smells bad to me. I've got to ask Gerry, what's driving this? Gerry Wenkus: Basically Mr. Arundel purchased the property. Councilman Berquist: The entire parcel? Gerry Wenkus: Pardon? Councilman Berquist: The entire parcel? Gem Wenkus: The entire parcel, that's correct. Councilman Berquist: Is this your home? Gerry Wenkus: That's where I'm living currently, yes. And moving to put in another single family home on the other property. I'm in that business. I'm in the contracting business. Councilman Berquist: And the intent when the property was purchased was to subdivide and gain a little equity immediately. Gerry Wenkus: That's correct. Councilman Berquist: In essence. Gerry Wenkus: When I bought the property originally, 17 years ago, I was told it could be subdivided. Unfortunately I didn't check with the city at that time but it didn't comply then. It does comply now with the current ordinances. Steve Arundel: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Steve Arundel: I'm Mr. Arundel. Mavor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can pick that up. That's okay. Steve Arundel: I'm Steve Arundel and I'm the owner of the property and I guess it's the original Maplewood Circle development. There's been a lot of development in the lots behind. I'm not sure what the name of the street is but it's the development, do you know what the name of that is? Gem Wenl:us: It'd be Mr. Durr's property. Councilman Berquist: Oh Ironwood is the property that is directly behind that. 32 u City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 Steve Arundel: Right. And the lot, you know if it's on the street... there's a giant piece of property with a house that's right up on the street so being that there's been a lot of development around there, it would seem that the placement of another house in that area wouldn't be inconsistent with the further development of the whole area. I can imagine if there's one street and everybody has a back yard full of woods and everything else but this huge piece of land, I think 1.3 acres, has a small house sitting right up against the street and then this huge back yard with nothing in it but a bunch of pine trees circling the area. It seems that it wasn't going to affect any of the neighbors and it was consistent with all the other development... even directly behind it. That's my point. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Councilman Berquist: Sharmin there was, again this is one of the items that was at the Planning Commission meeting that I was at. There was a gentleman that had lived in the house to the east that had expressed some concerns about sight lines and I know that the applicant had sent in a letter that talked about moving the home further to the western point. And planting some additional coniferous trees to hide it. Did that owner respond to that in any manner? Sharmin Al -Jaff: It was a discussion that we had with the applicant. We made the recommendation that they approach the homeowner. Councilman Berquist: I'm somewhat surprised that they're not here. That the people that were at the Planning Commission meeting and were adamant in their feelings about this, are not here to voice their's. Voice their opinions tonight. Sharmin Al -Jaff: They were made aware of this meeting and they're always encouraged to appear before the City Council. Councilman Berquist: Okay. What's that? Councilman Senn: Oh. My understanding from one of them was that based on what the Planning Commission action vas, it wasn't a question of if. I mean it fait du complete so it was kind of why. Councilman Berquist: The way I see it, we opened a very complex issue by permitting this within an area that was platted in 1964. Granted it's large lot. Granted it meets the ordinances as they currently stand. I'm reluctant to make, I'm reluctant to approve this sort of thing on a piecemeal basis when I perceive that it affects the neighbors. And the neighbors all bought, or at least I don't want to put words in their mouths but I would suspect that one of the reasons that they all bought was because of the attractiveness of large lots. Secluded nature. The privacy. The room to run if you will of the large lot and we begin to change the flavor of the neighborhood in a very dramatic way by permitting this to happen. Particularly on a cul -de -sac. I'll end it there for now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Gerry Wenkus: May I address that particular issue? Mavor Chmiel: Sure. Restate Your name so we get this. 33 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 Gerry Wenkus: I'd just like to mention that it is the largest parcel in there and each of the two lots would be 2/3 of an acre and that's about the size of the smallest lot that's in there currently. This particular lot is kind of at the end of the housing. The house pad if you will won't be very visible from the street necessarily with the ' trees that will be screening it ... so we felt there was going to be minimal impact by this and we've addressed, tried to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the city planners to make sure that we were ... we certainly feel we've accomplished that. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Michael. Councilman Mason: This is one that I can't get right either. In terms of what it will do to that neighborhood. ' Boy, I don't know. I'm on the fence on this one right now. I guess I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess I could say I'm not on the fence. I've gone out and looked at it and I just don't see any way that it works. I think the neighbors have every right in the world to stress the opinions as well as concerns that they did at the Planning Commission. I just, you know you can't downplay the impact of this on the neighborhood. I don't think you can downplay the impact of it probably on property values and other things. And I don't think, you know I don't, I look at it and try to make it make sense and I can't say that it ' makes sense. I have a hard time with it or supporting it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is everyone is saying that they have concerns with the people within the particular area ' where this is being proposed, and I just want you to know that the property owner too has the right to develop his parcel as long as it's consistent with the city's ordinances. And it's quite evident that everything is as such. I think that's something we have to look at before we come up with a solution to it. I know that I've had this same specific thing that happened to us with the house being built directly in back of us, which was all one lot ' and that got subdivided as well. And I figured he had the right to do it. He bought it. He purchased it and he had all the rights in the world to put that structure up, even though it did block my visibility of what I wanted to see. Two lakes and a few other things. But I don't know. There is sort of mixed emotions with this but I ' still think that that property owner does have a right to draw up plans, even though there are some problems as each is indicated in regard to maybe that topography of that site. ' Councilman Berquist: Well to me, if