The URL can be used to link to this page

3 SUB Knob Hill 2nd AdditionPROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: CiTY OF PC DATE: 2/19/02 CC DATE: 3/11/02 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3/19/02 CASE #: 2002-2 Sub STAFF REPORT Request for preliminary plat approval for nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way with a variance request for a private street and a variance from the subdivision regulations for a 60-foot by 60-£oot building pad, Knob Hill 2nd Addition. -. Located at the end of Knob Hill Lane and south of Lilac Lane Metro Area Properties, Inc. 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 474-5662 Jim and Sharon Donovan 1375 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family Residential, RSF Residential - Low Density (Net Densfty Range 1.2- 4.0 Units per Acre) ACREAGE: 7.59 acres Itl DENSITY: gross: 1.18 units per acre net: 1.39 units per acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to divide the property into nine single-family lots with a variance to permit the use of a private street to access a portion of the site. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the subdivision regulations on Lot 1, Block 2, due to the inability to show a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad because of an existing Utility easement containing a water main. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. ' Cir. =_ast~... ilac Lane Knob Hill 2nil Addition February 19, 2002 Page 2 If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Section 18-57 (r) Private streets Chapter 20 Zoning Article XII RSF District Regulations BACKGROUND The property is zoned Single Family Residential district and is guided for residential - low density (net density 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre). An existing house sits on the highpoint of the site in the west central portion of the property. Three developments surround the project site. The oldest development, Curry Farms, Subdivision #87-19, is located to the southeast of the site and has an average lot size of 20,550 square feet. Directly to the east, Ithilien Addition, subdivision #92-4, has an average lot size of 17,129 square feet. The Knob Hill development, subdivision #95-20, through which this project will access, has an average lot size of 25,128 square feet. ANALYSIS The site contains a relatively open and level area that encompasses the northern and eastern portions of the site. The southwest and southern parts of the property rise up to elevations of 1030 from the plane of 1010 in this low part of the site. The site then falls away to the southwest to the pond area known as Clausen Lake. Wooded areas are located along the perimeter of the site and south and southeast of the existing house. A double row of smaller evergreens is planted along the eastern property line from the driveway entrance on Lilac Lane to the tennis court in the east-central portion of the property. A small, man-made pond is located in the north central portion of the property. A swale drains water from the northern portion of the property to the wetland complex at the bottom of the hill, north of Lilac Lane. The developer is proposing a nine lot subdivision of a 7.59 acre property zoned RSF. The developer is requesting the use of a private street to access the four southerly lots. The applicant has also prepared an alternate preliminary plat showing a public street. Staff advised the developer that the project would need to meet the standards to justify a private street. The developer's primary argument is that neighboring property owners would be less opposed to a private street than a public street. However, based on staff review of the public street option, the use of a private street is not justified since there is no enhanced environmental protection due to the use of the private street. Staff is recommending that the public street be realigned to go to the eastern property line adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, Smith Hill Addition, which is shown on the plans as Curry Farms Outlot C. Since Lot 1, Block 1, Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 2 Smith Hill Addition does not have frontage on a public street, this alignment does not violate city design requirements. With this street alignment change, portions of Outlot A are incorporated into Lot 6, Blockl, and Lot 3, Block 2, and as part of the right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane. In this way, Outlot A is eliminated, the lot lines for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, can be revised creating a larger house pad, a minimum of 60 feet by 60 feet, for Lot 1 that would not encroach into the required setbacks of easements - eliminating the variance from the subdivision regulations standards, and Outlot B would become Outlot A. Staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition without any variances, subject to the conditions of the staff report. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, subdivision ordinance and zoning regulations based on the revisions recommended in the staff report. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Knob Hill 2nd Addition are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 7.59 ac or 330,620 SF 3.65 ac or 158,994 SF 48% 35 % or 2.66 ac. 31% or 2.35 ac. The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 13,504 SF 1.2 16,205 SF 15 trees A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city for approval. The applicant's mitigation planting plan includes 21 trees, 8 deciduous and 13 evergreens. Staff recommends placing a tree preservation easement over the western portions of Lots 2-6, Block 1 as shown with a public street. The rear yards of those lots are heavily treed and of value as a buffer and natural area. Staff makes the following recommendations for easements: Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 4, Bock 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' Rear 60' to be determined Southerly 60' and westerly to be determined Rear 60' Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 3 WETLANDS One utilized wetland exists on-site. The wetland is a Type 3 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to fill the wetland to accommodate the proposed extension of Knob Hill Lane and two building pads. It appears that the wetland may have been unintentionally created. Staff has informed the applicant that the wetland is currently subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, but that the applicant may wish to apply for an exemption from these requirements. Staff has not received a completed exemption application. An exemption or wetland replacement plan must be approved prior to any alterations to this wetland. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 40% of the site for the new house pads (Block 2), a proposed street ending with a cul-de-sac and utility improvements. The proposed lots located in the southwesterly portion of the proposed street will be custom graded. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout-type dwellings on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, and drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The street drainage is to be conveyed via storm sewer to a storm water pond at the north part of the parcel for treatment prior to discharging to the existing natural swale. The pond shall have a 3:1 slope with 10:1 bench at NWL. There is an existing tennis court, bituminous private driveway and existing pond to be removed. In the southwest and south area, no storm drainage improvements have been proposed due to the existing topography that drains toward the south Clausen Lake. The developer's engineer has to provide drainage calculations which show that the proposed pond and the storm sewer are sufficiently sized to handle the proposed development. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Also, Watershed District approval will be required prior to building permit issuance. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the perimeter of the site. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Storm Water Managentent The proposed development should be designed to meet the City's water quality and water quantity requirements. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. CBMH 2 should be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge into the proposed pond. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed pond will outlet into a public drainage system capable of handling the discharge. