1 SUB 7303 Laredo DriveCITY OF
STAFF REPORT
PC DATE: 9/5/00
CC DATE: 9/25/00
REVIEW DEADLINE:
CASE #: 00-2 SUB
By: RG, DH
10/3/00
Z
_.!
n.
O_
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lake shore parcel into 2
single family lots (one lake shore and on non-lake shore) on property zoned RSF
Lucas Igel Addition
Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills lS~'~Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive
David & Rachel Igel
6195 Strawberry Ln.
Shorewood, MN 55331
(952) 920-8300
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre)
ACREAGE: 1.09 acres
DENSITY: 1.83 units per acre, gross and net
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval to create two lots, one 21,752 square feet
and the'other 25,749 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing
house on the site will be razed to accommodate one of the two new houses.
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.
-.fa Dr
:L~us Lake- _~
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create two lots from a 47,501 square foot
property. One of the lots would be a lake shore lot. The other lot would be a non-lake shore lot.
The applicant has shown a 60' by 60' building pad as well as an estimate of the eventual building to
be included on the property. It should be noted that the buildable area for Lot 1 is constrained on
the west by the line where the lot width meets the 90 foot width.
Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes,
W - RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property
and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes from west to east with a high point at
Laredo Drive of 940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the
Lake). The two lots will be accessed via a common driveway which will enter onto Laredo at the
existing driveway, paralleling the north property line. The site has approximately 77 percent
canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 55 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy
coverage of 46 percent.
The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest
floor elevations of 929 and 912 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot 1 is the proposed westerly lot
and Lot 2 is the proposed easterly, lake shore, lot.) The proposed lots are 21,752 and 25,749 square
feet, Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Minimum lot size for shore land property is 20,000 square feet and
non-shore land property is 15,000 square feet.
The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose
using the existing blacktop driveway to service both lots.
Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the proposed development
complies with City Ordinance and is therefore being recommended for approval.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 18~56 through 18-63, Subdivision Design Standards
Sections 20-476 through 20-486 Shoreline Management District
Sections 20-611 through 20-616 RSF, Single Family Residential District
Section 20-905, Single Family Dwellings
Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
BACKGROUND
In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition. On
December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board
of Carver County.
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 3
A separate plat for the parcel is also proceeding through the review process. This other plat
requests a variance from the lake shore lot width requirement and proposes the creation of two lake
shore lots. Both plats will be presented to City Council for ultimate determination of which will be
approved.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as
follows:
Total upland area (including outlots) 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage 77% or 36,576 SF
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 46% or 21,850 SF
Proposed tree preservation 55% or 26,126 SF
The developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore no replacement plantings are
required.
Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development.
However, staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed
home on Lot 2. This area is currently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed
home. Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2
understory trees and three shrubs,
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will
be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the
first building permit for a home in this development.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP)
Water Qttality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium
density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 1.09 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project would be $872.00.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open chatmels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 4
Single-family/low density developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre.
Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $2,158.20 fee.
These fees are due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed prior to redevelopment. The submitted
plan shows garage floor and basement elevations for each of the proposed homes. Since the
homes are proposed to be custom graded at time of building and a detailed grading and drainage
plan was not provided, staff is unable to determine the full grading impacts. Minimal tree loss is
anticipated on Lot 2 since the proposed home is in close proximity to the existing dwelling.
Grading activity for Lot 1 will impact approximately 1/3 of the trees on the lot. This would be
difficult to avoid because of the number of trees on the lot. Prior to final plat approval, a detailed
grading, drainage, and erosion control plan prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer will
be required for staff review and approval.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is connected to
City sewer and water. In conjunction with the razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate
demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and
water unit; therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible for one sewer and water hook-up
and connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The 2000 sanitary sewer and
water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk hook-up charges are $1,300 for sanitary
and $1,694 for water. These fees are due at time of building permit issuance and may be
specially assessed against the property. The cost of the water service from Laredo Lane to the
property line will be deducted from the applicant's water connection charges on Lot 1. The
applicant shall notify the City 30 days in advance to request the water service extension from
Laredo Lane.
