The URL can be used to link to this page

1 Knob Hill 2nd AdditionCITY PC DATE: 2/19/02 3/19/02 CC DATE: 4/8/02 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3/19/02 Extended to 5/18/02 CASE #: 2002-2 Sub By: RG, LH, JS, ST, ML, MS STAFF rEPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for ~preliminary plat approval for nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way, Knob Hill 2n 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 Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units per Acre) ACREAGE: 7.59 acres l.IJ 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. 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. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Cir. 0 .C~ 'C~ 'd St lac Lane - A~shton 3T ~k.ocY oad / , Cha~end Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20 Zoning Article XII RSF District Regulations BACKGROUND On February 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed development with a variance request to permit the use of a private street to access a portion of the site. In addition, the applicant requested 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. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance requests. However, the Planning Conmqission voted to table the subdivision to permit the developer to work with staff to realign the roadway and attempt to preserve additional trees. 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 roadway has been realigned to the west to provide an open area between the roadway and the properties to the east. An almost un/form conservation easement is being proposed on the western and southern development boundaries. The applicant is proposing that the existing double row of evergreens in the northeastern part of the site be relocated on site to create an evergreen buffer along the eastern property line. 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 7.59 ac or 330,620 SF 3.65 ac or 158,994 SF 48% Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 3 Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 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. Staffrecommends placing a tree preservation easement over the western portions of Lots 1-6, 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 1, Block Lot 2, Block Lot 3, Block Lot 4, Bock Lot 5, Block Lot 6, Block Rear 60' Rear 60" Rear 60' Rear 55' Southerly 60' and westerly 60" Rear 60' 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 50% of the site for the new house pads (Block 2), a proposed street ending with a cul-de-sac and a storm water pond. The proposed lots located in the southwesterly portion of the site will be custom graded. As such, detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for each of the custom graded lots at the time of building permit application. The proposed grading will prepare the site for a full basement house pad on Lot 1, Block 2 and lookout-type dwellings on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Staffis recommending that the pad elevation of Lot 1, Block 2 be raised to 1012 to better facilitate drainage on the west side of the lot. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 4 property. There is an existing tennis court, bituminous private driveway, and an existing pond to be removed. The existing site drainage is encompassed within four different drainage areas. The northeasterly quarter of the site drains off site to the north. The east-central part of the site drains off site toward the east to an existing storm sewer inlet in the rear yards of 1368 and 1376 Ithilien. The extreme northwesterly comer of the site drains to the north through an existing 15" culvert in the Knob Hill development. The remaining portion of the site, along the south and west property lines, drains to Clasen Lake and its tributary outlet. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from Block 2 lots, all of the street drainage, and all of the front yard drainage from the Block 1 lots. This storm water will be conveyed via storm sewer to a proposed NURP pond in the northeasterly comer of the site. The amount of area that will still drain off. site to the east has been dramatically reduced from approximately 1.6 acres to 0.3 acre. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff.Program (NUR~) standards. The high water level (HWL) of the proposed pond, shown on the grading plan as 1003.9, must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. This new HWL will provide the required 3-foot vertical separation between the walkout elevations (1005) of the existing homes at 1368 and 1376 Ithilien and the pond's HWL, in accordance with the City's SWMP. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10- year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements shall 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. Staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used along the western property line of the site adjacent to Clasen Lake. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75- foot minimum rock construction entrance should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 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 Mastagentestt Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 5 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 gdt 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. It appears that the applicant is attempting to minimize the amount of vegetation in and around the proposed storm water pond through the use ofriprap 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. Easellteitts Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all sto~rn 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 Co~t trol 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. Surface 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 Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 6 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. Otb er 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 already connected to municipal sewer and water from Knob Hill Lane. Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the northwest side. The applicant is proposing to extend sewer and water lines along Knob Hill Lane to service the proposed lots. Staffis recommending that MH-3 be lowered by approximately three feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1. 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 of the new lots. 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. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also 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 final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS Concerns were raised at the February 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting regarding the close proximity of the road to the rear yards of adjacent homes on Ithilien and the lack of adequate buffering. Staff believes the revised plan does a good job of addressing each of these issues. The proposed road has now been moved approximately 20 feet farther away from the rear yard lot line and a row of over a dozen evergreen trees are proposed to be planted between the road and the lot line. In addition, the applicant is planning to transplant existing site trees in this area to further buffer the residents. The required right-of-way for public streets is 60 feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The applicant is proposing a 60-foot wide street right-of-way with a 50-foot cul-de-sac radius. This proposed cul-de-sac would need a 1 O-foot variance from the right-of-way requirement. In order to avoid the need for a variance, staff is recommending that the conservation easement in the rear yards of Lot 4, Block 1 Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 7 be 55 feet in width, the house pads be moved back to the easement line, and the cul-de-sac right-of-way radius be increased to 60 feet. With these revisions, the house pads should meet the required 30-foot setback and avoid any variances. The standard pavement width for public streets is 31 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-cub with a 45- foot radius on cul-de-sacs. The applicant has proposed a 28-foot wide street pavement with a 45-foot cul-de-sac radius. While City Code allows the 28-foot wide street, it is the 31-foot wide street section that is used as the City standard on detail plates and by staff. In addition, a 31-foot wide street section would provide a uniform transition from the existing 31-foot wide pavement of Knob Hill Lane to the new street section. As such, staff is recommending that the street be shown as 31 feet in width. PARKS AND RECREATION The Parks and Recreation Commission met 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 Cra-fy Farms development. COMPLIANCE TABLE Description Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Notes RSF District 15,000 90 125 Setbacks (ft.): front - 30', rear - 30', side 10' Lot 1, Block 1 63,138 333 211 30, 30, 10, 60 rear conservation Lot 2, Block 1 32,693 108 266 30, 30, 10 60 rear conservation Lot 3, Block 1 23,383 114 234 30, 30, 10 60' rear conservation Lot4, Block 1 18,405 141 184 30, 30, 10, 55' rear conservation Lot 5, Block 1 28,190 57 * 193 30, 30, 10, 60' rear conservation Lot 6, Block 1 25,831 101 241 30, 30, 10, 60' rear conservation Lot 1, Block 2 19,532 155 169 30, 30, 10 Lot 2, Block 2 15,019 90 171 30,30, 10 Lot 3, Block 2 18,824 129 173 30, 30, 10 Outlot A 11,062 Outlot B 24,353 Knob Hill Lane 50,351 Average Lot Size 27,223 Total 330,781 Knob Hill 2"a Addition March 19, 2002 Page 8 * 90 feet 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. o 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. 3, 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; Findin.~: 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 notconflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. o The proposed subdivisionis not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ge 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. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 9 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "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, two outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1-6, Block 1, shall contain tree preservation easements in the rear yards as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 2, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 3, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 4, Block 1 Rear 55' Lot 5, Block 1 Southerly 60' and the westerly 60' Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site' grading. . 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. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 5. Separate sewer and xvater se~wices must be provided for each lot. 6. An exemption-or wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to any alterations to the wetland on-site. 7. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 8. CBMH 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge into the proposed pond. 9. The proposed pond shall outlet into a public drainage system capable of handling the discharge. I 0. 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. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 12. 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. 13. 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 NUR~ basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be I Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 10 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. 14. 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. 15. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for each of the custom graded lots at the time of building permit application. 16. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all p!ans. 17. Revise the cul-de-sac right-of-way to a 60-foot radius and the street pavement width to 31 feet. 18. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 1 O-year and 100-year, 24- hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The high water level (HWL) of the proposed pond, shown on the grading plan as 1003.9, must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. This new HWL will provide the required 3-foot vertical separation between the walkout elevations (1005) of the existing homes at 1368 and 1376 Ithilien and the pond's HWL in accordance with the City's SWMP. The storm sewer must be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements shall 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. 19. Staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used along the western property line of the site adjacent to Clasen Lake. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 20. The pad elevation of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be raised to 1012 to better facilitate drainage on the west side of the lot. 21. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 22. 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. 23. Public utility improvements will be required to 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 final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 11 limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 24. 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, 5302, 5232, and 5234. 25. Lower MH-3 be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1 26. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Add a legend. c. Show the proposed storm sewer length, slope, and type. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length and slope. 27. no g. On the grading plan: Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restore with vegetation. Show the storm sewer pipe, 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. Show typical house pad with definitions. 28. On the preliminary plat: a. Side and rear lot line easements should be shown as 5 feet wide. b. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. 29. A minimum 20-foot wide public easement is required for the pond outlet which extends outside the site property lines." Attachments 1. 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 7. Letter from The Hegemans to the Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 3/12/02 8. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/19/02 Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Metro Area Properties, Inc. and Jim and Sharon Donovan for a nine lot Subdivision On February 19, 2002 and on March 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 kom 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. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; . The proposed subdivision is consistent with all apphcable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; 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; Knob Hill 2nd Addition March 19, 2002 Page 13 . . 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; o The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and 7, The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ao d. systems. 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 The planning report #2002-2, dated February 19, 2002, revised March 19, 2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. 2002. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of March, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION -T-2V~WNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit lntedm Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit PJanned Unit Development* Rez~ning Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign PJan Review Site Plan Review* X 7Z~ Subdivision* Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CU P/SPRNACNAR/WAP/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 Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency 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. I ~:GA1. DESCRIPTION ~-~'~ P ~ ~/ 'TOTAL ACREAGE "A,'EThANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESEN/LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON ]=OR THIS REQUEST YES ,;~'-' NO '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 Depar'Zr~em 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. 'TM-s'is 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. 1 ,wU keep mysetf 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 x-ny knowJedge. . 'The c'rty'hereby notifies 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 exter~ions are approved by the applicant. Date Receipt No. -fhe applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If nc)t 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. . 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. R. two stories that I have built in this area would not need this part of the pad anyway, especially since it is a garage lent pad and typically most of the home is not behind the garage on most of my floor plans. . 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, ~"Jotm Knoblauch (:IIYNU:III¥ Ollgfld) IYld AMVNIINIltUd ._, '.41mwwn. io"1. (seUllaplnB ~ e~) ~=oq~S :aah pe~doJd (1OllUeplseU X~moJ a~uls) JS~ z6~uoz 6uilsix] :6UlUOZ seJ=V tg'O 'l.4'bS t6~"~C :8 IollnO s:aj=V t/'o '1&'es g60'g :v 1011~ i°~V g:'0 *lj'bs ~9:'~L :: ~Ula IL Io3 le~V 09'0 'IJ'bs ~tC'9~ :[ ~=°le '1 I°1 a°~V gg'O 'l~'bs O0~'g~ :[ ~oolg ': 1ol ~JO~ 31ffll~ln ~lodoJd tCCgS Nlfll 'z4oISq3::)X::i qNVq TIIH 8ONN OSl~t 'ONI 'SalZUadOUd YaUY ulosauulfl 'Xiuno3 udeuuaH '{oaJaql 1Old pmpJoueJ aql oI BulpJomoo 'NOulOOY qNO3~ ~IH 60N~ '8 1a11~ puo V 1oR~ 'C ~0o1~ *: '~ 't sto3 't auoI8 'g 't '~ '~ 't stoq 'g~ eSUDu {O qlJoN '9LL dlqsu~o/ ': uo{oaS Ul lid '6uilaaw Jo lUlOd "Jo'" ~ eOumql '~J°H'P~3 tOlulpnr o nq pl~JO~ iuod o 01 emi 0~'99 JO $UUo{Ip u 'l~eM seln~w ~v seeJ6lp g~ q noS m~uaql puo{ oq{ jo 8uluulaaq la lulod ion{30 aq{ Buieq lulod ~lol .ajo~ puo~ O O pnr o Xq paq~om luiod o o{ leal /'Rna JalJOnn-~Jonn ol o au 6 . ""'TP~.~~ ~L~'?~ ~'oo~ ~0 .~o~.,p. ~..~ ..~.~,~ z~ .... ~.p ~ ~.os .... ~, ~.., ~.g,, ..... ~.m o ~.,~ qln~ mql ~ luted o {o 5u~o~m~oo laOllOj lo u~oJp mu aH{ 1o Ilo] 6U~l ~ uotl~S JO e/L MN jo t/t MN aH1 {o IJOd tOql IIY i palo3tpUl OSl~aqlo iSalUn =aUll lec)Jll 6UlUt~'po pud qiPta IOl 6utul~po puo qlp~a ul ~ ~0~ 3~ ~N3~3 3DVN~O O~Ud I / / 133.4 NI 3'IV3S N O I_I_I CI CI V' -/-/I/-/ ~ON~/ _~;~//-//rl_~ / / iV'Id UJYNIt'gi:llid oTo--uqrl '~)une3 uldouumH 'JOad0qT 1Old papJe~aJ aql oI GU!pJOOOD 'NOLLK]QY ONO:)3S TllN 0ON)4 '8 l°llnO puo y lollnO '~: ~o0~ ~ '~ 'i I~O'l '& ~OlB 'g '~ 't 'C ~ 't II°1 /,-~ .- / / // X / ~ / / ~.. / "*.. I / / I I I __ / /'------- i I NOIIlOOV aNOO::::/S q-/IH 8ON)/ ' 'ON/ '$:::lll~l:::ldO~d V3~J¥ O~I..L~IA! ~o~' ~,elc:l iLleUI. LUJlaJd 'CU. 1 'lqqlnnx- ) . 