every homeowner on that circle, every homeowner within that particular development came in here and wanted to do the same thing, at the same time, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Because that would all mean that they were in agreement with what needed to be done and they all wanted to gain a little instant equity. That's not the situation. We're on the end of a cul -de -sac. That cul -de -sac was ' designed to serve 6 lots. Now all of a sudden we're opening up and putting a sixth one on there. Yes, it's within ordinance. ' Mavor Chmiel: Well yeah, but when you look at both parcels as they have been, that consisted of what, an acre and 1/3 totally, and once they divide that into two equal portions of that, it's still 2/3 of an acre lot. 1 Councilman Berquist: I understand this. Mavor Chmiel: So there's nothing that's being built directly upon the adjacent residents as well. ' 34 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 Councilman Berquist: That is true. Mayor Chmiel: So it's still, from where I see it. Roger, from a legality aspect, is there any way that we can deny this proposal? If it's consistent with all the ordinances. Roger Knutson: If it complies with all ordinances, complies with the comprehensive plan, no. If you're satisfied that it complies with all standards in your ordinances, you don't have much basis to turn it down, if you find that to be the case. Councilman Berquist: What about the rights and the concerns of the adjoining homeowners that bought large lots and again for the same thing I reiterated before. We're changing the complexion of the neighborhood. Granted perhaps not with one but perhaps with two. Perhaps with three so looking at it from the one instance. Again, if we had 8 people, or 6 people in here wanting to do this same thing, all in agreement, I would have no problem. But where one individual looking for instant equity to try and change the flavor of the neighborhood. Granted it's within his rights from an ordinance point of view. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'm not sure of that. I guess what I'd like Roger to do is look at that issue and research if there are findings of fact, given what I'm hearing. Roger Knutson: Councilmember, in response to what you said. What you pointed out I think may be why there's a defect in our ordinance. The standards, they comply with all the ordinances and I have not researched that so I'm not able to make judgment on that. But if that is the case, you have limited discretion. Councilman Senn: Maybe we should table it tonight and ask Roger to research both of those issues. Mayor Chmiel: You had your hand up. Steve Arundel: ...my residence is in Eden Prairie and I live on a cul -de -sac also and when I moved there in 1987 I was the only house up there and for several years I had 2 or 3 vacant lots around me that were my playground for the kids and you know where I put the leaves and everything else and as the houses gradually were built around there, it certainly was less desirable than not having them but I can understand that there would be lots built there. And I heard that there's going to be an impact on the neighborhood and I'm trying to change the flavor of the neighborhood and I'm not sure I specifically understand. If the ordinance allows for this to happen, why there is an opinion that we're trying to change anything. The houses would only be visible by one other house, of all the other five lots. And as you mentioned in the issue of the boat, that these people were so concerned about it, why didn't they come tonight and voice their concern. It seems to me like the Council is taking up the cause for the people that didn't bother to come out here tonight even though there's no legal recourse. We've done our homework with staff and they've given us the green light. I can understand... for some instant equity but when you look at this situation and because the size of lots, thought that it would be consistent with the size of the other lots. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Mark, you were saying. Councilman Senn: It seems like many of the answers to these questions as supposition at best at this point, so I guess I like the idea of tabling it and having Roger research the issue of whether this does meet all the ordinance provisions, intents, etc. and go from there. 35 ' City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 ' Roger Knutson: Sharmin, do we have time on this? Sharmin AI -Jaff: The application was submitted on March 15th so we still have another, more than two months. Roger Knutson: I'll report back, I'll get you a letter before you next meeting then. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me see if there's a second to the table. Councilman Berquist: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Councilman Mason: Discussion. If that's the direction of Council, and that's fine. I'll certainly vote to table for now but I think a point is very well made ..., Arundel, I'm sorry. Steve Arundel: Arundel. ' Councilman Mason: Sorry. I think Mr. Arundel does make a very valid point that adding, his point is well taken and I think our City Attorney's point is well taken that if this fits our legal parameters, if anything it's a flaw in the ordinance and I don't think we can hold Mr. Arundel culpable for a flaw in the ordinance. If that's the direction we want to take. Then I think we need to revisit the ordinance but I believe the term is, is it ipso or deport facto? I mean we can't, I mean if this in fact is his right to do that, and all the rules are being followed, whether I like it or not, I think that needs to be taken into account too but at this point I'll certainly vote to table and take a look at what comes next. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to table. ' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the preliminary plat to Subdivision Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood into two single family lots, 3531 Maplewood Circle, Arundel Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' APPOIINTMENT TO HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY., Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Under State Statute the Mayor has the authority to appoint members to the HRA with the concurrence of the City Council. With that, staff had direction from the Mayor to appoint a new HRA member. Commissioner Robbins' term is up and he has informed me that he would like ' to be reappointed to the HRA. With that, staff looks for direction. Mayor Chmiel: Charlie does a good job as far as I'm concerned on the HRA, and I feel that he's quite capable of asking questions and getting those questions also answered. So I would make a motion that we reappoint Charlie Robbins for another 5 year term to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Is there a second? Not hearing a second, my recommendation then would be to table this item to our next meeting and discuss it at that particular time. Is there a second to table? Councilman Mason: I'll second that. I think this may be a better discussion with the full Council. Mavor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. 36