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 4 It appears that the applicant is attempting to minimize the amount of vegetation in and around the proposed storm water pond through the use of riprap at and below the normal water level. Riparian vegetation is difficult to eliminate and vegetation actually enhances the ability of ponds to remove storm water pollutants. It is recommended that the applicant consider alternatives for improving the aesthetics of the proposed pond. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all storm water ponds. Five foot drainage and utility easements on the side property lines and ten foot drainage and utility easements on the front and rear property lines shall be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion and Sediment Control Silt fence should be provided immediately down slope of the proposed custom graded areas. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Sttrface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for the proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 7.05 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,640. Water Quantity Fees The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $13,959 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,599. Knob Hill 2"d Addition February 19, 2002 Page 5 Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Knob Hill Lane. The existing home on the property is connected to municipal sewer and water from Knob Hill Lane. Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the northwest side. The applicant is also proposing'to extend sewer and water lines along Knob Hill Lane to service the other proposed lots. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each lot. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. STREETS The developer has proposed two alternatives for the development: a private street and a public street. The development does not meet the criteria necessary for the approval of a private street, therefore, a public street shall be required. The plans propose to extend Knob Hill Lane in its full width approximately 800 feet and construct a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of the lane, in front of Lots 4, 5 and 6. The new street will provide street access to all of the lots. The existing bituminous driveway along the northwest side to the parcel shall be removed and restored with vegetation. PARKS AND RECREATION The Parks and Recreation Commission will be meeting February 26, 2002, to review the proposed development. In conversations with the Parks and Recreation Director, the director will be recommending that a trail easement be required along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block 1, which will eventually connect with an existing trail in the Curry Farms development. COMPLIANCE TABLE Private Street Description Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) RSFDistrict 15,000 90, 100 ft. if 125 accessed via private street Notes Setbacks: 30', rear side 10' front - - 30', Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 6 Lot 1, Block 1 62,833 Lot 2, Block 1 26,102 Lot 3, Block 1 20,126 Private Street Lot 4, Block 1 18,022 Private Street Lot 5, Block 1 24,391 Private Street Lot 6, Block 1 25,506 Private Street Lot 1, Block 2 15,763 Lot 2, Block 2 15,499 Lot 3, Block 2 21,635 Outlot A 47,036 Outlot B 23,391 Knob Hill Lane 30,478 Average Lot Size 25,541 Total 330,78 * at building setback line. Alternate Plat Description Area (sq. ft.) RSF District 15,000 Lot 1, Block 1 69,775 Lot 2, Block 1 28700 Lot 3, Block 1 25,433 Lot 4, Block 1 24,309 Lot 5, Block 1 26,342 Lot 6, Block 1 18,543 LOt 1, Block 2 15,763 Lot 2, Block 2 15,552 Lot 3, Block 2 21,412 Outlot A 6,095 317 106 * 107 107 108 * 103 * 123 91 145 Frontage (ft.) 9O 334 104 114 183 97 * 108 123 9O 149 168 268 202 182 2O5 190 195 173 170 Depth (ft.) 125 211 283 255 192 166 195 177 174 170 60 rear conservation 45' rear conservation rear conservation to be determined 80' rear conservation Notes Setbacks: front - 30', rear - 30', side 10' 30, 30, 10 30, 30, 10 60 rear conservation 30, 30, 10 45' rear conservation 30, 30, 10 rear conservation to be determined 30, 30, 10 80' rear conservation 30, 30, 10 30, 30, 10 30, 30, 10 30, 30, 10 Knob Hill 2na Addition February 19, 2002 Page 7 Outlot B 23,391 Knob Hill Lane 55,496 Average Lot Size 27,311 Total 330,781 * at building setback line FINDINGS SUBDIVISION (Section 18-39 (e) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. . The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. o The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7~ The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ao Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 8 d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Private Street: The subdivision ordinance requires that the city find that a private street meets both the criteria for approval of a private street and variance findings. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions eXist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. The use of the private street does not permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources. The proposed plan does not provided added protection of slopes or wooded areas. A public street can be incorporated within the development. FINDINGS VARIANCE (Section 18-22) Private Street The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 9 e The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Finding: The hardship for a private street is a mere inconvenience since a public street can be accommodated within the plat. There are not physical limitations to the installation of a public street. Them are no environmental features on the site, which would be preserved through the use of a private street. The granting of the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 60' x 60' Building Pad The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and e The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Findings: The variance for a 60' x 60' building pad is a mere inconvenience since with a redesign of the plat, a 60' x 60' building pad can be accommodated for all lots. While the site is constrained and the recommended plat revisions pushes a house closer to the existing houses in Ithilien Addition, the design requirements can be accomplished within the plat. The granting of the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report." "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition, plans prepared by RLK Kuusisto, Ltd., dated January 17, 2002, revised February 6, 2002, creating nine lots, one outlot and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject to the following conditions: Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 10 1. The plat shall be revised to align the fight-of-way for Knob Hill Lane to the property line of Lot 1, Block 1, Smith Hill Addition. 2. Outlot A, in the eastern portion of the plat, shall be eliminated and Outlot B, on the north end of the plat, shall be renamed Outlot A. 3. Lot the lines for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, shall be revised to permit a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad outside of required setbacks and easements on Lot 1, Block 2. 4. The applicant shall make note on landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7' in height, with a 6' minimum. 5. Lots 2-6, Block 1, shall contain tree preservation easements in the rear yards. Easements shall be determined based on staff recommendations: 6~ a. Lot 2, Block 1 b. Lot 3, Block 1 c. Lot 4, Block 1 d. Lot 5, Block 1 e. Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' Rear 60' to be determined Southerly 60' and the westerly to be determined Rear 60' Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. The shed on Lot 2, Block 1 must either be moved to Lot 1, Block 1, or demolished. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 8. Separate sewer and water services must be provided for each lot. o An exemption or wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to any alterations to the wetland on-site. 10. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 11. CBMH 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge into the proposed pond. 12. The proposed pond shall outlet into a public drainage system capable of handling the discharge. 13. Silt fence shall be provided immediately down slope of all proposed custom graded areas. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and reestablishment of vegetation. 14. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 11 15. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 7.05 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,640; the water quantity fees are approximately $13,959. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,599. 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 18. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 19. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 20. Revise the street on the utility plan to match the grading plan. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The applicant has to submit drainage calculations for the site. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including pond, drainage swales, watermain and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 22. Type li silt fence must be used and added 'around the perimeter grading limits of the site. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and reestablishment of vegetation. 23. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 24. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 25. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 26. Public utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 12 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 27. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2203, 2004, 2205, 3104, 3106, 3107, 5301, and 5302. 28. On the a. b. C. d. e. f. go utility plan: Revise the last sanitary manhole 4/3 to MH 4. Show all the pond contour elevations. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. Add storm sewer schedule. Show the proposed storm sewer length, slope, type and class. Under the sewer and water notes, add the phrase "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC, SDR26". Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". Change the type of public watermain from DIP to PVC, C-900. Revise the sanitary sewer pipe size from 6" to 8" and show pipe class, length and slope. At the watermain plug end add an 8" gate valve and extend 2 pipe lengths afterward. Call the watermain fittings. Add a note "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-drilled". 29. On the a. b. C. d. e. f. h. grading plan: Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan". Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restored with vegetation. Show all pond contour elevations. Show the storm sewer pipe type, class, slope and length. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance. Add a legend which describes the existing and proposed contours, Type II silt fence, property lines, etc." Attachments i. Development Review Application 2. Letter from John Knoblauch to Bob Generous dated 1/22/02 3. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat - Private Street 4. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat - Public Street 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Letter from Debra and Cramer Hegeman dated 2/12/02 Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HE~P~ COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FA CT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Metro Area Properties, Inc. and Jim and Sharon Donovan for a nine lot Subdivision On February 19, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Metro Area Properties, Inc. for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single-Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (1.2 - 4.0 units per net acre). -- 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1. . o . The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 2 Plat. o 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and , The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: no Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. The planning report #2002-2, dated February 19, 2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of February, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMIS SION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TELEPHONE(Daytime) ~WNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal ~ Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign PJan Review Site PJan Review* X Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPRIVACNAR/W AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the :Budding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~l'wenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of ~ansparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract .NDTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. :LEGALDF_SCRIPTION ~'~ ~ Z ~/ 'TQTALACREAGE 'WE?LANDS PRESENT ~.RESENT ZONING :FLEQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ]~EQUF__STED LAND USE DESIGNATION ]~F__ASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES -This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information · tnd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning :De. padment t~ determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination c~f completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written z~tice ~f application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. -J'hi's ~s to certify that ! 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 applica!ion 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 v,,~ 'keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further zmderstand '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 xny J~now~Jge. , 'The c'rty 'hereby ~otifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing ~'equirements 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 ,extensic~ns are approved by the applicant. $ig az~D..C:~.:App' ,,/. , 'Date :sig~r~ of Fee OWh'~r .Aj~.plicat]or~ Received on ///'~,¢~ ¢q--Fee Paid Receipt No. "The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. ,lf z~et contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Metro Area Properties Inc. 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Office: 952-474-5662 Fax: 952-474-0313 January 22, 2002 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen Planning Dept. 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Bob: Thanks for working with me on Knob Hill II! I again plan to build all the homes myself and I have 3 variances I would like to request along with the Knob Hill second addition preliminary plat submittal. . First, that a 4 home private drive be granted to the south that will result in less impact on the easterly neighbors, less grading, and less tree removal around the homes and the large trees near the existing home. An existing tennis court would be saved along with a common area for the 4 neighbors to share. This is important because if we want to save as many trees as possible, the open area on the east side of these lots will be their common yard area. Where the homes are in the trees, the homeowners lots will be less likely to remove trees for a yard because their need for an open yard will be reduced. Also, a private drive will move the home pads further to the east, higher up the hill, so the impact on the wildlife area and heavy woods around Clausen Lake will be less. A 45' radius at the end of the private drive should help traffic problems, but probably the biggest benefactors of the private drive, over a public street, would be the neighbors to the east. They would not end up with a so called back to back road lot. o The second variance is for a nipped triangle comer of the 60' x 60' square pad on Lot 1, Block 2. The square pad is hindered by an old waterline easement on the northwest comer. The typical 3 car, 3,000 sq. fL two stories that I have built in this area would not need this part of the pad anyway, especially since it is a garage left pad and typically most of the home is not behind the garage on most of my floor plans. ge The third variance is a duplicate of the #2 variance, only on Lot 3, Block 2. Again, the perfect square 60' x 60' is nipped off by a so called 30' back yard setback (even though it seems debatable what is the back lot line on this lot). Bob Generors Page 2 January 22, 2002 Again, with the garage on the high side of the lot, which is now on the right side of the building, my typical two story will be no problem, since this lost triangle is again behind the garage. A big reason to grant this variance and also the private drive variance is the significant savings of the large trees. If we change the bubble of the cul-de-sac to make Lot 3, Block 2 a square pad, then 4 large oaks 36", 30", 24" and 16" will be lost on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac with a severe grading cut into the hill to the southwest. These two pad variances I consider to be very minor, especially in light of the 2 front yard setback variances that were granted in my first phase of Knob Hill. The private drive in this instance also is a great choice and will be tremendously less disruptive to the southern narrow strip of land that includes many significant trees and steep drops to the west and south. It will preserve this beautiful area better. Yours truly, · John Knoblauch LVld AIlYNIVdrlglid Sl°[1no ~ Io[1ueplm)U:111oI )o ,ItqmnN :Fuowwr~ leej O&JOlJelq ;J~ Ip~s II~,J Og aluJo~ :pJe4 Ip~s 1eel. OC :pJl~ tuo.l..li IOlyJeplleU :Iron pllOdO.M iOl~U~pl#u :i~n (IDtlUIplI~U A'UUJD'I lISUlS) 3SU :Sulu°Z §UlillXl :6uluo? llIJ'~V 6g'/. q.rbS I.g/~o~l~ :oe,,'o le:~JOd Ia~Oy (V.'O 'lJ'bc BL¥'O~' :~uo-i IIIH qoux lO.ClV [1O't l'l'bS SCO't'l' ,'Y Io[1no mu3v og'o 'lJ'bS ;;9'tg :C VpoIG 'E' Iol IiJ~ K'o' 'lJ'bS e6l,'~L ~ ~)Ol8 '~ 101 ioJay eg'O 1J'bS gOS'S~ :t q~°16 'g lol ~JoV ~1,'0 'lJ'b$ ~0'[11. :L v/=Olg ~l, 1o'1 elJoV ~"0 'I:1'b$ 9~L'OC :t 'qooLq '£ IIJ:~¥ 09'0 'lJ"b$ ZOl.'a:' :1. ~ol8 '~ Io'1 Mdoy C¥'L 'tJ'bS KB'~:B :1. H'~OlG '1. to'1 :~muau.nS eelv (mlqOl~m.o) is.