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. LI 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 iVIICHAEL J COUGHLIN & WENDY A JOHNSON 6351 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 JAMES L & BARBARA A QUIRING 1384 ITHIIIEN 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 BOTCHE~ 690 CITY CE~F..iMStPO BOX 147 CHANI-Ifid~EN 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 13201THIIIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 KENNETH J & TAMRA L BOEHM 1391 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9032 JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HIlL LN ~ EXCELS55331 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 lIEGEMAN 1459 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 MIKE J & ANN M PREBLE 1352 ITHILIEN 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 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9O32 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 JAMES H DONOVAN & SHARON E HERMANSON 1375 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9059 HERBERT F & LEOLA M CLASEN TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6351 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9044 STEVEN R & SANDRA K OLSON 1530 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6500 Use temptate for 5160® DAVID M & LORI R TUOMALA 6380 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 KENNETH F & PATRICIA J GARVIN 6390 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DAVID L PETERSON & THOMAS G PETERSON 6451 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 SUSAN M HUME 1531 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 BOTCff. lk-'~ 690 CITY CE.~TER Dtt°O BOX 1_47 CHAN~HA~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 & SANDRA A COLICH 1321 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7529 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH BRANDES 6411 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 HUE & CATHERINE J LAM 6401 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 CHARLES B HEBERT 6411 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 PETER J & ANNETTE L KOROLCHUK 6330 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 KIRK A & CAMILLE M SWANSON 6340 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DAVID K & VANESSA J SLOTTEN 6401 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 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 MARK E & KATHRYN W BASTIANSEN 6301 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9035 DAVID L & JOAN K PRIEM 6360 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 PETER B & LEAH J THORSON 6370 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 MICHAEL R & CINDY J GREEN 6371 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 JAIvlES S & RHONDA C DOWNIE 636 t TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 ' STEVEN J & MARY E PROSSER 1475 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 8062 slaqe'! ssaJppv STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOM& 6398 TETON LN _CH~¥gEN MN 55317 7527 26 35-117-23 34 0013 L STOKES [ L STOKES 21710 LILAC LA SHOREWOOD MN 553'31 26 35-117-23 3& 0015 JOSEPH L GAR. AGHTY 6075.APPLE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0020 JEANNETTE AMES 6t45 APPLE RO SHOREWOO0 ~N 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0029 THOMAS K FLAVIN 6080 MIL1 ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0035 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RO SHORE WOOD MN 55331 TOTAL LABELS BATCH 504 00009 76 35-117-23 34 0016 R~Y LECY LECY EONS ¢P tJCTI.ON 15012 STATE HWY N~ '7 N~NNETONKA ~N 55345 /_5 35-117-23 ~Z~ 0033 ~RAQLEY A HcPPNER 217.,_-q, 0 L]:LAC LA S!~OREWF~O ~-IN 5537, t 26 35-117-23 34 0019 ~ASIM a SABRI 6125 APPLE RD SHOREWOO~ MN 55331 26 35-117-23:34 0034 THOHAS C 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 private 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 nathg, pot holes, distress, and the edges were breaking otE 1~. 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 approx. 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 01./_21/02 ,12:25 FA/ 651 452 5550 C,U~VBEL/, KNUTSON ~002 CITYff .Tan~ary t 6, 2002. t,o1~r147 {~eni~u.m. Mi~ 55317 Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 )5235Y.1900 '.952L957.5;35 95293.7.9152 .~ D~t F,~ ~529M2524 u,u~ .4. c han~ cn. vm. us Re: Private Driveway Access - Knob Hill Addition Project No. 96-10 Dm~Lr 3ohn: This letter is a follow up to our ~'anuary 7, 2002 telephone conversation regarding 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 ordnance. Your reply was that you have seen no "proof" to the contrary and that you believe the driveway was built to the 7-ton requirement. For your information, ! have included a copy of an engineering analysis performed by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (A,ET) on the 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 been.provided with data showing that the private driveway was not constructed as per city ordinance, what are you going to do about it? Do you have any intentions of correcting the driveway?. ;. . Please contact me to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. I eau be reached at 952-227-1164. Sincerely, _ CITY OF ~ANI{ASSEN Matt Sam'n, P.E. Assistant City. ~ngineer Enclosure: A.ET Te~ting Report MS:ires C~ Teresa Burgess, Director of Public W9 .Was'City Engineer Roger Knutson, Campbell Knutson P.A. $:~n~a,-ojee~kknobhil hlermblau ch lmler .. - ", 05/].'5/0.1. · ) 15:42 FAX J~2 937 5739 CITY OF CKANIL~$SEN 002/002 May 15, 2001 Ms. Debbie Hegeman 459 Knob Hill Lazte Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Private Drive Off of Knob I-Till Lane - Project No. 96-10 Dear Ms. Hegeman: The City approved plans for Knob Hill, Project No. 96-10, show a private drive 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 sum the ~ private drives are built to s~eci~cation. If you have any fux~er questions, please feel free to give me a call at extension 114 or emaiI me at msaam~ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF CHA~~SEN Matt Saam Project Engineer MS:is c.' Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dave Hamraergren, Attorney g:.~atgk,-natt~c tters~he germ n letter.doe MINNEAPOLIS 601 2nd Avenue South ', Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 339 6321 ] Fax 612 338 0535 January 30, 2002 Felhaber Larson Fenlon VogL A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law 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 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 civil 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 laws, 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. l 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~lrick R. Kri~zman ..--- Enclosure ~.--- '" cc: Debra and Cramer Hegeman Felhaber karson _.Fenlon ee _Vpgt- A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law MINNEAPOLIS 601 2nd Avenue South [ Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 339 6321 I Fax 612 338 0535 Freddck 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 I 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. ! 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, FEL-HABER, LARSON, FENLON & VOGT, P.A. Fredrick R. ifi'fietzman .,) - cc: Debda and ~m~er Heoeman 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 Vog,t 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 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(o) (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. .M PI.S 197362-I 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 turnaround 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. Flempel 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. l. 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 accordance 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 not 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 bythe 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) 373-8418 with comments or questions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. · Very truly yours, FEL~R, LARSO~N, FENLON & VOGT, P.A. Ill-_ Fredrick R. 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 i9, 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 ],5" 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 bitnminous. "AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 550 C/eve/and Avenue North. St. Paul, MN 55114. 651-659-9001 · Fax 651-659-1379 Duluth · Mankato. Marshall · Rochester. Wausau ° Rapid Citv. 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 i3 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 m/nirnum bituminous 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 #2O-O1228 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" i5 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 bituminous 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 should 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, _ ,~,/~ Michael P. McCarthy, PE ~ 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 PAVEMENT 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 soft 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 softs of varying permeability. In this Situation, the free- draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water iaf'fltration which exaggerates the movements. The placement of a well drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minirni?~ 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 softs. 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 softs 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 sub6utting 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 constmctability 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 drain.q 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. GT ~ Dri~ ?O Bax I 47 hanhaaen, M'rane~ta 55317 .Phone ~I2~37. I~00 Fax 612~$7573~ ~dneering Fax ~I2.~37~ I52 3fret7 Fax 612.934.2524 u,wm ~ c h ar~ aura. mn. us March 29, 2000 VIA FACS1]~I~E Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: 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 dr/veway construction in conjunction with the project, Knob Hill, has been constructed in general accordance with the approved plans up to your residence. Upon review of the attached Certificate of Survey for the adjacent lot CLot 3, Block 2), I concur that the driveway beyond your home has not been constructed in accordance w/th 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 was 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 feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant Ci .t'y Engineer DCH:jrns c: John Knoblauch, Developer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director \~f~ t\vol2XengScrojectsqmobhilRhegenmn leaer, doc Phmt ~I2 93 7.1PO0 Csmtrd ['ax l~12 Y3 7. 5 73 9 ~ F~: ~I2937.gL52 t~bIit.Srf~ Fax 6129M.2524 April 7, 2000 Ms. Debra liegeman 1459 Knob Hill Ln. Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Hcgeman, In 1999, I inspect~ th*. neighboring property, 1451 Knob I-Ell I.m, irt response to a request to r~move trees in order to construct a larger driveway. In a letter to the developer, Mr. John Knoblauch, dated Sep!¢mber 14, 1999 1 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 the building permit sUrX'ey. However, it has come to my attention' from a facsimile of the neighboring property survey you sent that the existin~ driveway differs from what was proposed to and approved by the city.[.I approved the survey for the lot and in doing so accepted that the trees in quesnon woula ~ removed for the driveway. The fact that they haven't been removed to date does not now protect them nor docs it penalize thc owner for removing them in order to build thc driveway as proposed in the approved survey. . If you have any further questions in thj_~ matter, please feel frce to contact me. Sinc ety,, . Jill Sinclair Environmental Resource SpeciaList m. t ~ I ! .I · · TOTAL P. ~ 92. O'W WET -LAND ° NWL= 53.68 __ ~/ .'~ ~ '/ ~~----:,~-~-.,~* ~ ~.t~ . -~ /0/o Hu6,.IOIO,19 ~)lo.co /~/~_ '~ .,ult,a~; PS, Wo;~ 52.00 / ! lC° / bify' that this is a true and correct representatio, n of a tract o£ :ertify..~..-.th°t, :this. Is ;,° tru~e_,,ond. .c°rrect. . , ,representation of ',n and described hereon. As prepared by ma this _1~11~" day o£ Chestnut Realty Inc. 413 Chestnut St. Chaska, MN 55318 Cal: (952) 448-2417 Christy: (952) 448-4569 Chad: (952) 368-0422 February 14, 2002 Chad Haasken 1376 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 RE: Knob Hill 2nd Add. Dear Chanhassen Council Members, I am writing you this letter to voice all of my concerns regarding the future development of Knob Hill 2nd Add. My home is on Lot 8, Block 1 Ithilien Add. which backs up to the Knob Hill 2nd Add. Development. After reviewing the staff.report and looking at the preliminary plat & draniage plan I have realized a couple of items that I would like to make you aware of. (1) The house elevation onlot 3 block 2 ofthe Knob Hill 2nd Add. Is at 1012.0 this backs up to my property which has a rear elevation of 1009.6 and this means that there is going to be more water draining onto my property. The storm water already ponds in my backyard. This will create more ponding on my property and my neighbors. (2) Lot 1 block 2 Knob Hill 2nd Add. does not meet the side set back requirements and will be required to have a variance. I do not see any hardship. The only reason for this variance is to get more lots in this development. (3) In regards to the dead end road, I also feel that there is an unsafe access because the cai-de-sac is so long. If there would be a tree or some sort of obstruction that would block the road for emergency vehicle to get to a property in the Knob Hill 2nd Add., there would be no way to get to one property because no emergency vehicle could get through. I also believe it would be pre mature for the city of Chanhassen to even look at this property before I and the local homeowners affected by the future development of said development and the City of Chanhassan has a chance to look and see if the wetland area on said property meets the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. I am not in favor of the development of the Knob Hill 2nd Add. I feel that my property will be dramatically affected. The value of my home will be reduced if this development is approved. This is a large private parcel with sensitive wetlands and old growth hardwoods all of which will be destroyed by this development. Sincerely, Chad Haasken .... :~5./~, .~ :...~,~, 1. KNOB HILL 2ND ADDITION Here are some notes that I ( David Smith, 1341 Ashton Court) came up with. I thought I would share these with a few neighbors so that we can be better prepared for the Tues. mtg ...Please try to think of other ideas that can enable us to have a consensus on this ..... I'm not opposed to the development..development is often inevitable, and if anyone does it, I'm OK with the Knoblauchs.. I'm very opposed to the imposing road right in our backyard (as compared to the front or side yards) At it's present location, it is totally unacceptable, and placed without regard to the neighbors. According to John Knoblauach, this positioning was dictated by the City: With the road so close, the property values of a few of us will definitely be negatively affected, thus creating a hardship, a posible basis for being able to get approval for a narrower private drive As shown on the proposed plat, what looks like a veritable forest in my back yard, is in fact a few scraggly trees. Many are just a few feet from the road..These and a few more along the proposed road, that are along side other properties, will be destroyed when the road is costructed, either by removal of the trunks or by impeding within their dripline. By starting the curve of the proposed road sooner, and moving the straight portion over by 40', we can accomplish a few things: Create less of an eyesore, i.e. lessen the impact ofthe sight of the huge peice of asphalt as we look out from our windows and backyards. Save some of the few trees that now act as a buffer. Provide some area for which new screening can be placed. Option Enable the 2 proposed homes on either side to be moved over so as to have less of an impact on their neighbors. # 1-Private(shared drive) ~ '~ ' ~ ~'~¢ Q_ "'x Much narrower...more easily moved over to create a buffer Although a small percentage may have problems...it's worked for me and is particularily well suited to this development. Other notes ...... The city has stated that one of the reasons it has the road over to the east side, is to enable proposed driveways that do'nt exceed the 10% max slope. With the ability to drop a gar up to 3' from main floor level, and create curved vs straight driveways, this rule can be complied with. The lot sizes are not a given. . some can be made larger (lot 6) to minimize proximity to other homes. Lots can also be configured so as to create a conduit for various driveways as needed NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 7.59 Acres APPLICANT: Metro Area Properties, Inc. LOCATION' 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 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 Sharmeen 227-1134. 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 March 7, 2002. 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 DANIEL & MARIA LEARY 1275 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN R & SANDRA K OLSON 1530 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOMS 6398 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES H DONOVAN & SHARON E HERMANSON 1375 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L PETERSON & THOMAS G PETERSON 6451 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD M & CAROL OELKE 6431 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SUSAN M HUM~ 1531 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTC~R_~...~ 690 CITY C:~dg.T--Edt'DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & ANNETTE L KOROLCHUK 6330 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN D & DIANE S WYFFELS 6421 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH BRANDES 6411 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID K & VANESSA J SLOTTEN 6401 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS ALAN STEWARD & COLLEEN ELIZABETH STEWARD 6471 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KIRK A & CAMILLE M SWANSON 6340 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY F AAMODT & JACQUELINE R AAMODT 6391 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HUE & CATHERINE J LAM 6401 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRENT W & DIANE E FESTER 6350 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK T & MARY L UGGLA 6381 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE R & NANETTE D TWADDLE 6321 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & JOAN K PRIEM 6360 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & CINDY J GREEN 6371 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD D BOGEMA 6371 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK E & KATHRYN W BASTIANSEN 6301 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HERBERT F & LEOLA M CLASEN TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6351 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER B & LEAH J THORSON 6370 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & LORI R TUOMALA 6380 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH F & PATRICIA J GARVIN 6390 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES S & RHONDA C DOWNIE 6361 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J COUGHLIN & WENDY A JOHNSON 6351 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER .~ 690 CITY....C~EIS.T. gR43R--PO-B~ 147 C~ANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM ROBERT D SUTF1N & DIANE L MCGUIRE 1320 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH J & TAMRA L BOEHM 1391 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN--~-~-'~ EXCELS I0R ............ MN 55331 RICHARD E & CYNTHIA FROEHLING 1328 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENT D & LYSA M MOSHER 1385 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH W & MARGERY J KNOBLAUCH 1465 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .SCOTT H & JOANNE R DAKE 1336 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDALL L & DIANE H SCHWANZ 1377 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAMER C III & DEBRA A HEGEMAN 1459 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT A & SANDRA J HANSON 1344 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD N & RHONDA R PERKINS 1351 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHAWN R & JACQUELINE A MCINTEE 1451 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MIKE J & ANN M PREBLE 1352 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID G & DIANN L JONES 1329 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK A & PATRICIA A RUHLAND 6275 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY P & COLLEEN M BROWNE 1360 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY P & LEORA F MATTILA 1321 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RALPH J & RENEE L HENDERER 1515 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY S SMITH & LORI S JOHNSON 1368 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY P & BARBARA J JOHNSON 1512 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK T & KATHY A PAULSEN 1501 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHAD M HAASKEN 1376 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN J & MARY E PROSSER 1475 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES L & BARBARA A QUIRING 1384 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS M & SANDRA L RYAN 1480 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN R & CYNTHIa--S 6398 ~C~ASSEN MN _55317 MICHAEL S HATCH & LAURA HATCH 1392 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN C & SHARON~~~~-~CH 1450 KNOB..~IL~'~LN EX~SIOR MN 55331 DAVID F SMITH & LAURA L FRANZEN SMITH 1331 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & SHANNON J EUPEL 1331 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BOB GENEROUS P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SiOOr CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED March 12, 2002 MAR 1 2 200 C]mnhassen Planning Commission CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Please read the attached documents. We believe that John Knoblauch, Metro Area Properties should be carefully scrutinized prior to any approval to develop roads, land, or build homes. Our personal experience with his "work" has been a nightmare. Mr. Knoblauch claims to have experience building over 200 homes. This simply is not true. Mr. Knoblauch was employed by Deutsch Construction of New Prague as a "salesman". His primary job was to sell homes built by Deutsch Construction. John Knoblauch's father, Joseph Knoblauch purchased the land located and known presently as Knob Hill Lane. Due to this detail, John Knoblauch, was in a position to make a deal with Deutsch Construction. He wanted to be the "Construction Supervisor" of the homes built on Knob Hill Lane. He had no experience to do this. John Knoblauch has not been employed by Deutsch Construction for several years. We suspect that his employment was severed with Deutsch Construction due to the problems associated with the homes in Knob Hill Lane. Simply stated, John Knoblauch claims to have the experience to build "high end" homes. We dispute his claim and submit the following as evidence of his 'lack of experience". John Knoblauch is now operating as Knoblauch Builders, and to our knowledge has no other affiliations with experienced construction companies. During the construction phase of our home, which began in November 1997, one month late - due to John finishing his father's home, we encountered numerous problems with John and his supervision of the sub-contractors. 1) Our windows were framed at the wrong height and all had to be redone 2) A recess in the kitchen wall to accommodate an oversize refrigerator was deliberately left out, until we complained and forced the wall to be rebuilt. 3) We requested all high efficiency HVAC and mechanical equipment. John substituted a 10 seer AC unit for a 13 seer unit, to change this we were charged an extra $300. We requested two (2) 80 gallon water heaters, John installed (2) 50 gallon water heaters. 4) Our carpet contract specified an upgraded carpet and carpet pad #8. At the time of installation, Mrs. Hegeman suspected the carpet pad was wrong, questioned the installer who ignored her, then she called John Knoblauch, who also told her she didn't know what she was talking about. He also stated that if there was a problem, he would address it at the one year inspection. At the one year inspection, Mr. Knoblauch removed a section of the carpet pad, had it inspected and found out it was NOT a #8 but only a # 7. Mr. Knoblauch refused to replace the carpet pad with the correct quality and as a consequence we are forced to walk on a 2,000 sq t~ of flooring that feels like green plywoo& 5) Our master bath includes a Jacuzzi tub with a window hung 2 inches above the deck of the tub. The purpose of this design was to allow us to view the natural beauty of the wildlife while soaking in the tub. Mr. Knoblauch was well aware of this, he even showed us his personal home and master bath. The window in his bath was exactly the height we were looking for in our own home. Instead of ordering the correct window, Mr. Knoblauch elected to install a much smaller window several feet above the deck of the tub. When we found this out, we refused to accept his substitution. John ordered the correct window, but forced us to pay an extra $800 to fix his mistake. 6) We also asked for a gas fireplace exactly like the one in his bathroom, which included a blower. John again downgraded the fireplace and installed one in our home without a blower. 7) Our great room is carpeted and because of the-size required two electrical boxes to be installed on the floor. The electricians installed exterior gray plastic watertight receptacles in the two locations on our carpet. To use these boxes the gray flap had-to stand straight up. We asked John why he had not used the appropriate flush brass receptacles commonly used for floor applications. He acted like he didn't know what we were talking about, so Mrs. Hegeman had to go to Home Depot, purchase the receptacles and have the electrician install the correct boxes. 8) Last but not least, the entire concrete floor in our lower level cracked like a jig saw puzzle. We asked John to fix it and he refused, telling us it was common and just to put carpet, down. We were so con- cerned that we had Doug Hoese, City of Chanhassen Building inspector, examine and record the width ofthe cracks over several months, just to document the failure ofthe floor. Finally, after John's refusal to take responsibility for the floor, we called Mary Deutsch the owner of Deutsch Construction. Marv visited our home with a civil engineer, and took a sample core drilling of the floor. They found the concrete to be only 1" thick in major areas. Marv immediately decided to re-pour the floor and fix the problem. John Knoblauch never apologized or acknowledged his failure. Later we found out that on the day ofthe pour, because it was so cold, an extra 60 gallons of water had been added to the concrete, which completely destroyed the strength of the mixture. We heard from Deutsch employees, that all of the problems with any homes in Knob Hill Lane and the costs to fix these problems were to be taken out of Mr. Knoblauch's pocket. Perhaps, this is why he refused to acknowledge or fix the problems with our home and perhaps that is why Mr. Knoblauch no longer works for Deutsch Construction. Mr. Knoblauch also has a history of failing to disclose pertinent information. He and his wife have routinely over the last 4 ½ years misled our neighbors in an effort to force us to move. We finally sent the neighbor- hood a letter which I have attached, explaining to them what the Knoblauch's and Mclntees' s had done. This letter sums up the problem with the private road that the Knoblauch's were responsible for. We also want to urge the committee and any other party to be extremely careful of any documentation presented by Mr. Knoblauch. He has a history of submitting false information to the City Council, as evidenced by the "as built" plans for the private drive located at Knob Hill Lane. His engineer, William Engelhardt submitted these plans for approval, knowing full well that the road was not built according to the plans. In fact the last 30 feet of the road was not even constructed. We also submit to you a job note, which appears to indicate that the final wear coarse of asphalt was never installed and that the road needed to be extended Further evidence of Mr. Knoblauch's duplicity is illustrated in the four letters attached. Mr. Knoblauch's letters were submitted to a court appointed arbitrator as evidence that he had built the road according to "spec" and that the trees on the McIntee lot could not be removed to facilitate the road being built as approved by the City. Those two letters were a surprise to us and after contacting the authors, and asking them to examine "the facts", two new letters were drafted with quite different opinions. Did Mr. Knoblauch lie to City officials? Probably not, but the question is, Did he attempt to decdve them? Mr. Knoblauch did lie to the Hegemans. On the day the forms were set for the private road, Mrs. Hegeman asked him specifically if he was building the road where it was supposed to be. She even asked why it was not parallel to the southerly property line and perpendicular to the Mclntee lot. Mr. Knoblauch on that day told Mrs. Hegeman that the road could not be moved because it would impact the trees on the McIntee lot. He never disclosed that those trees were scheduled for removal prior to anyone even buying the lot. In the end Mr. Knoblauch had only one concern. He wanted to make as much money as possible, without any regard for the development of the land. He left the trees on the McIntee lot because (as he stated at the last meeting) "trees sell the lot". Mr. Mclntee testified in court that he and his wife would not have bought that lot if the trees were taken down. They made a deal with Mr. Knoblauch to keep the trees and thereby impacted the construction of the private drive. Mr. Knoblauch, in his wisdom and with all his :'experience" deliberately changed the road without the City's permission. Why did he do this? . Mr. Knoblauch should have asked for a variance for the Mclntee home. He could have positioned it differently on the lot and perhaps been able to allow for an adequate driveway pad and keep the trees. However, to do this the house would have been much smaller. Again, Mr. Knoblauch's mindsct was to make as much money as possible. He elected to build a large house on a small lot and allowed the Mcintees to build a driveway pad that is so small that almost every vehicle that visits or makes a delivery chooses to use the Hegemans private property to turn around on. For all of the examples above, we urge the Board and any potential homebuyer to be cautious of business transactions with Mr. Knoblauch, Knoblauch Builders, or Metro Area Properties. The Hegemans C OF }tANltASSEN 5{y Center Drivt, PO Box I47 ,~nhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.93Z 1900 Generd Fax 612937.5739 £n~neering Fax 612.937.)152 Public Safety.tax 612.934.2524 Mb www. ci.c~anhass~, mn. us March 24, 2000 Mr. 3otto Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Private Driveway Construction- Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Knob Hill Project No. 96-10 Dear Mr. Knoblauch: As requested, I have reviewed the private driveway which serves Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 in relation to the approved construction plans for Knob Hill. Based on my inspection today, it is my opinion.that the private driveway has been constructed in general accordance with the approved construction plans for Knob Hill. As stated in my September 21, 1999 letter, it is the City's desire whenever feasible to save trees witkin a project. That is one of the reasons why the City permitted the private driveway to service these lots in lieu of a full public street. IfI may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms %cfs 1 \vol2\eng\projectsXk-nobhill\pr/vate driveway.doc March 29, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Pxe: Private Driveway Construction- Lorn 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 Knoblauch 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 plans up 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 (setting 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 was 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 feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City. Engineer DCH:jms c: John K_noblauch, Developer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director ~cfs ! ~vol2~l~pmjccts~knobhilRhc~'rtan letter, doc $OHH~KHODL~UCH Septeml~r 14, 1999 Mr. John Knoblauch I450 Knob Hill Lane Chanhassen, MN' 55:~ 17 D~x Nfl. Knoblauch, In regar~ to your rucluest to ~:nlargc thc drlw;-,vuy of 1451 Knob l-Iill Lane, the city strongly discourages any furiher rumoval of vegetation on the lot for that purpose. You were allowed a fifteen foot tree removal limit for access to and the construction of the building, which has b~n cleared for the current homo. Removals in excess will be l~naliz,d at a rate of 2:l diameter inches. For exm'nple, ifyou remove a 6-inCh tree you will be r~quir~! to plant of total of 12 inches of trees as replacement. After inspecting the pmposod removal are~, it appears them would 1~ a subsranthtl amount of replac~'nent plantings required. In conclusion, I would like to stre~ again thru the cie/does not believe any trees or vegetation should b, removed on that lot in order to incr~e the siz~ of the driveway area. If you should have any further guestions or comments regnrding this issue, pleas~ feel free to contact me at 937-1900, axt. 150. ~ ~ 612937.5739 :En~ &x 612~37.~152 l:~ublir Xafrty Fax 6129342524 Web urunv, d. dsanlzam~rnn.la April 7, 2000 Ms. Debra I-Iegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lm Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Hcgeman, In 1999, I in.$'pe~ed the neighboring prop~y, 1451 Knob Hill In., ia respoaze *.o a request to remove trees in order to construct a larger driveway. In a letter to thc developer, Mr. John Knoblauch, dated September 14, 19991 concluded that any additional tr~ 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 the building permit survey. However, it has come to my attention'from a facsimile of the neighboring property survey you .~nt that the existing driveway differs from what was prolaosed to and approved by the eity. i.I approved the survey for the lot and in doing so accepted that the trees in quest, on woula ff~ 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 matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,, . Jill Sinclair Environmental Resource Spe¢ialiat o. . · t ~. e t ! t TOTflk P. E~ 6117/97 ~ ..... %.¢.,,! [~li' Meuwissen Securities . 6/17J97 7/17/97 F Securities J LC #26742 EXPIRES 7/17/97 KNOB HILL PROJECT NO. 96-10 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $56,500 (originally $207,800) 11/19/96 - Dave sent letter to bank authorizing,reduction by $151,200 to leave a balance of $56,500. Waiting for confirmation. Kim '~ 11/26/96 - Received confirmation of reduction dated 11/25/96. Kim 2/28/97 - Received letter from bank authorizing reduction to $53,750.00. js 5/19/97 - Notified Dave of impending expiration. Check status 6/17/97. Klm ................................... · (,~A'~ ........ ~..~....v......,...~:./: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ../.:.)....~.c.~ ................................................................ , ...................... ~ .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... · ................................................................................... ...... · .~.,...~.t ............ n ........................ ~ ..... : ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ~ ........... [ .......... ~ .... The truth and the facts of this dispute are as follows: The Mclntees and John Knoblauch built a driveway pad on the Mclntees property that forces the average visitor or delivery vehicle to the Mclntees to choose to use the Hegemans private property to turn around on. This has frequently resulted in damage to the landscaped area ofthe Hegemans property. These vehicles especially large delivery vehicles back into the Hegemans driveway to within 12 inches of our garage doors. We find this to be highly unacceptable and an invasion of our privacy. We paid $89,900 for the privacy of a secluded lot. John KnoblaUch marketed our lot as exclusive and of higher value than the other lots in Knob Hill Lane because traffic would be nominal based on only two residences using a private drive. John Knoblauch was given permission to build a private drive with specific requirements for its construction. Per city specifications and as evidenced by the plans submitted and approved by the city of Chanhassmh the private drive must be 20 feet wide and constructed to hold a 7 ton limit. John received permission from the city to reduce the width of the private drive after it passed our home to a width of 16 feet. Before John sold either lot, the survey plat of these two lots clearly shows that the private drive runs parallel with the property belonging to both the Twaddles and the Bastians. It also shows that many trees were scheduled for removal, including the trees presently located on the Melntee lot and causing the traffic problem. The easement is shown to be approximately 33.44' wide by approximately 300' in length. The private drive is shown on ail plats as running parallel to the Bastians and the Twaddles and approximately 5' from their property line. The engineer who designed the private drive attempted to minimize the impact to the building lot that the Hegemans presently own by allowing the 20' wide asphalt drive to be placed as close to the property line of the Bastians and Twaddles as poss~le and 'allowing room for snow removal and deposits. This would have required that two trees located on the Mclntee lot directly in the path ofthe approved drive be removed. And in fact, John Knoblauch received permission to remove these trees as evidenced by both the enclosed letter from the city forester, Jill Sinclair, and the survey plat of the lots prior to anyone purchasing them. Mr Knoblauch did not build the driveway to the approved city plans. He failed to continue the asphalt driveway to the property line dMding the Mclntee and Hegeman lots. We believe this failure to construct the approved driveway was a deliberate attempt to make the Mclntees lot more attractive to any future buyers. It also kept the Twaddles happy by leaving two attractive trees on the Mclntee lot. Other than those two trees, there was not much appealing about the Mclmees lot. It was a narrow and unattractive lot that was completely landlocked. The Hegemans were shown that lot, and knew immediately that the lot had too many negative features to be of any value. We purchased our current lot in November 1997 and moved into our home in March 1998. The plat of our property never indicated that John would later change the path ofthe private drive. In court, the Mclntees indicated