The plan shows two proposed sanitary services to the new house on Lot 2. Staff recommends
deleting both proposed lines and utilizing the existing sanitary service for Lot 2. Extension of
sanitary sewer service to Lot 1 will involve encroaching upon Lot 2. The submitted plan does
not address the issue of water services for the two lots. Currently, one water service exists for
the existing building. It may not be possible to utilize this service for the proposed house on Lot
2. If the existing water line lies under the proposed house pad for Lot 1, then a new water service
would have to be installed. Either way, a new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane
to the property line to service one of the two lots. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane
to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend the water service
to the property line of Lot 1 from Laredo Lane. The applicant shall escrow with the City, $2,500
for the water service extension from Laredo Lane. Prior to final plat approval, a utility plan
signed by a registered civil engineer will be required. The applicant and staff will work together
in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption
to existing vegetation. Staff recommends that the applicant escrow $2000 with the City to
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 5
guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service form Lot 2 to Lot 1. Further, the applicant will
need to prepare private cross-access easements to be recorded against both parcels for the
extension of sewer and water lines through Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Typical front, rear, and
side yard drainage and utility easements will also be required for each lot.
STREETS
The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. The plan
proposes using the driveway to service both lots while widening the common portion of the drive
to meet the 20-foot wide, 7-ton per axle design requirement. Staff believes that this driveway
meets the private driveway/street ordinance. The driveway grades for the proposed house on Lot
1 appear to be greater than 10%. This may necessitate lowering the proposed garage floor
elevation one foot. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement for both lots will need
to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 1.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
AP~ (sq_. fl-.i .......... FRoI~TAG~) ......... ~EpTH
Code Requiremems 20,000 lake 90 125
shore~ 15,000
non-lake shore
Lot I 21,752 64.29# 219 NA
Lot 2 25,749 187.4* 142 175
Total 47,501
_L_a.._kp Fr___Ofitag..~,.e- (ft.)
90
Lots on cul-de-sac must meet the minimum 90 feet lot width at the building setback line.
Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front
building setback.
There has been considerable discussion whether Lot 1 must meet a 90 foot or a 100 foot lot width at
the building setback line. The City Attorney has stated, "the only reasonable interpretation of the
requirement is that it only applies to lots that don't have direct frontage on a street." However, the
plat, as proposed could comply with both the 90 and 100 foot width requirement. The front setback
line would just shift back on the property. The buildable area would be compressed, but there is
still a considerable area for building within the setbacks.
There has been additional discussion whether the area of a driveway easement is included or
excluded from the lot area calculations. Staff contends that unless the driveway is located on a
separate parcel of land, such as an outlot or another property, the area under the easement is
included in the lot area for that lot. The City Attorney concurs with this interpretation and states,
"Shared private driveways are not excluded from lot area requirements." The ordinance states that
the area included within a neck or flag of a lot is excluded from lot area calculations (section 20-
615 (1) For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained with the
"neck" has been excluded from consideration) in order to determine that minimum lot area is being
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 6
met. However, this provision of the ordinance does not apply to the proposed plat. Further, the
area contained within a driveway easement does not divide a lot in to separate parcels. The City
Attorney concurs and states, "Shared driveways are not excluded in calculating lot area. A shared
driveway does not 'divide' a lot into two lots."
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District and the Shoreline District regulations.
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.
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all required easements.
o
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
ao
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 7
Co
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.
PRIVATE STREET FIND1NGS
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
(1)
The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property
lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands.
(2)
After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street
system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
including wetlands and forested areas.
Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to
construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not
necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street installed, even more
trees would be impacted than proposed under this plan. The private street will minimize the
impervious surface on the property. The use of a public street is impractical.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2, for
Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11,
2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, revised April 20, 2000, and revised August
4, 2000, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1, shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet.
2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate
department or agency.
3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will
be issued.
4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State
Plumbing Code.
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 8
o
10.
11.
12.
The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements
including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard
plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2.
The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the
fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be
payable with the first building permit for a home in this development.
The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of $872.00. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding
provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be
waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,158.20. These fees
are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording.
A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The
existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat.
All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building
Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the
Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility
specifications.
A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility
plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staff to review and approve.
Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading.