[11uln X~L9 (BlqOllO~O) lellll[1fl '(lie :SalTll[1n plsadOJd umlIoq(mqD jo ~(1~'J'ltpdiqun~ Iq1 ol 6ulpJoo~o 'NOIII(](]~ ONO~:3S TIIH ~ON)~ 'g 1o11~O pUD V lellnO '~ q3o~ °£ '~ 't qo~ '~ H3OlG '9 'g 't '~ ~ 'L Iloq ~c lUuo~t jo ql~oN 'gL& diHlU~Ol '~ uoI~3IS ~ iio '5Ut~ll~ JO ~ulOd pudI lq1 joS~uKhq Jo 1~ pnpo iql Oupq lulod pies ~Jofl puoq iOlOlP~ o Xq ~m I~od o q Till t'~g Jib~-~lJOnO XIP~61= pml Io I~O4 Iql ~o ~ llolql~N iq1 i[ I~od pile ~lqa IJ~Joq t"~q~N "m jo ~1~ llodq~JON JO ~1 ~N oql P~ pooh "~ Io "Ull J1u~ °ql Jo ~llo"mJm~q lot~°d o Io ~omm~ )opq p~llmm om~o 1moI ~q1 jo m~ Iql ~ lq~ o Io 6~o~mw~ :uoloj ~ u~eJp Iql Iql jo 11o3 6U~l ~ sol)aS jo ~/& ~N JO t/& ~N iq1 jo 1led 1lq) W !? Y£OS3NNIfl ',LLN/'IO::) ~13Ab~O f: 3ONV)4 i:::: i -- :TIVOS OJ. tON / /~ /-, / / "~ / / x / / 'ON/ N O i_L I CI O v' -/-/IH 130NM SN ."3'113 (*aJ.¥NU:I/'IV Ol*'lGild) /V'ld A~VNllr411::l~d · elom~uul~ ,.,r4uno0 JeaJ~0 ' CC '=IOU 'gLL P/L MN ~0 b/L MN XUVd XyHx I. eGS NI~ '1:1OIS-13:3X:i :INV1 lllH nON:)l Ogtl. ':::)NI 'S:ql/l:13dOl:ld ¥3UV o~osauuo'( 'XlunoD UlC~aUUaH 'Jo:lJ:~ql 1Old :NO~ ~d ~ -~ e6uo~ ;o ql~oN 'gCt dlqsuaoI *~ u~13aS uj iio '6~la=~ )o luloU aq) ill 3 ~ 31~s m N O I.I. I CI CI V' CI N O C) ::I ~ -1-11H 80N)t L I I --Il 'ONI.'S'~I..L~c/O~c:/ V':~V' O~..L...~/A/ ,o~" 3glc:::f % :b':'~.-,-'''~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Subdivision Request APPLICANT: LOCATION: Metro Area Properties Knob Hill Lane NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Metro Area Properties, is requesting preliminary plat approval for nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way with a variance request for a private street and a variance from the subdivision regulations On 7.59 acres of land zoned Single Family Residential, RSF, located at the end of Knob Hill Lane, Knob Hill 2nd Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 7, 2002. 11 ilac Lane City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. The staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council. may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Smooth Feed SheetsTM ,MICHAEL J COUGHLIN & WENDY A JOHNSON 6351 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 JAMES L & BARBARA A QUIRING 1384 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 Use template for 5160® JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8063 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER ~ 690 CITY CENT.,F.R-q~O B OX 147 C~ MN 55317 0147 MICHAEL S HATCH & LAURA HATCH 1392 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 THOMAS M & SANDRA L RYAN 1480 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8063 ROBERT D SUTFIN & DIANE L MCGUIRE 1320 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 KENNETH J & TAMRA L BOEHM 1391 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN /' EXCEL~ 8063 RICHARD E & CYNTHIA FROEHLING 1328 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 SCOTT H & JOANNE R DAKE 1336 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 KENT D & LYSA M MOSHER 1385 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 RANDALL L & DIANE H SCHWANZ 1377 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN ~ EXC~ 55331 8063 JOSEPH W & MARGERY J KNOBLAUCH 1465 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 ROBERT A & SANDRA J HANSON 1344 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 EDWARD N & RHONDA R PERKINS 1351 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 CRAMER C III & DEBRA A HEGEMAN 1459 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 MIKE J & ANN M PREBLE 1352 1THILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 DAVID G & DIANN L JONES 1329 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 SHAWN R & JACQUELINE A MCINTEE 1451 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 TIMOTHY P & COLLEEN M BROWNE 1360 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 GARY P & LEORA F MATTILA 1321 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 MARK A & PATRICIA A RUHLAND 6275 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9033 JEFFREY S SMITH & LORI S JOHNSON 1368 1THILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 JOHN R & MARY JO FLATLEY 1311 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 RALPH J & RENEE L HENDERER 1515 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8040 CHAD M HAASKEN 1376 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 JEFFREY P & BARBARA J JOHNSON 1512 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8064 MARK T & KATHY A PAULSEN 1501 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8040 Smooth Feed SheetsTM DANIEL & MARIA LEARY 1275 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9053 HERBERT F & LEOLA M CLASEN TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6351 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9044 Use template for 5160® DAVID M & LORI R TUOMALA 6380 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 JAMES H DONOVAN & SHARON E HERMANSON 1375 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9059 STEVEN R & SANDRA K OLSON 1530 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6500 KENNETH F & PATRICIA J GARVIN 6390 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DAVID L PETERSON & THOMAS G PETERSON 645 t YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 SUSAN M HUME 153 ! CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6500 STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOMS 6398 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DONALD M & CAROL OELKE 6431 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~ C/O SCOTT BOT~ 690 CITY C~ DltaO BOX 147 CHA~,~SEN MN 55317 0147 BRIAN D & DIANE S WYFFELS 6421 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 THOMAS ALAN STEWARD & COLLEEN ELIZABETH STEWARD 6471 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 DANIEL J 84 SANDRA A COLICH 1321 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7529 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH BRANDES 641 ! TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 HUE & CATHERINE J LAM 6401 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 PETER J & ANNETTE L KOROLCHUK 6330 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DAVID K & VANESSA J SLOTTEN 6401 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 CHARLES B HEBERT 6411 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 KIRK A & CAMILLE M SWANSON 6340 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 GREGORY F AAMODT & JACQUELINE R AAMODT 6391 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 BRUCE R & NANETTE D TWADDLE 6321 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9035 BRENT W & DIANE E FESTER 6350 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 FRANK T & MARY L UGGLA 6381 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 TODD D BOGEMA 6371 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9044 DAVID L & JOAN K PRIEM 6360 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 MICHAEL R & CINDY J GREEN 6371 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 MARK E & KATHRYN W BASTIANSEN 6301 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9035 PETER B & LEAH J THORSON 6370 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 JAMES S & RHONDA C DOWNIE 6361 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 ®09~S Jase'l STEVEN 1 & MARY E PROSSER '1475 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 slaqe'l ssajppv STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOM,q. 6398 TETON LN _CHA~NIIASSEN MN 55317 7527 26 35-117-23 34 00t3 L STOKES ~ L STOKES 21710 LILAC LA S He]RE WOOD MN 553'31 26 35-117-23 3&' 0015 JOSEPH L GARAGHTY 6075.APPLE RD EXCELS[OR MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0020 JEANNETTE AMES 6145 APPLE RD SHOREWOO0 MN .55331 26 35-117-23 34 0029 THOMAS K FLAVIN 6080 MILL ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26 35-1 t7-23 34 0035 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 57S5 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHORE WOOD HN 55331 TOTAL LABELS BATCH 504 00009 ?6 35-1t7-23 34 0016 ROY LECY LEC¥ CONS TP UC T ~-.ON !5-012 STATE HWY NQ '7 ~NNET.ONKA ~!N 55345 35-1t7-23 ~4 gg33 ~A~LEY A HCPPb~ER 71730 LILAC LA S~O~EWPf~g ~!.~ 5533! 