that they asked John about the path of the private drive and whether they could keep the two trees that were absolutely blocking the approved path of the private drive. According to their testimony, John assured them that they could. What he failed to tell the Mclntees, was that this was never discussed with the Hegemans. The Mcintees never discussed it with the Hegemans. Even during driveway pad construction, the Mclntees deliberately withheld this information from the Hegemans. The Hegemans did express concern about the size of the turnaround area located on the Mclntees property. Shawn assured the Hegemans he would "look into it". The Hegemans assumed the builder was looking out for their interests and that he would not allow the Mclntees to build something that would negatively impact the Hegemans property. Mr. Knoblauch did not submit any "revised" private drive plans to the city. The current width of the private drive as it passes the Hegeman home has been reduced to only 12' wide. The approved plans require it to be 16' wide for the safety and access of emergency vehicles. The city ordinance also requires that the private drive be of 7 ton compliance. Testing done this year, proves that the entire length of the private drive fails to meet this compliance. Over twenty samples were taken and none passed for 7 ton compliance. The private drive as currently constructed is not acceptable to the city and is currently under legal review. Neither Mr. Knoblauch nor the Mclntees ever submitted "revised" plans for their private driveway pad. In case the Mclntees failed to disclose this to our "concerned" neighbors, please note that the building plan for their home was submitted and approved by the city with a driveway pad that would have allowed an adequate turnaround and parking for vehicles. This "approved" plan clearly shows the removal of the trees in the path of the entrance of the private drive. The design that was submitted and approved is not what John and the McIntees built. The Hegemans questioned John the day the forms for the McIntees pad were set, specifically why he had created an angle in the path of the priVate drive, why it deviated so far from the property line of/he Twaddles. John told the Hegemans that he could not move the driveway path located on the Hegemans lot any closer to the Twaddles lot line because the trees on the MeIntees lot were in the direct path of the entrance of the private drive onto the McIntee lot. He flailed again, to disclose that those trees were scheduled for removal to make access for the private drive and for adequate parking on the Mclntee lot. In conclusion, Mr. Knoblauch deliberately changed the approved path of the private drive across /he Hegmans lot and in collaboration with the McIntees willfully failed to build a driveway pad on the Mclntees property that allows adequate parking or turnaround for the average "innocent" visitor or delivery truck. These "innocent" parties are forced to use the property owned by the Hegemans to exit the Mcintee property. These people continue to turnaround on the Hegemans driveway pad and "accidently" drive through landscaped areas and the Hegemans will not tolerate this situation to continue. The Hegemans challenge any "neighbor" to turn their personal vehicles around on the driveway pad of the Mclntees when the Mcintees' babysitters vehicle is also parked on the driveway pad. It doesn't take an expert, to see why the average person will not even attempt this maneuver and instead elect to use the Hegeman's private driveway pad to turn around on. (Especially during the day when they don't think they will be caught). Then, if you really care, watch a UPS or Federal Express truck, they don't even drive onto the Mclntees lot. They stop on the private drive on the Hegemans lot, and then back into the Hegemans driveway pad. Since the driveways are all constructed of concrete the natural abrasion from these large vehicles will ultimately result in additional expense for concrete repair to the Hegemans while the Mclntees concrete remain.q undamaged. To prevent this invasion of privacy and subsequent property damage, the Hegemans have elected to put up barriers and signs to warn people not to trespass. We have also elected to monitor our property with surveillance equipment, since we can not be home during work hours. It is up to the Mcintees to correct their original error in judgement. Their driveway pad should be enlarged to allow their guests and deliveries adequate turnaround and parking on their lot. It is up to John Knoblauch to take responsibility for non-compliance of the private drive and to make the necessary repairs both to the structure and composition and to the approved path of the road itseE The barriers will remain up because they are a simple fix to a problem that was not caused by the Hegemans. We hope they remind our 'haeighbors" that we did not invest close to $500,000 to have our property used as a bus stop or a cul-de-sac. The fact that the Mclntees now wish to complain about the appearance is ridiculous. There is no monetary damage to the Mclntees. The only damage to the Mclntees is to their pride. Their legal fees were paid by their insurance policy while the Hegemans are currently out ofpocket over $50,000 to legally "fix" the problem. The Mclntees built a big house on a small lot, did not provide for lawn or outdoor entertaining or recreation, did not provide for their guests to park; thereby forcing them to either walk 300' in possible inclement weather, or choose to attempt to back down a narrow and curved 300' driveway that has no provision for night lighting. Who will bear the burden of a lawsuit when a visitor to the Mclntees slips and falls on an icy private drive 300' long and unlit at night? Are any of our neighbors willing to accept that liability?. The Mclntees assumed that the Hegemans would allow their private property to be used as a parking lot. The Mclntees assumed too much. The incovenience to the Mclntees is there own creation. They don't like looking at barriers and we don't like looking at uninvited vehicles mining around on our private property and leaving tire tracks that require hard labor to remove. The Mclntees have never offered to be responsible for any damage created by their guests or deliveries. In fact Mr. Mclntee told Mrs. Hegeman that it wasn't his problem, that the Hegemans should contact their personal insurance company, because that's what they make insurance for. We have neither sympathy nor good will for the Mclntees nor their complicity in the creation of the document that was unlawfully delivered to our address on December 14, "in the Christmas Spirit" The Hegemans The Hegemans want to make it perfectly clear to all current and future residents of Knob Hill Lane, that we will not tolerate any type of harassment or invasion of privacy or damage to property. Unless you are specifically traveling to or l~om the Mcintees do not use the private drive. It is not for public use and violators will be prosecuted. , INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE /,oZz:L ~ = FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION /~/2.o,~. = BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION /oZo. ~, = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION SCALE: 1' = 30' /t/ z~/ o4~ ..q,~., ,/. _ hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a tract of l~nd as shown and described hereon. As prepared by me this ~5~ day of t "~ '" CARVER '-' 3UNTY, t O ! j,60 ,., FINISHED 6ARA6E FLOOR ELEVATION OiO. ~ -_. BASEMIB~ FLOOR ELEVATION =='TOP OF.FOUNDATION ELEVATION 92.26 ~002 1' APPROVED WET .LAND - g · ~ NWL..,,. q¢r/.~z //k,% !) t ob DRAINAGE AND . / ,,:":..'~ / . ..j -~~ ) . - _._ ~ . ,/j ~ , ~ -~- ' ,~= /I ~ * e~'.'- /~/0 '~. ~ -' - ' ~lo,~ ' ~ ' -, ~ ( ,a~ , ~'~,~ /~ , ~ - , . /u .... / ~,L-d .,'~ ..~ ~ ~ ~.%:.~~ ~~-, ~k ......... · ( se~5o'5o"E ._._o" (,.~-b · - Juae~, 1999 Deutsch Construction · PO Box 127 3106 Leroy Avenue New Prague, MN 56071 Att: Mary RE: Failure to comply with survey / driveway access and easement to 1451 PrOperty Dear Mary: I had a conversation on Friday June 4, with John Knoblauch. I informed him that I had received a su~ey for the property located next to ours, specifically 1451 Knob Hill Lane. In reviewing the proposed driveway easement, I noted that there is a major discrepancy in the location and construction of the current concrete pad conne6ting 1451 and 1459. The current angle constructed by John at the request of the Owners of 1451 creates a difficult entrance and exit from the 1451. It appears this was done to ckcumvent the removal of several maple trees. The current driveway area constructed on the property at 1451 does not provide adequate space for visitors or delivery trucks to turnaround. Therefore any visitors or trucks are forced to back up the narrow dogleg connecting 1451 and 1459. This dogleg is only 12' wide. The access Should be by contract 20' wide. Failure to maintain the 20' contn'butes to the problem. The angle ofthe dogleg is not easily negotiable and visitors and trucks fail to mm at the correct angle and therefore either back into the trees tnt the property of 1459 or across the landscaped (to be completed in the near future) and sprinkler installed area on the property of 1459 next to the garage. In addition most visitors attempting to leave the property of 1451 back up this dogleg and then use the concrete pad owned by 1459 to turnaround in. This creates black tire marks and again is unacceptable to us. The current concrete angle and width increases the difficulty for future snowplowing and snow · ~emoval. This will quite likely increase the liability to-our property. The engineers survey, clearly shows that there should be n° angle and that the access is parallel to' the property tine and is approximately five ~o six feet from the marker (see "A"). We trusted John~ as your representative of Deutsch Construction to maintain compliance for this easement. We were never provided with a copy of the easement or its declarations. John did not ever disclose to us that the maple trees located on the property of 1451 were in the direct path of the future driveway to 1451. His failure to disclose this "IMPORTS" detail has caused enormous damage to our relationship with the owners of 1451. If we had been given a plat ofthe property of 1451 or had a verbal conversation with anyone related to this easement, we would have emphatically declared that those trees needed to be removed. John Knoblauch had a business obligation to inform us of this and he failed to do so. We believed and assumed he was honest and would maintain the easement as shown on our survey. This issue should have been divulged and discussed when excavation of the foundation began on 1451. The maple trees and the box elder tree should have been removed at that time. It is clearly shown on the survey of 1451 and the proposed driveway pa~t is clearly shown. Ifthose trees had been removed, there would have been room for building materials and construction crew vehicles to be parked on the property of 1451. As John has done for ali other sites, this is usualIy the first area cleared and yellow stone put down to accommodate parking and building materials. Instead John deliberately chose to deposit major construction materials on the property of 1459 without our permission or consent. Construction crew vehicles were parked on the property of 1459 blocking the entrance and exit from our garage area on a daily basis. Two specific vehicles were parked less than 6' from the side of our garage for almost the entire six months. These vehicles consequently damaged the two existing trees located on our property to the left front of the garage and they eventually had to be taken down. We could not complete the sprinkler system or landscaping to the left of our garage for the entire six months from May through October of 1998. This effectively prevented any work from taking place until the following spring due to winter weather conditions. This inconvenience was completely unnecessary. John led us to believe that he had no other place to put the materials or to park the vehicles. In fact, he would have had more than adequate room if he had removed the trees on 1451 and cleared the documented turnaround area as noted on the survey of 1451. I argued and complained about the inconvenience almost on a daily basis for the entire six months. I do not believe that given the number of my complaints, that John could poss~Iy have "forgotten" to mention a possible solution to the problem I do believe he deh'berately, and probably with the knowledge ofthe owners of 1451, agreed not to take down at least the maple trees in an effort to enhance the attractiveness of this lot. It does not take a rocket scientist to look at the two surveys together and see that the property at 1451 has limited access. This was not an easily marketable piece ofproperty due to the easement and the fact that those trees were scheduled to be removed to make room for a driveway and adequate turnaround area. Now that we know we were deliberately deceived and subjected to unnecessary inconvenience related to the construction of 1451, we wish to be compensated at the rate orS 1000.00 - One thousand dollars per month for the duration of our inconvenience. The duration of the period was from May 98 to Oct 98. Therefore, you owe us $ 6,000.00 for the use of our property for storage of construction materials and parking crew vehicles. Furthermore the liability created by the incorrect placement of the current easement and concrete pad will incur approximately $ 2,000.00 in corrective landscaping and ,~nkler work. W,e expect to be compensated for this expense also.._ , .. ~/~~ ,...//! For every week forward from this dar. e-6/6799 that you fail tO correct t e co c ere p an easement between 1451 and 1459, we will assess you damages for inconvenience o£$1,000.00 per week. We hold you respons~le for any legal fees incurred for this claim due to your failure to disclose pertinent facts related to the driveway easement and negligence in improperly installing the concrete easement. We further hold you liable for the damage to our relationship, with our neighbors at 1451. Your poss~le failure to 'reform them of where the fight of way/easement accessed their lot from our lot, and the subsequent changes necessary will quite naturally upset them. For this irreparable damage, we assess you the amount orS 10,000.00 - Ten thousand dollars. We expect you to use every available means to protect our current concrete pad and you must repair any subsequent damage to it as a result of the corrective actions to be taken on concrete removal, tree removal, and concrete installation associated with correcting the easement between the property of 1451 and 1459. Further loss ofmy time from worg, will cost you $ 250.00 per day for each occurrence. My employer has been very patient with the problems associated with the construction of this house, and my lost time from work. I have been advised by my employer that they can no longer accommodate this inconvenience. Please advise the owners of the 1451 that the current access across our lot is unacceptable. Please also advise them of the constraints imposed by the easement. John indicated on the phone that we had a copy of the easement, but we do not. Our deed mentions the easement - T9381'8 dated 9/10/96 and registered on 9/27/96 but we have never been provided with a copy or advised of the terms. I believe after talking with my attorney that the owners of 1451 should be informed that they have the right to pass over the easement, that they DO NOT have the right to use our driveway to mm around in, and that they are not allowed to park in the easement. Please notify them as soon as poss~le because I believe they intend to landscape in the near future and this will surely impact that work. We have enclosed a survey document of 1451 and 1459. We have approximated byred line the current concrete access/driveway. The yellow represents approximately where we expect the new concrete to be placed. I will be meeting with the city/town of Chanhassan officials at 1:00p.m_ on Monday June 7 on my property to get their advice. I met with my insurance agent on Saturday, June 5. He has documented my concerns related to the easement and taken pictures for their files. If you have any questions, please do hesitate to contact me." We are truly disappointed in John, as your representative. Sincerely, Cramer & Debra Hegeman cc: John Knoblauch Hap LeVander, Maun & Simon PLC DORIS P. MIERENDORF NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Comm. Expires Jan, 31, 2000 Z 385 776 217 1JS Postal Service ,oRecei[3t for Certified Mail .No Insurance Coverage Provided. 'Do not use for International Mail (See reverse) Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Postage $ ... :~" .~" Certified Fee /-~0 Special Delivery Fee -"'-' Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to - Whom & Date Delivered / '2 ~" Ret'am Rece~ Sho~, TOTAL: $ 7. :30 ~ U..~ POSTAL SERVIC:E *** EXCELS I OR ~,4o 2ND ST 553:_q'~ :LERK' #04 :ATE: 06,"07,"99 12: 24: 28 PH .09 PVI 3.20 89 PVI 3.20 93 PACK PROD .90 TOTAL: :B 7.30 *** THANI< "tOLl 5. Re, ceived,.By: (Print Name) , · SENDER: u~ [3 Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. · Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ~ [] Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this > card to you. 1. [] Addressee's Address ~ [] Attach this form to the front of the maiipiece, or on the back if space does not u permit. 2. [] Restricted Delivery ,-- [3 Wdte 'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. ~ -[] The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date o delivered. 'o 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~'' '..;~-" ~ / ~_ L ,-, ,/'G"'/L),'"'0'b' Service Type °o r-~ ~__.~,~,'"~-"_.~.~ (-----~-~\~ ~t~i~._b Registered d~;~ertified ~ ~ i ~'~:~ L~"~ ~';~'~ /r"~)/L~/" ~ ! ~ Express Mail [] Insured /"'~J"'-4~{~~ Receipt for Merchandise [] COD C3 N2L~,_0 .~-~ [-] Return < 7. De, of De,~ery n,- "~ 8. Addressee's Address (Onl/ffrequested and [u fee is paid) -- PS Form 381~December 1994 I also wish to receive the follow- ing services (for an extra fee): 102595-99-B-0223 Domestic Return Receipt 0 'ID SENDER: ~ CompWte items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. [] Pdnt your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. [] Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. [] Write 'Return IReceipt Requested' on the~mailpiece below the article number. · 13 The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date I also wish to receive the follow- ing services (for an extra fee): 1. [] Addressee's Address 2. [] Restricted Delivery delivered. 3; Adicle Addressed to: 4a. Article Number. 7,~i~ . Z[ 7 S. v,c T ,e O · ,., ~ ~ ~~Registered ~e~ified ~ · ~ ~ Express Mail ~lnsured ~ ' ~ ~etum ~eceipt for Merchandise ~ OOD ~ 5. Receiv~ By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 102595o99-B-0223 Domestic Return Receipt Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE 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 ON 7.59 ACRES OF LAND ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF LOCATED AT THE END OF KNOB HILL LANE, METRO AREA PROPERTIES, KNOB HILL 2ND ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Deb & Cramer Hegeman Dan Leary Chad Haasken Barb & Jim Quiring Mark Paulsen David Smith Mike Preble Diane Wyffels Meta McKenna Michael Brandes Cindy Doms Mike Hatch David Slotten 1459 Knob Hill Lane 1275 Lilac Lane 1376 Ithilien 1384 Ithilien 1501 Knob Hill Lane 1341 Ashton Court 1352 Ithilien 6421 Teton Lane 1459 Knob Hill Lane 6411 Teton Lane 6398 Teton Lane 1392 Ithilien 6401 Teton Lane Bob Generous presented tile staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Cormnissioners, any questions of staff? Go right ahead. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Bob, the letter from Mr. Haasken. I don't 'know if I'm pronouncing that right or not. Also noted that there's only one access. One road in here. Only one access. Could you speak to that please. Generous' Lots of developments are accessed via a cul-de-sac. While there's no specific standard on length of cul-de-sacs, what we look at is a fire safety issue. The Fire Marshal reviewed that. He had no concern with this development. There's a minimal number of units that would additionally access this roadway. He didn't feel that that was an issue. Kind: Normally staff recommends having two access points though for other subdivisions that I recall that we've seen. There's usually two access points. Is that true? Generous: That's correct. We always try to connect neighborhoods. However in this instance with the Knob Hill original plat we tried to get the right-of-way to connect to Lilac Lane. At that time council determined that they didn't want that secondary access. The development to the east is already done so there's no need or opportunity to extend... Kind: And then tile issue of the private drive that was in our packet, kind of on the tail end of it. I'm assuming that that documentation was in our packet just as background information and we're not empowered to make any recommendations or decisions about that. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: That private street is a part of the Knob Hill development to the west of this which is not contingent on this property. This was something completely separate. You have to look at the merits of this case. Kind: Very good. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any questions right now? Claybaugh: Not at this time. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: I have some questions, yeah. Has there been considered to maybe do some flag lots at the end rather than a private street or a public street? All the way back there. Generous: Pardon me? Sacchet: Has there been any consideration of accessing the southern most lots through, one of them through a flag lot or a shared driveway or something like that? Generous: Not, well that again flag lots are the same as private streets. They have to go through a variance review process and you have to show that there's enhanced protection, environmental protection. Sacchet: Now talking about environmental protection. You believe that between the two plans that were submitted to us, they're about equal environmentally? Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: There is some discussion in the report about preservation easement. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And in two cases it is stated to be determined. Can you give us a little more about that please? Generous: Unfortunately Jill was out of town when we were working on this. Sacchet: I know where they are. The two to be determined but I'd like to know a little bit more what you're going to determine... Generous: Well we're looking at now that we'd probably come in with a 40 foot conservation easement on Lots 4 and 5 on their west property line. That would allow basically the building pads that are shown in the preliminary plat drawings but then we'd have a larger setback if you will along the property line and preserve trees and that also forces them to go out farther for any grading. Because you can't go within the easement for that. So that, but Jill was gone. When we finished she had her initial report and she didn't 'know for sure and so we sat down today actually and were able to go over that. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification here. Bob, I'm not tracking you I don't think. Condition number 5 that you're recommending on page 10 talks about tree preservation easements in the rear yard and it says 60, there's certain lots and they're usually 60 feet. Did you just say 45 feet...? Generous: Well for the two that we were, to be determined on the west side so it'd be Lot 4 we're looking at 40 feet. Kind: Of Block 2? Generous: Of Block 2. And the westerly 40 feet of Lot 5. Because we had it's southern boundary already determined but we were working on the westerly boundary. Blackowiak: Block 2 or Block 17 Generous: Block2. Block 1, I'm sorry. Yes. Kind: Okay. And so right now the recommended condition is for Lot 2, Block 1 in the rear 60 foot setback, and did I hear you just change it to 45? Generous: No. For Lot 4. Kind: 40? Generous: 40. Sacchet: Lot 4, Block 1. Generous: It'd be 40. Sacchet: And Lot 5, Block 1, the westerly piece. Blackowiak: Westerly 40. Generous: Right, because we already have the southerly 60 feet. Kind: Got it. Sacchet: Quick 4 questions. The wetland is basically that artificial pond. Generous: Right. Sacchet: How did that become a wetland? Generous: Seeds come into it and it just starts to take on the vegetative characteristics. Sacchet: So it actually gets the status of a wetland? Generous: Well it can unless you can do the exemption... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: It's wet as long as they're... Lookout dwellings on the, I guess that's the north side. Would that have to be graded somewhat to become lookout lots? Generous: Yes. Because it's pretty flat there. Sacchet: That's why I'm asking. Okay. Let's see, the trail easement. That's jUst to connect from this cul-de-sac south? Where would that go there south? Generous: Well initially it would just go to the property line, but there's a trail in the Curry Farm development that we would make the connection at some time in the future. Sacchet: So it would have, need more development there or what would it take to make that? Generous: Well that could, if the property came in here, we could take it as part of a subdivision. But the Parks Director suggested that maybe in the future we'd look at acquiring that. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all my questions. Thank you very much Bob. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Any more questions commissioners? Deb, questions? Kind: Ah no. I already asked some. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one quick question. I'm looking at street widths and we're trying to measure here. A 60 foot right-of-way on Knob Hill Lane and that implies a 30 foot street, is that correct? Generous: 31. Blackowiak: I'm sorry what? Sweidan: 31. Blackowiak: 31, okay. And then currently on Knob Hill Lane existing right-of-way and street width. What are those? Sweidan: The same... Blackowiak: So it's exactly the same. Okay. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I have one more quick question. Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: There is this rather extensive correspondence attached from the, relative to the Hegeman property and I assume the Hegeman property is this one? Generous: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 2002 Sacchet: And so, is the reason why that's in here is that in the context of, and my papers are escaping. In the context of this subdivision we would want them to improve that surface or what? How does this play into the context here please? Generous: It was just submitted as public comment and so anything we get we attach. Really there's no remedy that we can do as part of this development. Because they're not proposing that street anymore. That was already approved. Unfortunately, or fortunately the city, while it has standards for private streets, we view them like we do the public street because we don't accept maintenance responsibility for them. They can show us a cross section that meets the 7 ton design but we don't go and inspect the installation of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: And I don't have any questions at this point so. Claybaugh: I have a question for Bob. Bob, when they do a private street like that, do they ask for results independent testing? Do they require any independent testing on those private drives? Generous: Not that I'm aware of. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane. Can we get that up on, can we get this up on the screen? There we go. I live in this lot here. I'm also a resident off of Knob Hill Lane. I developed the original Knot Hill 1st Addition. There was 12 lots platted to the west of the Donovan parcel that this plat has been drawn on. Just to give you a little background on this parcel. Back in '96, there was quite a debate on taxes for this Donovan parcel. Quoted in the minutes from the, actually almost 6 years to the date by Mayor, the mayor and Colleen Dockendorf and Jim Berquist. It was pretty much agreed upon, I've got the minutes here that this cul-de-sac could handle up to 25 residences with the current city ordinances. We've got 11 that service off it now and 10 are built on. The new subdivision would be an additional 9 lots which would total a total of 20 would be accessed off of Knob Hill Lane. Basically the agreement was, as long as it was noted in my covenants when I developed the first section of Knot Hill, as long as I noted in the covenants the council at that time approved this access for the future extension into this 8 acres or so. That section of my covenants read, to put the Knob Hill Addition owners on notice. Knob Hill Lane has been designed to have the option to service the 10 acres directly to the east of Knob Hill Addition for an extension of another cul-de-sac up in Knob Hill Lane. Also sewer and water's been designed to possibly extend to the east to service this 10 acres. So that's how we kind of got to this point. There was a temporary cul-de-sac put in. A 45 foot cul-de-sac put in at the end of Knob Hill Lane that I believe in this proposed preliminary plat would be removed with new bituminous brought back to just after my driveway, approximately back here. A couple of things to note on, I believe it's Block 2, Lot 1. I would propose that home would, I heard a concern over the lookout on this home. That building pad would probably slip to the back. There is, in the staff report there's been a request that that shed be moved onto the existing home site where in this preliminary plat it's about 1.6 acres with the existing home here. As far as the private drive, my main goal in the original plan that I presented at a neighborhood meeting, which was about 45 days ago, basically I worked on this myself and not being an engineer I strictly was trying to come up with a good plan that would work for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 2002 neighbors to the east. Give them some buffer from the roadway, and also enhance an association type property with the tennis court that's there and the vacant land that would be on the east side of the private drive. That's the plan that I've basically endorsed all along. Staff would prefer to see the, a public street and as a result that encroaches heavily on the east neighbors. All these people are basically friends and neighbors of mine and I would really like to see staff and the Planning Commission look at my first plan and make sure that they make the right decision in regards to what plan they're going to recommend. As far as the drainage issues, RLK who I've got a representative here tonight has pretty much assured me that the ponding to the north will be more than adequate. It will probably assist in the drainage of the easterly neighbors. They've got a catch basin between 7 and 8, approximately here that handles their back drainage which eventually goes to the pond which is over hear Ithilien. Or on the other side of Ithilien. So I don't really see where we will be creating any drainage problems for anyone. We've been used pretty much everything else that's gone on with this piece as far as tree preservation. We did a good job on the first addition with preser, ving the trees in the area, especially on the lots to the south and also on my lot. So I don't presume we're going to have too many problems there. I understand there's a 20 foot tree removal limits on the homes and we're used to that. As far as the pad variances, my understanding is that that's been somewhat resolved with my engineer and staff in regards to that first pad that's in question. Out on this comer here. As far as timing and such, I would appreciate this to get expedited. The homeowners who are the neighbors of mine and in the, I Was kind of laughing because in the minutes in 1996 Mr. Donovan had said that he expected to live there another 39 years. And here we're back here 6 years later. The parcel I was hoping that someone would come up with a plan to buy the house and preserve the piece. Put it into some kind of preservation. The sale price that he had on it dimmed my hopes. I didn't want to extend this road, but when the listing came out, one of the listing was for the possibility of a subdivision, including 22 townhomes. And that made my wife and I very nervous. We' ve got a large investment in our home and my dad lives across the street from us. And then also there was talk of some other builders trying to do some obviously lesser quality homes than what is in the first addition, so as a result you know over the last 2 years Jim had always told me that I would have an opportunity to buy it. I felt a little bit forced into it. I'd prefer that someone would come forward and buy the whole thing and leave it. The only way that's going to happen is if somebody buys that house and signs a preservation agreement on the whole piece. I don't think realistically dollar wise that's going to happen. The house is worth too little and the land is worth too much. Unfortunately our good real estate market, all of us have prospered with our homes and as a result it seemed inevitable as one of Dave Smith's letters said that he wrote to you guys. So as far as, did you have any questions at all? Blackowiak: Are you finished with your presentation or are yOU just kind of waiting til you're done. John Knoblauch: Sorry I'm getting too long. Blackowiak: No, you know it's your nickel so go ahead. John Knoblauch: Yeah, in regards to the bituminous driveway that you talked about that's adjacent to my father's property, we actually in February of 1999 we offered to put an inch and a half, or a inch and a half lift on that private drive if the homeowners could get' along. Unfortunately they haven't got along and we still sit there today with a road that needs another lift. The homeowner that is unhappy with it has had the opportunity to approach me. Blackowiak: I think as we say that, I guess that's a totally different issue so I don't want to detract from what's in front of us this evening so why don't we kind of focus on what you're bringing to us and let's talk about this. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 John Knoblauch: But I wanted to make the Planning Commission comfortable that at some point that issue will be handled. I have no doubt in my mind. I've got about 350 happy homeowners out there and mostly from the south metro and with this plat I'm sure you'll have some real nice taxpayers. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners any questions of Mr. Knoblauch right now9. Sidney: Yes. I have a question I guess generally. Staff has prepared a report and has recommended a public street. What are your, what is your reaction to the conditions that they've attached and how is, have you discussed this with staff?. John Knoblauch: Well, you know Dave Smith who lives here, I went to his house today and our kids are friends and stuff and I would really like to see if a public street is the only route that staff is going to recommend, that somehow we get a bigger buffer between those homes. And I'm not sure how that's going to be accomplished or what not. The trees that are in this area, along these properties, are definitely a concern. Some of them are on the Donovan property now. And he's, actually in his letter he's recommended to try to get a 40 foot buffer there. We've got 10 where the public street. I've got a lot where the private drive. So I guess I prefer to see the private drive with a small cul-de-sac and that will definitely enhance the neighbors to the east. Obviously staff has got to look out for city interest and I understand that. I'm not going to be up here to fight that. And can I address that easement? I definitely, I forgot to address the easement on the park easement. The Stuart property to the south by the way is going to be very, very difficult to develop. The topographical in that area is pretty extreme. The city requiring that, I don't really know if that's too realistic. I'm sure they can maybe if there's some kind of condemnation or something they could do that, but I would be opposed to that easement there. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Bob, can you clarify. I guess I'm not quite tracking on what he's saying. Generous: Are you opposed to the trail easement? John Knoblauch: Well yeah. I don't really think it's highly unlikely that that will ever hook up. Based on what I know of the Stuart property. I mean I'm not going to stand up here and fight tooth and nail that the Park and Rec. Blackowiak: Right, I think that goes before Park on the 26th I believe so until that I think it's premature for us to, I mean you can certainly state your objection but. John Knoblauch: I understand these easements are given for park trails that are maybe 30 years from now too. Blackowiak: Correct. John Knoblauch: I understand how that type of situation. This may be one of those, I don't know. Blackowiak: Yeah, again I'm not sure. That meeting hasn't taken place yet so we'll have to wait. LuAnn, any further questions? Sidney: If I recall you said you had a neighborhood meeting. What were the issues that were raised during that meeting? 