The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary
sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City,
at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 1 from Laredo Lane to the
property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and
sanitary sewer services to Lot 1. The applicant shall escrow with the City, $4,500 to
guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water
hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on
Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be
deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare
and record a cross-access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that
encroach upon the lots.
The typical 5-foot and 1 O-foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility
easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and
drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs
through Lot 2.
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 9
13.
The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review
and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water
Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of
final plat recording.
14.
All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete.
Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location
of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal.
The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle
weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by
the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30
feet wide.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Letter fi'om Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen to Scott Botcher dated 8/21/00
5. Letter from Debbie Lloyd to Kathryn Aanenson dated August 28, 2000
6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
7. Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen to Kathryn Aanenson dated 8/30/00
8. Letter from Debbie Lloyd to Plmming Commission dated 8/30/00
9. Draft Letter from Roger Knutson to Robert Generous
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 10
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Lucas Igel Addition
Subdivision
On September 5, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval of property. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single Family Residential.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition
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:
o
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to
topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation,
susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the
proposed development;
Lucas Igel Addition
March 15, 2000
Page 11
o
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other
improvements required by this chapter;
The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if
any of the following exists:
ao
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate oft-site public improvements or support systems.
o
The planning report #00-2 dated September 5, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous
is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of September, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\bg\lucas igel addition.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
· 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
TELEPHONE(Daytime) qd2. i
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Temporary Sales permit
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
__ Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
qSubdivision'
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 C U P/S P R/VAC/VAPJWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~~,.~ q_.~ "~
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
LOCATION '-'~'~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE \ '~
WETLANDS PRESENT YES ~ NO
PRESENT ZONING -~ ~k~ ~*~"¢ ~"r
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~-:-"~:~~
RSASON FOR TH S REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and most be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of comCeteness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the Applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complyir~g with
all City requirements with regard to this re,quest. This application should be processed in my name and lam the party Whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to th~s apphcat~on. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
'The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
/~Si~natu~f Applicant
"S'ign"~ure of Fee Owner
Application Received on
Fee Paid
Date
Date
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
'%%
'\
for:.
o
CITY OF CH4f'JHAgSEN
~AUG 0 ~ 20oo
CHANhao,~,_,, , ~ ..........
0 T 2~
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
August 21, 2000
Scott Botcher, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Dr., request for City Attorney ruling.
Manager Botcher:
Following is a list of three items pertinent to the subdivision of property on Lotus Lake. We
differ with the interpretation made by staff, and wish to request that the City Attorney make a
ruling on these items prior to the September 5 Planning Commission meeting..
#1. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. Refer to
Attachment A (developer's plat #8). The following code applies:
Chap 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.
(3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as
measured at the front building setback line.
Sec. 20-1. Definitions
Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback
beyond which a structure may not extend.
Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or
roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum
horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark.
Staffview: Since Lot 1 could access directly to the street, it is not necessary that it meet the
100-foot lot width requirement.
Our view: Both proposed lots are accessed by the same private driveway/street. Both lots
must meet the lO0-foot requirement. Lot 1 (west, non-lake shore lot), fronts on the cul-de-sac,
and must have a width of 100 ft. On the plat, Lot 1 does not meet the lot width requirement for a
front building setback line. It measures only about 80 ft, and therefore does not meet code.
(c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any water course or drainage
channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to provide for
storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of 24 hours' duration. Where necessary,
drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Such easements for drainage
purposes shall not be less than 20 feet in width.
Staff view: Staff has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not
divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the
property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one
or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a
drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be
creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case.
Our view: The question is not whether an easement divides a lot. The question is whether a
private street/driveway can divide a lot. The private street/driveway shown on the plat
Attachment B) does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the case of other
private streets which the city has approved. The private street for Lot 2 (south lot)
divides/crosses through the middle of Lot 1 (north lot) which code says cannot be done.
Cordially,
~G e r a 1 ~W~.~0p aJa~u ~ s-~~'"q4~-"
(952) 934-3032 (home)
(651) 456-7784 (work)
Attachments: A: 8/4/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #8 (stacked lots)
B: 4/20/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #7 (2 lake shore)
Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Mark Engel, Councilman
Linda Jansen, Councilwoman
Steve Labatt, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission
Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission
Matthew Burton, Planning Commission
Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission
Debra Kind, Planning Commission
LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission
Ulrico Sacchet, Planning Commission
Janet D. Paulsen
3
'9
0
.)