26 35-117-23 34 0019 BASIM O SABRI 6125 APPLE RD SHOREWOOO MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 003~ THOHAS ~ JENNIFER WILDER 21740 LILAC LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Feb 12, 2002 Members of the Planning Commission, Chanhassen Thank you for the oppommity to share information related to Knob Hill Lane, the current prhrme street, and correspondence from various city officials related to Knob Hill Lane and Metro Properties and John Knoblauch. We have been asking Mr. Knoblauch to fix the current private drive since June 1999. He has refused to do so to date. Please read the enclosed documents and try to put yourselves in our position. We purchased our "dream home" in March of 1998. By early summer, 1999 it was apparent that the private 300' road we live on was failing. There was miring, pot holes, distress, and the edges were breaking off ML Knoblauch refused to give us any information related to the construction of the private road. We were forced to go through the freedom of information act and get the construction data from the City Engineers office. Theresa Burgess, City Engineering, inspected the road in approve May of 1999. She said it was obvious that the street was failing and that the street was '~oo" young to be in its present condition. Bill Bement, City Engineering provided the Hegemans with plats of the properties served by the private road. This information provided us with the information that the street had not been built in accordance with the "as built" drawings submitted and approved by the City. Thirteen core drills were taken of the bituminous section, all failed for 7 ton compliance. It is our understanding that the City "does not" inspect private roads even though these same roads and streets are regulated by City ordinances and laws. Private roads are approved by a paper process as submitted by an engineering firm to the City Board. We are caught in this nightmare because the developer, Metro Properties did not comply with the City Ordinance and because the City had no set of checks and balances to ensure compliance with the ordinances. We have been told that it may cost between $12,000 and $ 32,000 to bring the 300' private drive into compliance. Your job as City Planners is critical. You perform a valuable service to the members of the community. Please protect us and our fellow citizens from builders and developers who fail to do the "right" thing. Please tell other members of the City about our situation. Help us to find a solution to our problem Please call the City Attorney and encourage him to take action to enforce the City Ordinances. Please feel free to visit our property at 1459 Knob Hill Lane. You will see the truth and you will understand the value of your decisions in the development of the neighborhoods in Chanhassen. Debra & Cramer Hegeman 651 452 $$$0 CAkq~ELL KNUTSON 1~002 January 16, 2002 55317 Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Private Driveway Access - Knob Hill Addition Project No. 96-10 Drear John: This letter is a follow up to our January 7, 2002 telephone conversation r~garding the existing private driveway off of Knob Hill Lane. On the telephone I asked if you knew why the private driveway was not constructed to a 7-ton design as per city ordinance. Your reply was that you have seen no "prooff to the contrary and that you believe the driveway was built to the 7-ton requirement. For your information, I have included a copy of an cngin~g analysis l~rformed by Amc'mcan Engineering Testing, Inc. (A.EI) on thc private driveway in question. In their professional opinion, AET states that the driveway was not built to a 7-ton design. Now .that you have b~n.provided with data showing that the private driv~vay was not constructed a~ per city o~inance, what are you going to do about it? Do you have any intentinns of correcting the driveway?. · Please contact me to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. I can be reached at 952-227-1164. Sincerely, _ C1-L'Y OF ~SSEN Matt Saam, P.E. Assiruant City, I~ngine~r Enclosure: AET Testing Report MS:jms C; Teresa Burgess, Dir~tor of Public W0 .rka/City Engineer Roger Knut~n, Campbell Knutzon P.A. .. - ". 05/]25/01 ~5:42 ~A.X .6].2 937 5739 CITY OF CRANtL~SSEN 002/002 May 15, 2001 Ms. Debbie Hegeman 459 Knob I--IilI Imae Ch~asse~, MN 55317 Re: Private Drive OffofKnob Hill Lane- Project No. 96-10 Dear Ms. Hegeman: The City approved plans for Knob Hill, Project No. 96-10, show a private dive to be constructed off of Knob Hill Lane. 'The City expected the private drive to be built to a 7-ton design which is the City's standard specification for private drives. The City did not receive or approve any alteration to the plans and specifications for the project. As such, the private drive should have been built to a 7-ton design. It should be noted that the City does not typically ihspect the installation-, of private driveways. It is the responsibility of the developer to make sure the ~ private drives are built to s~ecification. /:% you have any further questions, please feel fi:ce to give me a call at extension 14 or emaiI me at msaam(&ci.chanhassen.mn.us. - Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSBN Matt Saam Project Engineer MS:js c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engiueer Dave Hammergren, Attorney g:.~rtgknatt~lcttem~egem~n lcttm-.doc MINNEAPOLIS 601 2nd Avenue South ~ Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 5540~-4302 612 339 6321 ! Fax 612 338 0535 January 30, 2002 Felhaber Larson Fenlon qgL A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612) 338-4608 E-mail: fkrietzman(D, felhaber.com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East 7th Street [ St. Paul, MN 55101-4901 651 222 6321 I Fax 651 222 8905 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, P.A. 1380 Corporate Centre Curve, Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Debra and Cramer Hegeman / 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota Our File No. 16567.000 Dear Mr. Knutson: This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation on January 21,2002, in which you told me the city of Chanhassen (the "City") refuses to take any action against John Knoblauch and/or Deutsch Construction (collectively the "Developer") to reconstruct the private street serving 1459 and 1451 Knob Hill Lane (the "Street"). The City's decision in that matter is quite disturbing to my clients, Debra and Cramer Hegeman, the owners of 1459 Knob Hill Lane. The Street's structural integrity is failing because it does not meet the standards set out in the City's ordinances. The Hegemans and their neighbors, the Mclntees, are burdened with the non-conforming Street. In our telephone conversation, you mentioned that the City is unable to prosecute the developer for failing to comply with the City's ordinances, because the limitation period on such a prosecution has run. However, the City, most likely, can still bring a oivil action against the Developer for breach of the Development Contract for Knob Hill, executed by John and Sharon Knoblauch on July 12, 1996 (the "Contract"). A copy of the Contract is enclosed. .. Pursuant to Section 21 .R of Exhibit B to the Contract, the Developer is obligated to comply with all taws, ordinances, and regulations of the City. The Developer is in breach of that Section. Accordingly, the City has a claim against the Developer for the breach, and can pursue'all remedies available to the City as provided by law. Unless you can provide me information to the contrary, it is my understanding that a breach of contract claim has a six-year statute of limitations, which has yet to run. I strongly suggest that the City immediately bring a civil action against the Developer for breach of the Contract, requesting specific performance in the form of reconstruction of the Street in conformance with the City's ordinances. I will await your response to this issue. I can be reached at 612/373-8418. Thank you for re-visiting this issue. Very truly yours, FELHABER, LARSON, F~_NLON & VOGT, P.A. Fre~rick R. Kri~zman Enclosure cc: Debra and Cramer Hegeman Felhaber Larson Fenlon e V9gt_ A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law MINNEAPOLIS 601 2nd Avenue South ] Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 339 6321 { Fax 612 338 0535 Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612) 338-4608 E-mail: fkrietzman~.felhaber, com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East 7th Street I St. Paul, MN 55101-4901 651 222 6321 [ Fax 651 222 8905 January 3, 2002 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, P.A. 1380 Corporate Centre Curve Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Re: Debra and Cramer Hegeman / 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota Our File No. 16567.000 Dear Roger: This letter