14 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 John Knoblauch: Well at the meeting I had the hand drawn, myself drawing with the private drive and my engineers, I just pretty much had directed them to see if they could make that work. So that plan was shown to them. This public street plan was not shown to them. I did not have that at the time. I wasn't aware that, I don't know when the variance requirement came in on private drives. They're pretty much granted pretty regularly up until 2 years ago. Or so, I'm not sure on exactly when that was adopted so I presume that 4 lots off that private drive was going to be pretty acceptable. And also with our first meeting with staff. The public street came up as obviously the staff' s ammo to defend the idea of a private drive and as a result they seem to like that plan better but the neighborhood meeting definitely, a buffer between the, in this area there's no tree buffer. There is a tree line of evergreens right here right now. A pretty decent tree line of evergreens. There's been some concern too about this pad here being too close. In actuality I' ve got a lot like this is in Shakopee and at this point right here they consider this to be a side yard, and so I only had a 10 foot setback there in Shakopee. And this is considered the rear yard. Directly square with the house. We've pretty much accommodated a 30 foot setback for both and are still able to make that work, but this lot ends up being a pretty large parcel. About 60 by 60 pad. I mean I built two of the homes in Knob Hill I built on 50 by, they were 50 foot deep pads. And they actually had a variance on the front yard of 10 feet, so I'm very confident that those pads will be way more than I need for 2 story homes that have been built in there. But that was the big concern of just pad size here on this lot, and then the buffer along the road side. But at the time they had seen that the tennis court was going to stay, and that's what I prefer to do is just leave it as it is with the private drive. If the public road goes in, obviously the tennis court' s got to go, if that' s the plan that staff is recommending. And I think that's pretty much the only thing that would be removed. As far as the pond, I don't know if you, the pond has been pretty much confirmed. That was obviously built, man made. There's very little vegetation on it. It has a liner in it with rip rap around the edge of it. It's actually got a fountain in the middle. I will produce aerial photographs with that, not present. It was actually built by Larry Kerber in 1985. So there won't be any wetland issues after that is taken care of, but we will be filling out the proper paperwork for that. And then we have the pond to the north will be pretty much similar, at least water surface. And also in actuality the elevation on the north end of the property suits that pond very well. It's actually 1,000 6 I/2 on that far end so it's got natural drainage to it. Plus we'll have storm sewer obviously coming off the street to it so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn, any further questions? Sidney: Not at this time. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a few quick questions. You mentioned that on the first plan you were pretty careful with the environment. The second plan you weren't quite as careful, correct? John Knoblauch: With the? Sacchet: With the public street. John Knoblauch: With the public street? Sacchet: Yeah. John Knoblauch: With this one you mean? Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Yeah. John Knoblauch: Because of?. Sacchet: Well, because you don't like it, to be frank. John Knoblauch: Oh, you mean I don't, because I'm a neighbor you mean? Sacchet: Well, I'll get to that in my comments. I was wondering whether you want to say something about that. The way I read the plans, I mean the public street one, the way the lots are configured and the way the building pads are put in, it definitely has a much more significant impact on the environment. It cuts more trees. It's further down into the slope. So I was just curious how aware you were of that. John Knoblauch: As far as the home pads actually you mean 4 and 5 being moved down the slope farther on the? Sacchet: Yes, 4 and 5 in particular. John Knoblauch: Actually I don't think, I'm sorry, 3 and 4. I don't think 3 really changed that much. Sacchet: No, not 3. 4 and 5 are the ones. John Knoblauch: Yeah, 5 has always been pretty much about 30 feet off of this line here. This is probably the one that moved back a little bit. In actuality when I walk down there, it's, these contours here, it's pretty open right there. You can see there's only a few 16. There's a 12 inch box elder. There's one, and then there's an 18 inch box elder but there's one over here. There's a little bit of an opening in there. This has been cleared by Mr. Donovan. I don't know if you've walked it or not but over the years he's actually cleai'ed all the under brush so it's very. Sacchet: It's pretty clear? John Knoblauch: Yeah. It's actually very walkable. There's probably a 6 foot wood chip trail through there. So there's not any really under vegetation that much is going to be affected. It's been very cleared out and the trees are trimmed up. Sacchet: Talk about clearing on your plan with the private drive, the preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan. It says that the tree canopy is going to be removed. Or a very big lot like this whole area here is marked as tree canopy will be removed, and it's much more than just a building pad. So is your plan to basically clear-cut that area? John Knoblauch: No. We try to save trees. I pretty much tell my homeowners, anything within 20 feet of the structure is in jeopardy of dying when we build a house. We need at least 10 feet to operate a bobcat around a backfill, and so I suspect that there will be front yard trees saved. I'm sure of it. And then of course the backs will be...some of these are over wider than 90 so I'm presuming with a 60 foot pad we will save some property line trees. Sacchet: So how do you explain that then this whole blob is marked as canopy to be removed? John Knoblauch: Actually I haven't seen the plan you're looking at so I'm not sure. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. Because that kind of threw me for a loop. On the one hand we're talking, trying to preserve trees, and then I look at this and 2/3 or zA of it is marked as canopy to be removed. John Knoblauch: Yeah, actually the only plan of tree removal I had was with the private drive plan was this. There' s kind of a hump on the other side of the tennis court that we would have had to take out right in this area. And that was only, that was basically clipping this corner in order to make these two driveways work. At that time, I mean basically we were going to run private driveways back to the home pads and I would be basically, you know I'd be sticking to the 20 foot tree removal. Now you're right. I mean you run gas and power and sewer and water back and you're going to have some damage. But it's trees are what sells lots so, as you well know, so it sold me on mine and I, so I guess that's, you're not going to see me going and clear cutting that whole area. I don't know what plan you've got there. If that's from the engineer in regards to removing all that but. Sacchet: Well I assume it's the package that you submitted. I mean it's that whole stack of plans that came with the packet. John Knoblauch: Okay. Sacchet: Let's move on. Just a couple more quick questions. This concern about giving access to that Curry Farm outlot. How it's called in our plans. Do you have an issue with that? John Knoblauch: Well, you know I'm just not overly excited about it because I don't think it's necessary. ! don't think it will ever get used. Part of the reason is I probably just don't want my kids using that trail. It's probably one of the most dangerous trails you've ever been on in your entire life. They call it billy goat hill and it's, you can't ride your bike down it. It needs to be resurfaced. It's amazing there hasn't been injuries on it. It should really have a guardrail. Sacchet: Where are you, I lost you. Kind: It's a trail and you're talking about the road. Sacchet: I'm talking about the access to that house. That's the one here in the middle. That Curry Farm property is kind of landlocked. I understand your concern about the trail, yeah. I'm clear about that. But another aspect that' s mentioned in the staff report is that by bringing the public road further back, that it gives an access to that Curry Farms Outlot C, and I think it has a different name. John Knoblauch: Yeah, we've got a house that has an access already that's already built there. Sacchet: It has an access from the other side? John Knoblauch: Right. From Teton, from Ashton Court. Dave Smith's home and one other home that he used to live in is accessed. There's a du/~l driveway there. Sacchet: So this side is actually considered a back of that house then? John Knoblauch: That's the back of the house, so that's his view out all of his windows. I mean that's why we really wanted the buffer there. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: That's good to know. Last quick question. This preservation easement for the trees. The way it's being proposed, the 60 feet and possibly less...or it would interfere with the building pad. You okay with that? John Knoblauch: I'm sorry, what was that again? Sacchet: Staff in their report and in the conditions that they present to us, they're proposing a tree preservation easement for basically the whole westerly and southerly edge of the property. And it's basically 60 foot except in the 2 cases where the 60 foot would interfere with the current building pads. And I wanted to see how you feel about that tree preservation easement there. John Knoblauch: Well I'm obviously in favor of the tree preservation. I mean that enhances the lots. My whole lot is in tree preservation so this parcel here, on the whole east side of my house, some of the trees are 150 years old. All in tree preservation and I granted that with the first plat so I'm actually in favor of any tree preservation we can do on that parcel. I know there's been some concern with the trees but it's, I'll definitely be building probably 50 foot deep, 54 foot deep two stories there. You know I'm going to try to keep the houses up as close to the road as I can obviously because the back yards are going to be steep if, you know especially on Lot 3. So I'm going to be encouraging people as I've worked with all the people in Knob Hill about their homes, to work within the pad area but also we pre-stake the homes typically with the homeowner too so they can actually see what trees can be saved and what can't. So I'm sure that's what we'll be working on, but the tree preservation's great. Sacchet: And the steepness is definitely an aspect as much as the...but that's all my questions. Thank you. very much. John Knoblauch: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners. Deb, questions at all? Kind: No, he left. Blackowiak: He left, okay. Excuse me Mr. Knoblauch. Is there anybody else that you'd like to come up and speak to us? Your engineer or anything. John Knoblauch: No. He wasn't going to make any comments at this time. I think they're working out some of the smaller issues like those, the variances on those pads that we probably won't be dealing with at this time. So he doesn't really have any issues at this time. They haven't done any construction plans or nothing. We're just in the preliminary plat stage so he's just in attendance to see if he's needed so. Blackowiak: Great. Alright, thank you. Claybaugh: I have a question of Bob. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: Yeah Bob, could you comment on that man made pond. That pond you alluded to earlier that said it established a little catch for vegetation. I was wondering what specifically...something like Ihat. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: Well it's called an incidental pond. Or incidental wetland and if you can show it's a man made water holding body and it wasn't there naturally' then it's exempted from the Wetland Conservation Act. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing, and I'm guessing from the number of people still in the audience that you're either here for this or you're here for the Legion so just a couple of ground rules. If you could get up, make sure you state your name and address for the record. Try to limit your comments to 5 minutes. And try not to be terribly redundant. I mean let's try to bring up new issues and make sure that we can fully appreciate all the concerns that the homeowners have. So stating that, this item is open for a public hearing so come on forth. State your name and address for the record. Dave Smith: I'm Dave Smith. I live at 1341 Ashton Court, which is this home right here. And I actually didn't even get notification of the meeting. I was off the list here and this morning while putting together notes here I thought well, I'I1 share the notes with the neighbor. John came over and I saw the information that you can share your notes with the city as well. Did you, and I dropped off a copy for Bob. I don't know if you guys had gotten this or not. Okay, you have so anyway, just to reiterate. Generous: It's on the back of one of them. Blackowiak: Yeah, it's on the back of the, in order to conserve paper he double copied two sides. So we have one side with the request for item number 2 to be pulled. Turn it over. Look on the back side and that should be his letter. Dave Smith: Just to reiterate maybe some of the things that are on there. I'm not opposed to the development. It' s, you know the main issue for me is the proximity of the road to, not only my home but some of the other neighbors here as well. And the first choice would be a private drive. A private drive is less imposing. We could move it over more and have more space. 'More green space inbetween. More of a buffer zone. I was actually pretty surprised when I did see this plot that it was so close to our back property lines. And lookint~ at this, it looks like we've got big trees here but these trees, these trees here and several others actually would get wrecked in the construction of the road. And so again first choice is a private drive, but at minimum it looks like we've got enough size here so that we could move the road over perhaps as far as 40 feet. And so that way we' re not all looking out our windows onto all the asphalt that's back there. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Excuse me Madam Chair, is it possible if I ask this person a question? Blackowiak: Certainly. A quick question is fine. Sacchet: You're the person who's in that house that staff is recommending giving access from the road or? Dave Smith: No, I don't, I'm not sure what Bob was referring to when he was talking about that. Blackowiak: Okay Bob. Sacchet: Can you point out which one you are? Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Yeah, let's clarify this. Sacchet: Because that's important. Dave Smith: I live right here. Okay, this home right here. Blackowiak: Outlot C. Dave Smith: Outlot C, which actually is accessed from this side. My garage is facing this direction. I mean there would be no way that I would want access from this street. Sacchet: That's why I want to ask you about this because according to staff, this lot is considered land locked, is that correct Bob? Generous: Not land locked. We noted that it was accessed via private street. However it does not front on a public right-of-way. Sacchet: It doesn't front on a public right-of-way. Generous: So the adjustment in the right-of-way was to make some other changes in the plat and to do- that we needed to. Sacchet: Okay, so now that it's established that you are the person with that property, do you have any interest whatsoever to have access from this new road? Dave Smith: No. The front of my home is oriented to the other side so. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers my question. Dave Smith: One other thing. Private driveway has been no problem for me so I mean it works. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Chad Haasken: My name is Chad Haasken. I live at 1376 Ithilien, which is Lot 8 right here. One of the bigger concerns if it does go through is going to be primary this lot here. As the elevation on this was shown is it's, I wrote in the letter that I wrote to you, I can't remember what the elevation height was but right now I definitely have more ponding right now as in how it sits and I do believe that unless you make it at least a foot below grade, you're still going to have some type of ponding, more ponding on my property. And I think that this is definitely going to be very, very close to my property. Obviously I'm used to looking at the pond right here right now and you can put 3 houses there and it's going to devalue my property when I go and try to sell it. Obviously I don't want to be looking at houses so that's my biggest objection is I don't want to be looking at houses and a driveway and all that kind of stuff. That's about all my concerns except the ones I wrote in the letter to you. I don't know if you have any questions about any of the concerns that I wrote in the letter. Blackowiak: Any questions for Mr. Haasken? Chad Haasken: It was the Chad Haasken. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Right, Chestnut Realty. Chad Haasken: Yep. Blackowiak: Got that one. Claybaugh: You indicated that some of your neighbors also had some ponding, correct? Chad Haasken: Jeff gets some sometimes. I mean I have the main drain going right down mine and Jeff Smith's property right here. I don't know, I haven't really walked my neighbor's back yard lately to see about anything. If they're having a lot of ponding. I know mine is. Claybaugh: Yeah, sure. That answered my question. Bob, assuming, trying to looking at the grading lines here but I'm assuming everything's going to drain down to that retention pond from everything in Block 2? Correct? Sweidan: Yes. Most of the grading actually collected by th{s street is going to be conveyed by storm sewer system to the storm pond. And the 3 lots, there's no drainage toward the east, toward his lot. It's actually going toward the north. Claybaugh: Toward the north towards the retention pond. Sacchet: Madam Chair, in the same context, is there, since there is really a dip in those two back yards, is there anyway that that could be drained into that new retention pond? Sweidan: The back yard drainage, it's going to flow normally, according to that proposed drainage to that pond so it shouldn't be any like concern... Sacchet: So it should actually naturally flow in there? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: So his concern, his situation would actually improve? Sweidan: Actually the whole design of the whole, it would improve the drainage problem he's complaining about because if you look at the existing drainage, most of that cul-de-sac half of the road is draining toward these 2 lots. Lot 6 and Lot 7. I mean Lot 7 and Lot 8. Whereas that existing pond right now there. With this street, now they are gathering or they are actually collecting the surface drainage from the street and the cul-de-sac, conveyed by a storm sewer to the proposed pond. So it is almost like half or let's say three-fourth of the surface existing drainage is conveyed by storm sewer system. So it should be less problem for him. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Mike Preble: Hi. My name is Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien which is on the corner of Lilac and the Donovan property and two comments. One, I support Mr. Knoblauch's desire to develop this property Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 and I would hope that what's finally recommended would be of most benefit to the existing homes that are already along the eastern border of the prbperty here. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. When you say what's being proposed, do you mean the private street or the public street? Mike Preble: Personally I would like to see a shorten public street with private drive. That would be, or sliding it over somewhat, I don't know what the footage would be but to create something along here. My house, I have a very nice corner lot here looking up into a very nice set of woods and view is important. Blackowiak: Certainly. Mike Preble: It's nice to hang out and look and also I'm wondering about if property values would be affected or not. I would expect they would be, you know if your property would go down in value because of a road here versus if you slid it over a little bit. Not really affecting this value, keeping here the value that it already has. That would be great. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mike Preble: Thank you. Debra Hegeman: I'm scared to death. Blackowiak: Oh we're fun. You don't need to be scared. Debra Hegeman: I'm the culprit that put all that extra information in your packets about 1459 Knob Hill Lane. I'm Debra Hegeman. This is my husband Cramer. We live on the end of the 300 foot private drive and while that specific problem cannot be addressed here tonight, I'd like to tell you the problems that we have experienced with a private drive that because we were naYve, dumb maybe, didn't ask the right questions, what we've come to experience. What we found out after we moved into the house was that the lot next to us, which had a proposed driveway pad that was engineered was not built according to the engineered plan. Can you force someone to do that? No. But the result was they built a driveway pad that you can fit basically one car on to turn one car around. So we are left with a very expensive home with a decent sized driveway pad on our property that borders a private road that runs past us that is burdened by trucks, vans, Simon Delivers, UPS, turning around in our driveway within 12 inches of our garage doors. We're not real happy about it. When we explored further, after the first say 6 to 8 months that we were in the house, we noticed that the road was breaking up. The edges were breaking off. There started to be rutting. So I asked Teresa Burgess, City Engineer to come and take a look at the road. And she came out. She walked the road with me and I said what's the problem? And she said it appeared to be, in her judgment, that the sub-soils or the sub-base was failing and that even if you put asphalt on top of it, within a short period of time it would break up again. Based on that I asked her what I should do and she suggested that well, You really need to know what's underneath it so we ordered core drilling and testing. This took 2 days because Mr. Knoblauch and his father tried to stop us over a 2 day period and the sheriffs had to be called, everything was crazy. Core drilling was done. In the report that was attached we referenced 13 bituminous samples that were taken. Actually over 20 samples were taken because our driveway is made of concrete and underneath the concrete samples were taken also, and everything failed. Our problem is, Metro Properties was the development company that built the road. We have a building agreement document with Deutsch Construction who constructed our home. 22 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 We were not smart enough to know that how you tie the road to the house. Is there an implied contract? We're still in litigation to find out. Mr. Knoblauch did agree, or did send us a letter in July of 1999 saying well, if you pony up $3,000 I'll give you some money towards that and we'll fix the road, the 3 of us. But we also knew, already knew the road wouldn't be fixed by a lift. So we have declined his offer. If you drive down Knob Hill Lane, come visit my house. You will see the .problem. The as-built drawings that were submitted and approved by the city per engineered drawings say that the road is supposed to be 20 feet wide and then reduced to 16 feet wide after it passes my driveway. He had approval for that. The driveway's only 10 feet wide. People cannot turn'around. Fire trucks and emergency vehicles could not get back through there easily. Could they get through there? Yeah, if they drive on my lawn in my landscaped area. That's my front yard. I've invested several thousand dollars in a 3 tier waterfall on my front yard. That's a 30 foot box truck from Simon Delivers using my property to make a delivery to the neighbor. This is what I go through 3 times a week with various delivery companies. Based on us living on a private road. My concept of living on a private road was that it would be more private. I wouldn't have public traffic. I wouldn't have this burden. Instead this truck is 24 inches from my garage door. So before you approve any private road. It's not just this one. Any private road, talk to the city about going through the set of checks and balances, number one to make sure that it's structurally sound, because mine is not. Make sure that there's some type of requirement that says if you submit as-built drawings, that that's what's there. It's not. That's my comments. That's my husband's comments .... do you have any questions? Blackowiak: Commissioners? No. Thank you. Mike Brandes: Hi. I'm Mike Brandes. I live at 6411 Teton Lane. I'm probably the second closest property to the proposed road line. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Could you, could we look at the map and can you just point where you are so we can all get a feel for that. North should be at the top. Okay. You're at the south end then? Mike Brandes: Right. Actually the southeast comer of the proposed property. Blackowiak: Okay. Lot 117 I'm sorry, would that be. Generous: Lot 6. Blackowiak: Lot 11, okay. Mike Brandes: I'm on Lot 11. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mike Brandes: My question is, I don't think, we haven't seen the map of the private drive and I'm curious what the setback would be for the road on a private drive versus a public. I assume this is a public road. Blackowiak: Yes. Mike Brandes: And how far back would this road be in a private drive scenario? Okay. I've heard a number of people saying they want the private drive but I don't think anybody's seen it. At least as drawn. And I prefer the private drive obviously. More space from the lot line. Other than the Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 2002 concerns... So that'd be my only comment. I'd prefer the private drive and the setback from the existing property line. Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. David Slotten: My name's David Slotten. I'm at 6401 Teton Lane. Basically I'm the lot right south of Mike's, which there isn't a house on the map. So that's just those blank. Basically I'm facing right there so my lot basically, I've got mostly all the trees in this subdivision. That's all I'm looking on my whole back line. I guess one concern I had, I guess what I'm looking at is the farther you move it back the better so I guess I support the private drive. But one thing concerned me, and I guess this is the first time I've heard about the extending the bike path. Would that be, see I got that going right along the south end of my house. Now I'm not quite sure how you would extend it unless you went right along the back end of my lot line, and I guess that would just be taking out more trees. Blackowiak: I unfortunately do not, haven't seen any plan yet. That does go to the Park and Rec Commission on the 26th of this month. David Slotten: Okay, because I hadn't ever heard of that. Blackowiak: Okay. So it will be, they'll be reviewing it then. We have not seen any plan. Bob, can you help me out at all? Generous: It hasn't been to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks Director told me that that would be his recommendation. That we take the easement now as part of this plat and then at some time in the future we'd make the connection. However, as part of this development there is a water line being stubbed down this so that's going to take out the trees. It would follow that alignment. Blackowiak: Okay, so then the trail then would go basically on the southeast corner so that the easement would be on that area? Generous: Right. Right along the property line. Blackowiak: Right along the property line on the Knob Hill 2nd Addition. Okay. David Slotten: Be going north along the property line? Blackowiak: Yes. Generous: Yes. David Slotten: So basically you're going to be taking out all the big trees anyway then. Blackowiak: It doesn't look, according to the plan like. David Slotten: Because it looks to me like the house, the plot is right on the property line of my house. My lot and tike Mike's. We're looking into the side of it. Generous: Yes. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 David Slotten: ~ou know and we're looking at an easement but if you're going to be running, putting a house there and running a bike path through there, I don't, I mean it's totally going to take everything out. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just going to say the houses is more intrusive in this case I think than the trail would be. It appears that the trail would not impact any trees based on the. David Slotten: But between the, I mean between the, I mean right now if you look out my back yard, I mean you' re looking up at solid trees. Blackowiak: Right. But are they on your property or are they on the neighbor's property? David Slotten: No, they're on the neighbors. And that's all I'm looking up to I guess. I don't know how the drainage goes but hopefully nothing's draining right back into our yards. Blackowiak: We're trying to look at the, I'm sorry, at the tree canopy calculation. I just don't see anything but again, if you're interested in this I would strongly recommend you to go and, go to the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting on the 26t~. I think they're at 7:00, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: In this location. David S lotten: But I'm just thinking in a combimition of this, you know I know that it's inevitable it's going to get developed, but it'd be nice to have some trees there except otherwise they're just looking right into my back yard. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, no I certainly understand what you're saying but I think that they would probably be able to give yoi~ a little more specific information as to exact location and timing. Okay. David Slotten: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Claybaugh: Madam Chair, point of clarification with Bob? Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: That's the 6 inch dove tail line pipe? Generous: Yes. Claybaugh: that they've extended through. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Go ahead. Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on 21640 Lilac Lane, and I don't have comments so much as I have two questions. The first question is, is there any...from Lilac Lane? Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Well we'll just answer these questions one at a time. Bob, would you like to take that? Generous: The City would maintain access for maintenance purposes for the pond but not public access. It wouldn't be a street into the project. Blackowiak: So it wouldn't be paved. Would it be just a trail or what would it look like? Generous: Grass most likely. Blackowiak: Grass? Okay. Eric Danser: And the second question is too, and just, if you can just tell me real briefly, what is the difference between a public street and a private street? I mean where is the big difference? Why such a concern about this? Is a public street wider than a private street? Generous: The design is 11 feet wider pavement width. The right-of-way width is 30 feet versus 60 feet for a public right-of-way. But the ultimate design is a 7 ton I believe is the same. And a public, private street may only be used to access 4 homes. A public street you can access as many as fit. Eric Danser: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Diane Wyffels: Hi. My name is Diane Wyffels. I live right on 6421 Teton Lane, right next to Dave and right inbetween Dave and Mike. And I would prefer that you have a private drive because I have a lot of asphalt that will be going right by my back yard as well. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mike Hatch: My name is Mike Hatch. I live at 1392 Ithilien and that's the home right next to Dave's here. I would be right there. I am in favor of the private drive if it's done correctly obviously. I sell real estate for Remax and obviously this development is going to affect all the surrounding houses as far as appreciation and re-sale. I think that the private driveway would give us that same feeling when we look out of our windows in the back, all of us here enjoy that view of this open land, the pond and all that. Keeping the tennis court in a park area here would only enhance the views that we still have. Obviously some of the folks down here are going to be affected regardless of what we do. In regards to the drainage issue that Chad was talking about, I'm not sure how drainage works but when it does come down, it comes down all along the back yards of our properties here now and in heavy rains it accumulates pretty nice where there's a stream about 4 feet wide. So when Chad brings up that point about the drainage, if that would affect that, that's only going to add to that and I think a majority of these houses that are built on clay so a lot of that drainage issue is going to be intensified by the development so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Cindy Doms: I'm Cindy Doms and I live on 6398 Teton Lane and I actually live between Dave Smith and the Wyffels. This property would not affect me directly, but sort of any kitty corner, indirectly it would definitely affect my view. That is all on my back yard and I just want to say that I am for the 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 development and I' m for the private drive for the sake of the view I bought my property. I have a half acre of land for privacy and for view. And I'm just hearing that the public street would cause, have less of a better view than what the private would be and I trust the Knoblauch's with their design and so I just want to put my vote in for the private drive. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Jim Quiring: My name is Jim Quiring and I live between Mr. Hatch and Chad here. I think it's Lot 9, if you're looking at the map. And I'm kind of directly affected as much as anybody is because it's kind of where the curve goes into the public street. The original design with the private street is much less intrusive, or whatever the word is, so I would put my vote in on that. But I also want to back up Chad because my house, as I say is between these two and we were one of the original houses built there and since Dave's house has come in...had a creek running through my back yard every spring which would wash out the grass and the bottom of the creek, and by mid-summer it would grow back. Well this past year since Dave's house has been there, it never did grow back so I know the drainage has been affected by Dave's house and I can only imagine that it would be by these other houses as well. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mark Shole: Hello. My name is Mark Shole. I'm with RLK. We're the engineers for Metro Area Properties and I kind of had a question in regards, there is briefly the watermain extension was brought up and I just kind of had a question. We were directed by staff to extend that watermain to the south property line and we went ahead and drew that and then we had asked staff if the extension all the way to the south property line was indeed necessary. They said that they would take a look at the developability of the property to the south and see if indeed that stub would be necessary to connect or to loop watermains in the future and my question would be for staff if they looked into that matter and if we do indeed need that, that watermain stub going beyond the cul-de-sac. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, staffl Who'd like to tackle that? Sweidan: We usually always try to make the watermains to be looping and we are expecting like a future development to the south part of it so that's why we are ending it with a...valve and to be extended in the future. And that's like...recommended of future extension. Blackowiak: Right, so it's smarter to do it now than to come back. Sweidan: Exactly. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Okay, would anybody else like to get up before I close the public hearing? One last call. Alright, seeing no one else I will close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make their comments. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question of staff maybe before we get into comments. Blackowiak: Sure. Kind: I'm vacillating between this private drive/public street scenario and I'm wondering if there's a compromise position. Do we have to have a 60 foot right-of-way? Can we work with a 50 foot and would that allow the road to be side? I'm not sure if the neighbors are aware, what's drawn on here is Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 not pavement. That' s the full right-of-way of what the city owns, and that the pavement would be 31 feet. But do we really need 60 feet right-of-way? Sweidan: Well 50's workable. I'm not saying that is not workable but it's not going to affect the seeing, if it's 50 or 60. There's no difference in the seeing if they are looking from that point. But that width of the pavement is 31 fixed 31. Kind: That's fixed at 31, no budging on the width of a public street? Sweidan: No. Kind: But if we budge on the width of the right-of-way, we could slide the street. Sweidan: We could, yeah. Blackowiak: To the south. Oh, west. Excuse me. I'm looking, I'm thinking that's north. Okay. Kind: West, yeah. Because the alignment that's on the private street, why couldn't we get something a little more close to that is where the road positions. Blackowiak: Well I think, Deb just let me. The private drive is not showing any right-of-way. That's one big difference. That's just showing actual pavement width, so I think that's one thing that's somewhat deceptive. Looking between the two plans. We're not really comparing apples to apples. Kind: But since the Curry Farms, Mr. Smith does not need access, there would be room to maybe slide the public street to the west a bit. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Madam Chair, could I ask a question too of staff? Blackowiak: You certainly may. Sacchet: How are we doing with the time line? For this application. Generous: We're good. They need to have final review by March 19th. Or we take an extension. Sacchet: Thank you. That was my question. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Well let's go and move to comments. Commissioners. Would you like to, go ahead. Sidney: Yeah, this is a really tough application to look at. I have mixed feelings. I think Commissioner Kind probably expressed a bit of that is that the private street has some appeal in that it would create a buffer to the east. However, I guess I have still a problem with the fact that based on the private street findings, and looking at that, one of the things that we have to look at very carefully is somehow the only thing that we can do in this city is to provide a private street. In this case there did not appear to be any problems with the topography or this parcel so that a public street can be constructed, and if that's the case we should move toward constructing a public street. I'm not sure if I really see the optimum plan 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 before us at this point and that's I think the problem I have. We've been drawing and drawing on the plan here at this end of the commission and trying to come up with various scenarios and I guess I'm not really happy with what I see in that case either so I'm a little bit perplexed as to how to proceed. I think we're still not there in terms of where the plan stands. I'm voting for the public street option but the plat we see before us, like I said, I don't think is optimum in my view. And I guess I don't have any strong feelings that the private street would preserve more trees. Still with any building that's going to be done, we are going to lose trees. As long as we can maintain the easements that are proposed, I believe that's the way I'd want to go. So with those thoughts I guess I'll pass it onto Uli maybe. Blackowiak: Comments? Sacchet: Yeah. You know I'm very clear about this. This is totally not clear. Neither of the two solutions is the right solution as far as I'm concerned. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I feel that there should be a give and take. This should be something to be considered. The private drive is too extensive and bringing the public road all the way to the back with the full cul-de-sacs is also extensive. Too extensive. There needs to be something inbetween the two. Consideration of a flag lot. Consideration of accessing 2, maybe 3 lots from a private street. Preferably than 4. The cul-de-sac being somewhere around where the tennis court is maybe a little further but away from the property lines and obviously the neighbor to the west, east. That is to the east, has no interest of getting access. I feel very strongly that this needs to be further, this is not cooked. I mean this return to sender, I'm sorry. And I'm very, very uncomfortable about this grading plan that shows like ~A or certainly 2/3 of the canopy to be removed. Now this might be a mistake but that's what's submitted to us along with the plans thht show the private road. I mean that's horrendous environmental damage. That is definitely not a good idea. Now, I do believe that the building pads on Lot 4 and 5 1 believe this is, need to be moved out of the drop off. They're too far down into the slope. It may not make that much of a difference with the trees, but it's certainly impacting in a negative way that they go that far into the drop off. Also, the building pad on Lot 6, I like to see moved further north that is away from the drop off and wooded area. I would like to see a 60 foot tree preservation all around, which at this point is not possible because with the public street, at least 2 of the building pads would touch into that. It's the corners that go into the real drop off, so I'd like to see that 60 foot preservation go all the way around. Now, the preservation of the tennis court is not realistic even with the private drive. I think that's a total illusion. I don't see how that could stay there even with the private drive. That's definitely not, I don't see it. In terms of the variance for the pads to the north, obviously that's not an issue. Neither is the wetland. That's a non-issue as well. The issue with the trail easement is obviously park and rec situation, and that will be addressed there. So in terms of the findings, the finding number 5 where staff proposes that the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval, I really don't agree. I think that actually looking at the plans and I was trying to figure out how aware the applicant was of that. That actually the private street proposal has less environmental damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the public street is going to have more in the end if it' s fine tuned. Obviously the applicant has absolutely no interest fine tuning the environmental impact of the alternate, with the public street so that needs to be looked at so with the current proposal, both of them, I find there is excessive environmental damage. With the private street plan we have this canopy removal of about % or 2/3 of the trees with the public street, they're pushing several building pads down the slope into the drop off and further into the trees so I do not agree with those findings that I think with both plans, the environmental damage is unacceptable and it can be mitigated. It's not like there are extraneous circumstances...to improve. So on that basis I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled and come back with a better proposal. Sidney: Madam Chair? I guess one comment, a question for staff maybe to follow up my comments. In conditions 28 and 29, you have a number of things listed Bob that talk about the utility plan and grading Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 2002 plan. Is this now revisions that would be made to the private street plan to convert it into the public street? Or how is this, or. Generous: Well the utilities, Madam Chair, Commissioner. The utility plan they didn't show one per se for the public streets, but it could be realigned very easily so it would work for both of them. Sidney: Okay. Generous: Grading plan, none of those really can, pertain to the roadway. It's more the house, the storm water pond and the site grading. Sidney: Okay. So for the public street option we really don't have those plans completed in front of us? Generous: No. They'd be very similar to the private. It's just a wider right-of-way width. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I favor the public street way, route. Mostly because there's no findings that we can come up with to grant a variance for it. But I would like to figure out a way to do a 50 foot right- of-way and slide, since Smith's don't want access, let's slide it away as far as possible and make it as nice as it can be for the neighbors. The drainage, I am comfortable with engineering's read of the grading plan: That it will actually improve the situation. And especially with a public street because that will have manholes and convey water to the drainage pond. Another reason to support the public street I guess. So I'm in favor of the public street and deny the two variance requests. Whether it should come back to us, I guess I would be in favor of taking a look at it one more time again with direction that, to revise that right-of-way and get that alignment as far away from the neighbors as possible. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: Yes. The three elements that stood out obviously were view, drainage and the buffer issue. I think the last minute rush to accommodate both a public and a private plan leaves some holes in the dialogue. I'm not sure if different sections of some of the recommendations and such, which plan we're talking about and it's a little bit confusing for myself. I believe that through better alignment of the road and I think some additional clarification by staff engineering for the residents, I think that some of the buffer concerns can be addressed. I think that the drainage issues with a public road lend themselves toward the water problems that the neighbors to the east are having currently, i believe that, at this time anyways with these plans, that the public roads portrayed in it's probably fullest or worst possible view with the private road being shown with minimum width and minimum impact is being shown in it's best possible view. Like my fellow commissioners, I don't feel like I'm prepared to act on it at this point. I'd like to see further refinement of the public access and I would encourage further dialogue with the neighbors to the east with respect to the benefits of that private road, or the public road, and try and see that in it's best light. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. My comments are not dissimilar. I certainly agree that we, were we to permit a private street serves 3 criteria that have to be met and they are not met. So given that, we as a commission need to again move forward and deny the private street. Which is not to say that the public street is optimal right now. I agree with Commissioner Kind's thoughts that right-of-way could be 30 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 decreased from 60 to 50 feet allowing the shift west of the road, and that would I think help out not only the views but also the general feeling for the neighbors to the east, and also potentially allow Block 2, Lots 1, 2 and 3, to potentially be slid a little bit forward and therefore possibly eliminating the need for the variance on Lot 1, Block 2. In addition, changing the easement needed would potentially help Uli on Lots 4, 5 and 6, sliding those closer so I think we can accomplish a lot of the goals that we as a commission are hoping to achieve I guess in this plan. So at this point I'm leaning towards tabling it and also giving some direction to the applicant as to what we'd like to see. However, because the review deadline is November, or excuse me. November. Don't I wish. March 19th, I would need the applicant to agree that we as a commission can have extra time to review this and to waive the 60 day review deadline. So I can't, Mr. Knoblauch, are you, there you are. If we indeed table this tonight, and I'm saying that that's the direction it's appearing that it's going to go, we're going to ask for further refinement on the plans. Would you agree to an extension of the 60 day review? In other words, extend the deadline from March 19th so we as a commission could have additional time to review revised plans that you would submit. John Knoblauch: I would be heavily against that. The property, this is pretty much already. Blackowiak: You know what, can you step up to the microphone and we'll just get that on the record so, make sure everyone can hear what we're saying. John Knoblauch: Yeah, the property's been pretty much, if we come in with a new, with a revised plan there won't be any variances. And as far as moving the road over, I mean we can make every effort to do that with the 50 foot right-of-way. That was one of my original suggestions to staff was to try to come up with a different plan that would leave some buffer when they originally approached me and asked if this could be done as a private, as a public street. One of the factors that we've always looked at is tree removal and the tree removal on the existing home, as the curve of the road steers away from the east line, it will dig into the hillside of the existing home and there is some pretty significant large trees on the other side too. And that was 'kind of a balance we were trying to create there. The other thing that I would mention is is that the tree canopy calculations for this property do fit into your ordinance, if I'm correct on that Bob. - Generous: Yes. John Knoblauch: So the calculations have already been done. I really don't see a point in delaying this for an extra. Blackowiak: For an extra 30 days roughly. John Knoblauch: Yeah, it really isn't probably necessary. I'm sure staff and RLK who work good together, can come up with a hopefully a little bit more of a bend in the street and I don't think we can address all of your concerns on, you know I mean we can do the best with the preservation. Unfortunately this property, I mean ideally from a developer's perspective, this thing would be, have no hillside and no trees. From a developer's standpoint we'd run a road right down the middle and I'd have lots on both sides but unfortunately. Blackowiak: Right. Well I guess what I'm trying to, I think what I'm trying to facilitate right now is, the option for you to come back with a plan that is more palatable. That is more complete before it goes to City Council. Now, at this point we're looking at tabling and we're giving you that chance to come back with a more finished, a more polished presentation. But if that's not what you want to do, then you can Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 choose to go forward to City Council with this and that's not a problem. I mean that is your option so, I guess it' s, so either you choose to, you know put a little more effort into it and to modify or to go ahead with it as is. So I guess that's my question to you. John Knoblauch: Yeah, I would like to expedite the project as best we can. I'm very confident with the amount of information we have now that there can be come adjustments made to create a small buffer between the easterly property line. My concerns is I don't think you know this is, I've be.en through, this isn't my first bar-be-que as I often say and you know, but a lot of times these developments that I've been involved in seem like the Middle East crisis. There's really not a solution for everybody. And so I would ask for the Planning Commission's understanding in that. Blackowiak: Well certainly we can take a vote tonight if that's what you would prefer. John Knoblauch: I would prefer, if you're going to table it, I would prefer to come back at the next meeting with our polished plan with, I don't think you're going to see, you know great changes in the plan. I know Bob has spent, you know I've had staff give their recommendations. I've had them look at it privately. Our engineers have looked at it extensively. There isn't really a, because of the topographical and the dimension of the property, which is kind of a, what do you call it? A boot size or something. Holster size property, it's a different piece to develop. I mean that was brought up in 1996, and that's why there's only 8 lots and they're 20, average 27,000 square feet. Your minimum lot size is 15,000 so you know I guess that's what I would propose is that we come back to your next meeting and try to look at the private drive issues. I'll talk with Dave Smith. Blackowiak: Okay, so you kind of went full circle there. So first you were saying you wanted us to act on it so then will you grant us the extension there"ore so we can go ahead and table it tonight? That's the question I have for you. John Knoblauch: Well I'm not sure. I don't do that much development. So you're saying that we wouldn't make ihe next meeting. Your Planning Commission meeting on your date is what? Blackowiak: It would probably, well our next meeting's the 5th but unfortunately we have to put legal. Well not unfortunately. We put legal notices in the paper, excuse me, and we don't have enough time to get the meeting noticed to the proper people. So it would not be physically possible to see it on the March 5th meeting. We could, Sharmin, correct me if I'm wrong, see it on March 19th. Does that sound reasonable? And that would assume that you get your plans in by, give me a date. By March 5th? A1-Jaff: 2 weeks, 3 weeks in advance. Blackowiak: That would really be pushing it. Yeah, so I understand your time constraints and I'm trying to be sensitive to that but I am trying to give you the chance to really put the best plan forward and make the best possible plan you know for the City Council. John Knoblauch: Yeah, if basically we can come in with a revised plan you're saying March 19th, I'm pretty confident of that and you know if we can get into council, is it 2 weeks after that? Generous: No, it would be the first meeting in March, which I don't have a calendar. Or April. John Knoblauch: Okay, it'd be the first council meeting in April for preliminary plat approval. Yeah, I mean it's obvious. I mean we're not going to get it passed tonight so. 32 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Correct. So it's do you want us to table it or do you want to vote on it as is? That's really the question. John Knoblauch: Yeah, I guess I would prefer to table it and I'm sure Mark can work with Bob and get it handled for the 19th. Blackowiak: Okay, so then I need to, then you understand that I need you to just say that you will grant us the extension from the review deadline. John Knoblauch: Yes, I'll grant the extension from the review deadline. Blackowiak: Okay. Because by state law we have to review everything within 60 days and we can't meet that 60 day deadline when we table so we just need to understand that that's okay and you understand what we're doing and...We need it in writing too so scratch it on a piece of paper and sign it, that's fine. It doesn't have to be terrible formal but just so we all understand each other. Okay, with that I need a motion. Sidney: Motion. Blackowiak: Go ahead LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. We got one motion which is that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report. Kind: I' I1 second that motion. I have a friendly amendment just to tack on, and the denial of the variance for the 60 by 60 foot building pad requirement. Just deny them both in the same motion. Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: If we table this, are we still voting on the variance? Kind: We're voting on the variance right now. Sacchet: Shouldn't this be tabled as a whole thing? Blackowiak: Are we going to table as a whole thing I guess. Kind: We might as well let him know we're not accepting the variance. Sacchet: As it is proposed now. / Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Kind: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Blackowiak: We'll go ahead. There's been a motion and a second. Sidney moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report, and denial of the variance for the 60 by 60 foot building pad requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Okay. Next. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission tables approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition as submitted. Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission tables approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition as submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Sidney: Madam Chair, direction for staff? Blackowiak: Yes. So I was going to say, we need some direction here. So I think we all made some corm-nents concerning I think in general the wish for a public street rather than a private street. We would like staff to work with the applicant to look at reducing the right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet. Possibility of shifting that public street to the west a little bit, and in that same vein realignment of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2. Pulling them a little bit closer, a little bit further to the southeast or southwest actually that would be. And same thing with Lot 1. Or Block 1, Lots 4, 5 and 6. Potentially just shifting as available to pull them a little bit away from the slope and the trees back there. And then also Uli had talked about a 60 foot preservation easement, tree preservation easement around the entire thing. Look into that. Commissioners, anything to add that I'm missing here. Sidney: I guess encourage the applicant to bring this before the neighbors again for discussion. Blackowiak: And I know we have kind of a short time line but we want to try to keep this moving through and just keep the lines of communication open. Any other comments? Alright, and I'd like to thank all the neighbors tonight who got up and took their time to speak before us this evening. We really appreciate that. And right I'm going to take a 5 minute recess before item number 4 which is the project for the Legion site. So 5 minutes, we'll be right back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 5.584 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,617 SQUARE 34