!
OOI:R 1fO 91W. r'.. -',-a '/~'~'o
~ OIAYO :.,joj ,(e~uns
NOlilOC1V '1391 S¥3F1-1 03SOdO~ld
O00~/t/g
O00~/O~/C
,/
Debbie Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
August28,2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Ddve
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, Staff Report Attachment
Attached is a copy of a petition circulated in Sundse Hills. It is signed by 89 individuals
representing 55 residences in the Sunrise Hills Civic Association expressing
opposition to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. This supersedes the
letter and petition of May 9, 2000.
Also attached is a petition signed by 25 property owners on Lotus Lake expressing
opposition to the subdivision of this lot into two lakeshore lots
Also attached is a map of the Sunrise Hills subdivision, and a recent newsletter from our
President, Therese Berquist. This is to illustrate that our Association consists of 61
homes, and represents a social organization that is an important part of the city.
Please include these items in the next Staff Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Lloyd
Attachment: Petition, Sundse Hills Homeowners, 5 pages,
Petition, Lotus Lake property owners, 2 pages,
Sunrise Hills Civic Association information, 2 pages.
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, ChanhassenMinnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
J
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which..states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
ADDRESS
PHONE
~3~-
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, ChanhassenMinnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
NAME
ADDRESS PHONE
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, chanhassen Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the s~bdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo
Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots.
Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size
of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are
recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957,
under document No. 6183.
ADDRESS PHONE
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Ddve (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st addition)
into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each.
Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised.
Chapter 20: Zoning Article I111.. ,~ho~l~nd Management Disl~ct reads:
(a) Lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes - Recreational Development
Riparian Lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 feet 90 feet
PHONE
PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION
We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota,
are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Ddve (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st addition)
into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each.
Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised.
Chapter 20: Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management Distr~ct reads:
(a) Lot area and width standards
(2) Sewered lakes- Recreational Development
Ripadan Lots
Area Width
Single 20,000 feet 90 feet
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
Sunri- e Hills Civin A- . oniatinn
Hello neighbors. Spring has arrived and the first thing we do is
collect association dues of $65. Please send your check to our
treasurer by April 15.
Sunrise Hills Association c/o Donald Huseth7332 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, MN
55317
We have all the traditional activities planned for the coming year beginning with
the Easter egg hunt on April 22. Katie Trent sends you a flyer with details. Please
show up for the beachlot cleanup the Saturday before, April 15 at 9 AM. Bids for
summer mowing of the beach lot will be accepted by Ed Nye up until April 10.
Please contact Ed if you are interested in making a bid. Also contact Ed to
reserve the beach lot for large events. The other event we'd like you to think
about is the Annual Spring Meeting and Progressive Dinner. Rita and Jim Waletski
will host the meeting and hordeurve course. If neighbors volunteer soon to host
the salad (4 homes), main course (4 homes) or dessert close (1 home) planning
time will be saved as we all become busier in the spring. You may call Therese
Berquist or Dwight/Rose Koning.
We are lucky to have such a close neighborhood-and to have a wonderful
beach lot to enjoy our Minnesota summer. Help keep the association going
strong by volunteering and taking part in activities whenever you can! Let's
encourage those we haven't seen in a while to join us in the fun.
The current board members on behalf of the association members thank the
outgoing board members.
Calendar of Events
Beach lot cleanup ........................... Ap~_._l 5
Easter egg hunt ............................... April 22
Spring mtg/Progressive dinner ........ May 20
Summer picnic .................................. July 15
Fall beach lot cleanup ......................... Sept 30
Fall meeting ........................................ Oct 14
Winterfest ........................................... Dec 10
Therese Berquist, president
Charlie Robbins, vice president
Donald Huseth, treasurer
Ed Nye, beach lot chair
Katie Trent, secretary
Konings, social directors
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL:
Subdivision of
Lake Shore Lot
APPLICANT: David Igel
LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
of David Igel for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family
lots on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive,
Lucas lgel Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses 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 Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 August 24, 2000.
ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN
7343 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE
7307 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
slaqe'l ssaJpp¥
JOHN H HARMER &
CAROL WALTER
402 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SUNRISE HILLS
C/O CHARLES ROBBINS
7340 LONGVIEW CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN
7305 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER
404 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H GREELEY
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL
7303 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISS
406 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H GREELEY
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS
7301 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT SAVITT &
JEANNE BORGSTROM
408 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ARLIS A BOVY
7339 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ALAN & ANNABEL FOX
7300 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN
410 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL
7337 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD
7302 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH
7332 FRONTIER 'FRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRED L CUNEO JR
7335 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOK
7304 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI
7334 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS
7333 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FELIX & LOIS WHITE
PO BOX 96
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON
7336 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUSAN L JOHNSON
7331 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARS
7307 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES & LINDA MADY
7338 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN
7329 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER
400 HIGHLAND DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI
7340 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
I~ATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELK
7203 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK
7215 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST
7207 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO
7301 FRONTIER TRL
CHA'NHASSEN MN 55317
HELEN BIELSKI
7209 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
DAVID J WOLLAN &
SUSAN K LIPPKA
7303 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY
,7211 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS
7305 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
~JON H & JANET B HOLLER
7206 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J THIELGES &
TERESE WEST
7208 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS
yRUSTEES OF TRUST
7210 FRONTIER TRL
ZHANHASSEN MN 55317
?AUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING
7228 FRONTIER TRL
2HANHASSEN MN 55317
vlICHAEL R & DORTItEA F SHAY
7230 FRONTIER TRL
7HANHASSEN MN 55317
AMES R & LINDA D KRAFT
'~213 FRONTIER TRL
!HANHASSEN MN 55317
smooth l~o.o.d .~h~tcTM Use template for 5160®
Mr. Bill Kirkvold
Colonial Point Homeowner's
Association
201 Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Herb LaP!att
Lotus Lake B~tterment Association
at Colonial Grove
7012 Cheyenne Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504
Mrs. Peg Kirkvold
Frontier Trail Homeowner's
Association
201 Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kurvers Point Homeowner's
Association
7241 Kurvers Pt. Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Steven Bloom
Lotus Lake Estates HOA
Association
6781 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ruer' s
Mr. Steven Erickson
Pleasant Acres Homeowner's
Association
3850 Leslee Curve
Exclesior, MN 55331
2hanhassen, MN 55317
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
August 30, 2000
Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, Plat Discrepancies (1 lakeshore, 1 non-lakeshore)
This is to call attention to erroneous data and other discrepancies by the developer and staff for the
proposed subdivision of this lakeshore lot. The developer has submitted two preliminary plats for his
alternative to the 2 lakeshore plats. Following is a list of the plats submitted to date:
No. Date
1 2/11/00
2 3/8/00
3 3/30/00
4 4/20/00
5 4/20/00
6 7/13/00
7 8/4/00
Description
2 lakeshore [3/15/00 Planning Commission Mtg,].
2 lakeshore (Lot 1:5 sided; Lot 2:6 sided).
2 lakeshore.
2 lakeshore (Lot 1: 5-6? sided); Lot 2:6 sided) [6/6/00 PC Mtg,].
1 lakeshore (5 sided), 1 non-lakeshore (4 sided) [6/6/00 PC Mtg,[.
2 lakeshore (Lot 1: 6-7? sided; Lot 2: 5-6? sided) [7/18/00 PC Mtg.]
1 lakeshore (7-sided), 1 non-lakeshore (6-sided) [9/5/00 PC Mtg.]
Added 60x60 pad.
DESCREPANCIES ON LATEST PLAT (Plat #7 (8/4/00), 1 lakeshore, 1 non-lakeshore).
#1. 100-ft lot width retluired at front buildin~ line. The location of a proposed building on Lot 1
(non-lakeshore) violates code. There must be a lot width of 100 fi before a front building setback line
can exist (Sec. 20-615). Both lots are accessed by a private street, and require a 100-ft lot width at the
front building setback line (a line parallel to the road right-of-way). The building window (buildable
area) is inaccurately depicted on both plats.