contains information that supplements my letter to you of November 30, 2001. It is my understanding that the city of Chanhassen (the "City"), through one or more than one of its employees (Teresa Burgess, for example), was well aware that Knob Hill Lane was not built in accordance with the City's Ordinances (Section 18-57(o) (the "Ordinance")). That information was known by the City well before the last of any bonds or letters of credit were released to the Developer of Knob Hill, Deutsch Construction, Inc. or John Knoblauch (collectively the "Developer") in connection with the Knob Hill development. The City could have, at that time, required the Developer to construct Knob Hill Lane in accordance with the Ordinance and in accordance with the "as built" survey for Knob Hill Lane submitted by the Developer to the City. However, the City made a conscious effort not to do so, and released the last of the bonds or letters of creditor to the Developer. Again, my clients, the Hegemansl are requesting that the City uniformly enforce the Ordinance against the Developer and require the Developer to reconstruct Knob Hill Lane in accordance with the Ordinance and in accordance with "as built" survey for Knob Hill Lane submitted by the Developer to the City. In any event, the Hegemans intend to tell the story of Knob Hill Lane to the Chanhassen City Council in the near future at one of its upcoming meetings. I will await your response to this letter and to my letter to you of November 30, 2001. I can be reached at (612) 373-8418. Thank you for your ongoing consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, FF__,L-HABER, LARSON, FENLON & VOGT, P.A. Fredrick R. ~ietzman .) - cc: Deb~d__.Cca~er Hegeman MINNEAPOLIS 601 2nd Avenue South I Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 339 6321 I Fax 612 338 0535 November 30, 2001 Felhaber Larson Fenlon ? Vogt A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612) 338-4608 E-mail: fkrietzman(D, felhaber.com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East 7th Street I St. Paul, MN 55101-4901 651 222 6321 I Fax 651 222 8905 '1 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, P.A. 1380 Corporate Centre Curve Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Debra and Cramer Hegeman / 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota Our File No. 16567.000 Dear Mr. Knutson' As you are aware from our telephone conversation on November 26, 2001, our law firm represents Debra and Cramer Hegeman, the owners of the home located at 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota (the "Property"). Although the Property has an Excelsior address, it is under the jurisdiction of the city of Chanhassen (the "City"). The purpose of this letter is to request that the City enforce against the developer of the Property, John Knoblauch and his company Deutsch Construction, Inc. (collectively the "Developer"), City Ordinance Section 18- 57(0) (the "Ordinance") with respect to construction of a private street (the "Street") serving the Property and the lot directly to the west of the Property owned by Shawn and Jackie Mclntee (the "Mclntee Lot"). The Ordinance and Construction of the Street The relevant part of the Ordinance provides as follows: 1 The common sections of a private street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. (emphasis added) Obviously, there are health, safety and welfare issues that provide the basis for the Ordinance. Further, construction of the Street in accordance with the Ordinance would assure the integrity and durability of the Street. Unfortunately, the Street is not built in accordance with the Ordinance because the Street (i)is not built to a seven-ton design and (ii)is not paved to a width of 20 feet throughout its length. MI'I.S 197302-1 www. felhaber, com Roger N. Knutson, Esq. November 30, 2001 Page 2 (i) The Street is not built to a seven-ton design. Enclosed is a May 21, 2001 letter from American Engineering Testing, Inc. ("AET") to the Hegemans, which presents the results of AET's testing of the condition of the Street. Among other items addressed in the AET letter, the letter addresses the issue of whether the Street meets the required seven-ton design. The results shown on pages 2 and 3 of the AET letter clearly show that the Street is not built to the seven-ton design. The testing of the Street by AET appears to be very thorough and professional. We trust that the City would respect the integrity of the testing done by AET on the Street. On pages 3 and 4 of the AET letter, AET states its recommendations on how to reconstruct the Street to achieve tho seven-ton design. {ii) The Street is not completely paved to a width of 20 feet. Enclosed is an August 4, 2000 survey of the Property and of the Street, as prepared by Sunde Land Surveying, LLC (the "Survey"). According to the Survey, the width of the Street is approximately 20 feet from Knob Hill Lane up to the driveway serving the Property. However, the portion of the Street between the west side of that driveway and the east line of the Mclntee Lot is approximately ten feet wide, which is substantially less than the 20-foot width required by the Ordinance. It is critical that the westerly portion of the Street be widened to 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Ordinance, in order to allow proPer snow removal, and to allow vehicles (passenger and delivery) going to the Mclntee Lot adequate turnaround space to be used when exiting the Mclntee Lot. Currently, vehicles going to the Mclntee Lot use the driveway serving the Property as a turnaround. Not only is that use of that driveway trespassing, but is extremely dangerous because those vehicles back into that driveway. The vast majority of those vehicles are large delivery vehicles, the drivers of which cannot adequately see all persons (especially young children) that may be behind the vehicles when they are backing up. In addition, the lack of proper tumaround space on the Mclntee Lot and on the westerly portion of the Street causes some delivery vehicles to back out of the Private Street all the way from the Mclntee Lot to Knob Hill Lane. This is an incredibly dangerous situation that will continue to exist as long as the street is narrower than the width required by the Ordinance. The City's Knowledge of the Developer's Violations of the Ordinance Enclosed is a copy of the March 29, 2000 letter to Ms. Hegeman from David C. Hempel, the then Assistant City Engineer, in which Mr. Hempel and the City acknowledge that the westerly portion of the Street does not meet the width requirements of the Ordinance. It is troubling that the Certificate of Survey referenced in Mr. Hempel's letter does not accurately reflect the Street as built. However, as soon as the City became aware that the Street was not constructed in accordance with the Ordinance and that Certificate of Survey, the City should have enforced the Ordinance against the Developer, and required the Developer to reconstruct the Street in accordance with the Ordinance. There is no reason that the Ordinance should not be enforced against the Developer. Roger N. Knutson, Esq. November 30, 2001 Page 3 Also enclosed is a copy of the April 7, 2000 letter to Ms. Hegeman from Jill Sinclair, the then Environmental Resource Specialist for the City. In that letter, Ms. Sinclair states that any trees that need to be removed for the widening of the Street in accondance with the plan originally approved by the City, can be removed without penalty to the party widening the Street. Ms. Sinclair's letter is another example that the City expected that the Street was to be constructed according to the width requirements of the Ordinance, and that the City is aware that the Street is no~ built in accordance with those requirements. Also enclosed is a copy of the May 15, 2001 letter to Ms. Hegeman from Matt Saam, the then Project Engineer for the City. Mr. Saam's letter acknowledges that the City did not receive nor approve any alterations to the original plans and specifications approved by the City for construction of the Street. Accordingly, the Developer is in violation of the Ordinance. The Hegemans respectfully request that the City strenuously enforce the Ordinance against the Developer, and require the Developer to reconstruct the Street in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance. The Street should be reconstructed to a seven-ton design, and be 20 feet in width for its entire length. The structural integrity of the Street has failed (as shown by the AET letter), which will eventually cause the Hegemans (and the Mclntees) to bear the heavy financial burden of repairing and/or reconstructing the Street if the Developer is not required to do so by the City. Further, the failure of the