The proposed building is located too close to the cul-de-sac, and deceptively exaggerates the impact on
adjacent properties (loss of trees, proximity to adjacent property, etc.). The intent was to make a 2
lakeshore plat the lesser of two evils. The developer did not alter the location of the house from the
4/20/00 plat even though it was called to his attention at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting.
We are waiting on a ruling from the city attorney on the 100-ft requirement.
#2. 20-ft setback from the 13rivate street ¢Shoreland Ordinance). Both lots fall in the category of
shoreland. The building window requires a 20-ft setback from the private street ("streets not
classified"). (Refer to Sec. 20-1 for definition of shoreland and Sec. 20-481).
Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structUre setbacks apply, regardless of
the classification of the waterbody:
Setback From: Setback (in feet)
(4) Right-of-way line of town road, public streets, or other roads or streets not classified. 20
For Lot I (non-lakeshore), staff says the pdvate street traversing the north side of the lot (providing
access to Lot 2 (lake shore) requires a lO-ft setback on each side of the private street. This results in
a 30-ft width along the north side that is unbuildable. Sec. 20-481 states that an additional 20-ft
setback is required on the south side of this private street resulting in a total of 50 ft along the north
side of the lot which cannot be included in the building window. The DNR has stated that "streets-not
classified" are included in the definition of a private street. The city has not responded to this item on
our Deficiency List of July 8.
#3. Lot area excludes area occuoied by street riehts-of-wav. The lot area for Lot 1 (non-lakeshore)
must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface
requirement (Sec. 20-485) for Lot 1.
The City Attorney in his letter of Apr 17 to Bob Generous (see Staff Report) references the definition
of lot area:
Chapter 20 Zoning
Sec. 20-1. Definitions.
Lot area means the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not
including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way.
Street - a public right-of-way accepted o__r a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements
of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting
property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector,
avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying with the
preceding requirements.
Lot t is traversed by a private street. The area included in the right of way (10-fi driveway/street plus
10 ft on each side) must be excluded from the lot area. The impacts the impervious surface for Lot 1
because the impervious surface area remains the same, while the total lot area is reduced by about 5100
t~2 (170 x 30).
The staff response (June 6) stated that the city only excludes public right-of-way from lot area
calculations (but not private right-of-way). We disagree with that interpretation. The definition for a
street includes public and private right-of-way_. We have asked the city for a ruling from the city
attorney.
#4. Leneth of lot line incorrect. The length of the south lot line for Lot 1 (non-lakeshore) is shown
as 266.23 ft. The actual length is 262.23 ft.
Cordially,
Debbie Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
August 30, 2000
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Please review the document Sunrise Hills Association Established 1957 attached. Information was provided
by the City of Chanhassen, and all numbers have been rounded down. This is the most accurate information on
lot size and lakeshore frontage compiled to illustrate lot size, and lakeshore frontage for all additions in Sunrise
Hills and lots within 500 ft of the Igel property.
We consider all additions of Sunrise Hills our neighborhood. Sunrise Hills is registered with the State of
Minnesota, we hold regular annual meetings, planned social functions and maintain a beach outlot which area
and lakeshore frontage was not included in this analysis.
I have separately provided a petition from Sunrise Hills residents who are opposed to the Igel subdivision.
Respectfully submitted.
Debbie Lloyd
z
08/31/00 10:44 FAX 651 452 5550 CAIiPBELL KNUTSON ~ CHANHASSEN CH ~002
'l'h(,mas ]. CnmpbeI1
Roger N. Knmmn
Thomas M, Scour
EllioL~ B. Kner~,'h
Joe[ ]..}amnik
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Associatiol'~
Attorneys at Law
(651 ) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215
E-mailAddres,~: rlmutson(a)~ck-lcov.¢otn
August 31, 2000
Aadrea McDowcll Puehler
Mat~l~t:w K. BrokI*
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foil
Margt-'rlre NJ. McCarron
Gina M- Brnndr
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDITION
Dear Bob:
You asked me to respond to a series of statements made by the Paulsens. Their statements
and my response to each follows:
STATEMENT: A lot requires a 60 by 60 foot building pad.
RESPONSE: Section 18-61 of the City Code [the subdivision ordinance] provides that "in
single family detached residential development the applicant must demonstrate that
suitable home site exists on each lot by describing a sixty foot by sixty foot building
pad .... "The purpose of this provision is to ensure that evew lot has a large enough
area to construct a home. Staff has interpreted this provision as not requiring an exact
60 by 60 foot pad, but rather a reasonably shaped area with the square footage.
Staff's interpretation is reasonable because it satisfies the intent of the requirement. An
ordinance amendment is being processed that would codify staff's interpretation.
STATEMENT:
The 90 foot lot width required by shoreland ordinance must be met at both the
OHW line and at the building line.
RESPONSE: in the Shoreland Overlay District Section 20-480(a)(4) requires that lot wid'rh
requirements be met at both the ordinary high wafer level and the building setback
line.
STATEMENT: Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet.
RESPONSE: Section 20-615 of the City Code provides;
Suite 317 · Eagandatc Office Center · 1380 Corporar. e Center Curve ' Eagan, MN 55121
08/31/00 10:44 FAX 65~ 452 5550 CAHPBELL KNUTSON ~ CHANHASSEN CH ~003
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
August 31,2000
Page 2
"The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "~'F" district.
(3) Lot width' on neck or flag lot; and lots access'ed by private driveways shall be l OO feet as measured at
the front building setback line."
The only reasonable interpretation of the requirement is that it only applies to lots that
don't have direct frontage on a street. All, or virtually all, lots have driveways. If if is
interpreted to mean that any lot with a driveway has to meet this requirement then the
provision would apply to all lots and the provision would serve no purpose,
STATEMENT:
On the 2 lake shore plat {see attached plat), Lot 2 (south Iai) is an Irregularly
shaped Iai with $ sides. The east-west lot line between Lot I and Lot 2 where the
private street crosses from Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the front Iai line for Lot 2. The
rear lot line for Lot 2 is therefore the east-west lot line on the south side of the lot
(line terminating at the lake).
RESPONSE: The lot does not have a "front lot line" as that term is defined in Section 20-1
of the City Code: "Lot line, front mean4' the lot line aeparating a lot from a street right-of-way. In
the case cfa corner lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street." For lots not
abutting a street Section 20-615(6)(a) provides: "The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the
public right-of-way that t~ro~ides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite
from the,front lot line with the remain#~g exposure~' treated as side lot lines," This provision is not
easily applied to the lot because two lot lines converge in a point at the location
closest to the nearest public right-of-way, when the interpretation or application of a
zoning ordinance provision is debatable, the interpretation that is the least restrictive
applies. SLS Partnership v, Citg of ~ll~ple ["alleg, 521 NW2d 738 (Minn. J994). Using this rule of
construction, either the nodhedy lot line or the south-westerly lot line is the front lot Line,
whichever results in the least restrictive setback,
STATEMENT:
The definition for a lot states it is an area of land undivided by any public street or
approved private road.
RESPONSE: Shared driveways are not excluded in calculating lot area. A shared
driveway does not "divide" a lot into two lots. This interpretation is consistent with
common sense and well established past practice in interpreting the provision. If it
were otherwise, then the oreo on both sides of a driveway would both have to meet
minimum lot size requirements.
STATEMENT:
For determining Impervious surface area, the area occupied by street rights-of-
way must be excluded from total lot area. At the same time, the total impervious
surface must still include the area covered by building, decks, street rights-of-
way, etc,
RESPONSE: Section 20-1 of the City Code defines lot area as "the ~rea cfa hmqxontalplan
bounded by theft'ant, side, or rear lot lines, bt~t not including any area occupied by lhe waters of lakes or
08/31/00 10:44 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON ~ CHANHASSEN CH ~004
Mr, Robert Generous
Cffy of Chonhassen
August 31,200D
Page 3
rivers or by s~eet rights-of-wm,." Shared private driveways are not excluded from lot area
requirements. This is consistent with the City's past practice in interpreting the Code.
Since the driveway is an impervious surface it is included in calculating the allowed
impervious surface coverage.
If you have any questions, please call.
Regards,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional A~ociation
RNK:srn
BY: _
Roger N. I~nutson
cc: Scott Botcher