Street to meet the width requirements of the Ordinance has created an inherently dangerous situation for all persons that may be walking on or near the Street during the times that vehicles are entering or leaving the Mclntee Lot. Widening the Street to meet the requirements of the Ordinance would certainly help to alleviate the dangerous conditions that currently exist. it is our opinion that the City would be doing a great disservice to its citizens if it did not enforce the Ordinance like it does the City's other ordinances. It is our understanding that the Developer is undertaking additional construction in the City. It does not bode well for the City's reputation, or for the City's employees and agents, if the City allows the Developer to continue to construct and develop in the City even though the Developer has violated specific ordinances meant to protect citizens under the City's jurisdiction. Please review these matters as soon as possible with the appropriate .City officials. The Hegemans and I would be available for a meeting among you, the appropriate City officials, and Mr. Knoblauch, to discuss a resolution of these matters. I will await the City's response to the matters contained in this letter. I can be reached at (612) :~73-8418 with comments or questions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. · Very truly yours, FEL~R, LARSON, FENLON & VOGT, P.A. Fredrick R. Kri~ -~ Enclosures CC: Debra and Cramer Hegeman AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC, CONSULTANTS · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · ENVIRONMENTAL May 21, 2001 Cramer and Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Hegeman Residence (Driveway) 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, Minnesota AET//20-01228 This letter presents the results of our additional observations of the condition of the driveway leading to your residence and the neighboring residence, as well as additional information that recently became available. Our services were performed in accordance with verbal authorization received from you on April 27, 2001. Our recent scope of services included the following: · Observe the condition of the bituminous driveway. · Review recent information that was discovered and presented to us. · Perform an engineering analysis and prepare this revised report summarizing our recommendations for repair of the driveway and providing a 7-ton axle load roadway design. This letter includes information acquired in our previous testing program, performed last sUmmer, and information provided in our letter dated August 16, 2000 (and revised September 19, 2000). Reference should be made to this letter for the results of our previous work. Project Information You have indicated that you are having ongoing conflicts concerning the construction of the driveway leading to your residence from Knob Hill Lane. Because you share a driveway with your next door neighbor, the City requires that the driveway be constructed to a 7-ton axle load design. Drawings prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc., show a design section for 7-ton urban roadways to consist of 3 ~h" of bituminous over 12" of Class 5 aggregate base. We understand, from information provided by the City of Chanhassen, that Knob Hill Lane was constructed using this design section, after placing about 2' of sand for subbase material, due to difficult soil conditions. We also observed some areas of pavement distress along the bituminous portion of the driveway, particularly along the edges of the bituminous pavement. This distress appears to include rutting in the wheel lanes, reflective cracking at isolated locations, and breaking-off of the edges of the bituminous. 'AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER' 550 Cleveland A venue North · St, Paul, MN 55114 ° 651-659-9001 · Fax 651-659-1379 Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester, Wausau · Rapid City · Pierre Cramer and Debra Hegeman AET #20-01228 May 21,2001 Page 2 Previous Test Result Summary Bituminous Testing Last summer we removed a total of 24 cores from the driveway, mostly at locations selected by Mrs. Hegeman. In the bituminous portions of the driveway, we removed 13 cores. The core samples were measured for thickness and percent of Marshall density. Composite samples were then used to perform the Marshall density test, an asphalt extraction test, and an aggregate gradation test. The results of our testing were presented in our previous letter. Of note was the fact that each of the 13 core samples taken from the bituminous driveway had relative densities lower than 95 % of Marshall, a typical Mn/DOT requirement for a 7-ton bituminous roadway. The results of the testing did indicate that the bituminous mixture used generally meets the minimum requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 3139 for aggregate gradation and Specification 2331 for asphalt content and void ratio. We could not evaluate conformance to the actual mix design proposed for use on this project because that data was not available to us. Subgrade Testing We performed dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing and hand auger borings in the subgrade soils at selected locations. The purpose of this testing was to determine the general subgrade soils and their relative strength/stability by using Mn/DOT formulas converting the DCP readings to estimated California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. Based on our review of the DCP and hand auger boring data, the CBR values range from 2 to 12 at the selected core locations. The average CBR value at the DCP locations in the bituminous driveway is about 8. This information was compared to Mn/DOT design criteria to estimate the Granular Equivalency (GE) needed to provide a 7-ton axle load roadway design. Using the average CBR value of 8 (which correlates to an R-value of about 33), we estimate from the Mn/DOT design criteria that a GE of 17 is required for a 7-ton axle load design. This is based on a GE of 7 from the minimum bimrninous design line and a GE of 10 from the minimum aggregate base design line. Our test data is tabulated below: · Calculated GE Required GE Core Bituminous Class 5 Base at Core based,on 7-ton Location # Core Thickness Thickness* Location Mn/DOT design 2 2.5" 8" 13 17 3 2.25" 8" 12.5 17 4 2.25" 8" 12.5 17 Cramer and Debra Hegeman AET #20-01228 May 21, 2001 Page 3 Calculated GE Required GE Core Bituminous Class 5 Base at Core based on 7-ton Location # Core Thickness Thickness* Location Mn/DOT design 5 2.75" 8" 13.5 17 6 2.5" 8" 13 17 7 3.0" 8" 14 17 8 3.0" 8" 14 17 9 1.0" 12" 14 17 10 1.5" 8" 11 17 11 3.0" 8" 14 17 12 3.5" 8" 15 17 13 3.5" 8" 15 17 14 2.0" 8" 12 17 Ave. Values -2.52" 13.35 17 * The Class 5 aggregate base thicknesses given are based on the information stated by the contractor and builder that 8" of Class 5 was used as per the design section, except at core location #9 where the Class 5 thickness was actually measured when performing our hand auger boring. As shown in the above tabulation, the required GE of 17 was not obtained at any of the core locations and, therefore, the 7-ton design also was not obtained. · Engineering Analysis · Based on our review of the available data, and our observations of the condition of the driveway, it should be possible to provide a 7-ton design by placing another layer of bi~minous over the existing surface. Based on the data presented in the table above, it appears that the GE needs to be increased by values ranging from 2 to 6, or an average value of 3.65. Based on this average increase value for the GE, we recommend placing a bituminous overlay having a minimum thickness of 2". This would provide an additional GE value of 4 and should give the existing pavements a GE value of 17 at the majority of the locations. Cramer and Debra Hegeman AET//20-01228 May 21, 2001 Page 4 Before placement of the bituminous overlay, however, we also recommend improving the condition of the underlying subgrade soils in areas where the existing pavements are rutted and distressed. If the weak subgrade conditions are not corrected, the distress of the existing pavement surface will eventually form on the new surface also. In areas where the pavement edges are breaking off, it is likely due to the Class 5 layer not being present beyond the edges of the bituminous, and therefore, not providing adequate strength at the edges of the driveway. As a minimum, the subgrade correction should include removing of the existing bituminous surface, the underlying Class 5 base, and the soft/weak subgrade soils. We are unable to recommend excavation depths for removal of the soft/weak subgrade soils at the distressed areas at this time, however, this can be determined at the time the correction is being performed. Grading should also be performed beyond the edges of the bituminous to allow the placement of Class 5 base outside the edges of the pavement and provide better support for the edges of the bituminous. Refer to the attached data sheet entitled "Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design" for more specific details. After exposing competent soils in the bottom of the subcut excavations, new fill and/or Class 5 base should be placed and compacted back to the bottom of the bituminous layer. Patching of the bituminous surface shou!d be performed before the new overlay layer is placed. Remarks We trust this letter supplies you with the information requested and outlined in our proposal. If you have any questions, or need additional assistance, please call me at 651-659-1364. Very Truly Yours, Principal Engineer MN Reg. No. 16688 Eric J. Pederson, PE Senior Engineer ' MN Reg. No. 24032 MPM/EJP/mm Attachment: Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design BITUMINOUS PAVEME~ SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND DESIGN GENERAL Bituminous pavements are considered layered "flexible" systems. Dynamic wheel loads transmit high local stresses through the bituminous/base onto the subgrade. Because of this, the upper portion of the subgrade requires high strength/stability to reduce deflection and fatigue of the bituminous/base system. The wheel load intensity dissipates through the subgrade such that the high level of soil stability is usually not needed below about 2' to 4' (depending on the anticipated traffic and underlying soil conditions). This is the primary reason for specifying a higher level of compaction within the upper subgrade zone versus the lower portion. Moderate compaction is usually desired below the upper critical zone, primarily to avoid settlements/sags of the roadway. However, if the soils present below the upper 3' subgrade zone are unstable, attempts to properly compact the upper 3' zone to the 100% level may be difficult or not possible. Therefore, control of moisture just below the 3' level may be needed to provide a non- yielding base upon which to compact the upper subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance is dependent on the soil subgrade drainage and frost characteristics. Poor to moderate draining soils tend to be susceptible to frost heave and subsequent weakening upon thaw. This condition can result in irregular frost movements and "popouts," as well as an accelerated softening of the subgrade. Frost problems become more pronounced when the subgrade is layered with soils of varying permeability. In this Situation, the free- draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water infiltration which exaggerates the movements. The placement of a well drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minimize trapped water, smooth frost movements and significantly reduce subgrade softening. In wet, layered and/or poor drainage situations, the long-term performance gain should be significant. If a sand subbase is placed, we recommend it be a "Select Granular Borrow" which meets Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B2. PREPARATION Subgrade preparation should include stripping surficial vegetation and organic soils. Where the exposed soils are within the upper "critical" subgrade zone (generally 2~A' deep for "auto only" areas and 3' deep for "heavy duty" areas), they should be evaluated for stability. Excavation equipment may make such areas obvious due to deflection and rutting patterns. Final evaluation of soils within the critical subgrade zone should be done by test rolling with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck. Soils which rut or deflect 1" or more under the test roll should be corrected by either subcutting and replacement; or by scarification, drying, and recompaction. Reworked soils and new fill should be compacted per the "Specified Density Method" outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F1 (a minimum of 100% of Standard Proctor density in the upper 3' subgrade zone, and a minimum of 95 % below this). Subgrade preparation scheduling can be an important consideration. Fall and Spring seasons usually have unfavorable weather for soil drying. Stabilizing non-sand subgrades during these seasons may be difficult, and attempts often result in compromising the pavement quality. Where construction scheduling requires subgrade preparation during these times, the use of a sand subbase becomes even more beneficial for constructability reasons. SUBGRADE DRAINAGE If a sand subbase layer is used, it should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent water build-up. This can be in the form of draintile lines which dispose into storm sewer systems, or outlets into ditches. Where sand subbase layers include sufficient sloping, and water can migrate to lower areas, draintile lines can be limited to finger drains at the catch basins. Even if a sand layer is not placed, strategically placed draintile lines can aid in improving pavement performance.' This would be most important in areas where adjacent non-paved areas slope towards the pavement. Perimeter edge drains can aid in intercepting water which may infiltrate below the pavement. 01REP016(02/01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. A kxke,~ 3ftnt~t~ 55317 612.937.1900 C-mmd Fat 612937.5739 ,~=,zing Fat 612.93Z9152 Saf~ Faz ~IZ954.2524 March 29, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Private Driveway Construction- Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Knob Hill Project No. 96-11 Dear Ms. Hegeman: This letter is a follow up to your facsimile dated March 29, 2000 in response to my letter to Mr. John K.noblauch dated March 24, 2000. As stated in my previous letter, the private driveway construction in conjunction with the project, Knob Hill, has been constructed in general accordance with the a.~proved Nuns ul: to your residence. Upon review of the attached Certificate of Survey for the adjacent lot (Lot 3, Block 2), I concur that the driveway beyond your home has not been constructed in accordance with the Certificate of Survey. City ordinance requires that private driveways serving two or more properties must be 20 feet wide and built to 7-ton design. For individual driveways (serving only one home), the City allows driveways to be reduced to 10 feet wide. The City .typically does not get involved in the driveway construction for individual lots other than if the amount of impervious surface exceeds ordinance (25%). The City is an advocate to preserve trees whenever feasible. I am not sure of why the developer or contractor who built on Lot 3 decided to change the driveway design from what wa~ shown on the Certificate of Survey. I am writing this letter for clarification to my previous letter with regards to the private driveway that serves the two residents. I hope this letter clarifies any misunderstanding there may be with my previous letter. If I may be of further assistance, please feet free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City. Engineer DCH:jms C: John Knoblauch, Developer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director \~cfs l\vol2~gsprojectsqcnobhillXhegeman lerter, do~ 612937.1900 6eaoal I~ 612937.5739 ~ F~ 61~937.915~ sa~ F= 61p. 934.252~ Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lm Excelsior, ~ 55331 Dear Ms. Hcgeman, In 1999, I ;.nspected ~.- ne;.ghboring property, 1451 Knob I-Ell La., in response a request to remove trees in order to construct a larger driveway. In a letter to the developer, Mr. John Knoblauch, dated September 14, 19991 concluded that any additional tree removals would be penalized since they appeared to be in excess of what was approved for that lot assuming the driveway had been built according to thc building permit sur~'ey. Howevm, it has come to my attention' from a facsimile of the neighboring property survey you sent that the existing driveway differs from what was l~roposed to and approved by the city.[.I approved the survey for the lot and in doing so accepted that the trees in quesuon woula oe removed for the driveway. The fact that they haven't been removed to date does not now protect them nor does it penalize the owner for removing them in order to build the driveway as proposed in the approved survey. If you have any further questions in this matt~, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,, . Sill Sinclair Environmental Resource Spechlist ;O"W APPROVED DEPT: ~ ', DATf:: i.,i.,-,~'. ~J"/ BY: '~F-fL .... DEPT: ~' ~: 5 : DATE..' -~. biff" that this is a true and correct representation of a tract of that thia true Olqd correct representation of ~ and desoribed hereon. As prepared by me this l~'lg ". day of