Email from S. Lillihaug 2-25-05
Generous, Bob
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Lillehaug [slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us]
Friday, February 25, 2005 3:57 PM
Generous, Bob
jeffjewison@cargill.com; Steve Lillehaug
FW: Hidden Creek Meadows development
Hello Bob. Below is an e-mail from Jeff and Lisa Jewison regarding the referenced
development. I was present for the 1st but not the 2nd meeting but am pretty up-to-par on
this development. I think the Jewisons hit it right on the head.
I am a strong advocate of being very sensitive to existing homes that border proposed
developments. Yes, we as residents should expect development in Chanhassen when we border
un-developed land. However, reasonable development that follows City Ordinance is
necessary to protect our expectations. Sometimes variances are needed to get a better
development but not at the expense of negatively impacting our existing residents to only
maximize development to make a project more cost effective.
It is my strong opinion that if a variance is granted, there should be a trade off - this
might mean losing lot 11 and pushing the cul-de-sac further west as the Jewisons suggest.
Yes, the screening at the end of the cul-de-sac helps and I appreciate staff's efforts on
that- but, its just not good enough for a resident who still would have to deal with the
double frontage, which, in this case appears to be directly against City Code.
If pushing the cul-de-sac further to the west means the loss of a lot or two - that is
what it is. The non-double frontage argument doesn't hold much water with me -
technicalities aside - its double frontage and its not on a collector or arterial. The
Jewison's spell it out very well below. It shouldn't be allowed. Same thing on the Yo-
Berry Farms development - the double frontage should absolutely not be allowed - there are
always other feasible options and maximizing the number of lots should not be the
governing factor. The prudent action to take is to mitigate the double frontage as
suggested by the Jewisons.
Bob, I appreciate your serious review of this issue and please forward this e-mail to the
City Council for consideration in approval of the development. Thanks.
Steve Lillehaug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff_Jewison@cargill.com [mailto:Jeff_Jewison@cargill.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:40 AM
To: Steve Lillehaug
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows development
Hi Steve,
This is a long email, but we feel a lot was missed in the review of this proposal,
specifically related to the cul-de-sac behind our house and the right-of-way to the North
of our house.
But first of all, we do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to listen to our concerns
over the past couple months. However, we strongly believe the Planning Commission, staff,
and developer overlooked very important items in Chanhassen's city code "Article III,
Section 18-60.G", which addresses design standards of new development lots - specifically,
double-frontage. Based on our research of city code and a discussion with an attorney,
there are issues.
Not sure why, but various items in the city code are completely being ignored, and we are
being taken advantage of unfairly.
"Article III, Section 18-60.G" states:
1
"Double frontage lots with frontage on two parallel streets or reverse frontage shall
not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots
shall have an additional depth of at least ten feet to accommodate vegetative screening
along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face
the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such
lots shall have an additional depth of ten feet to accommodate vegetation screening along
the back lot line."
There is another case (# 03-3 SUB 03-1 VAC, originally from 9/2/03) involving double-
frontage issue, and there was a variance required in that one. It is interesting to note,
that it was only eligible for a variance request because it was deemed that Frontier Trail
(the original frontage road on the east) acts as a collector street.
Also, our case is MUCH more significant because we will now have cul-de-sacs bordering our
entire front AND back yards. The second frontage in the other case only involved a small
portion of the property touching Great Plains Blvd, and in reality it was always that way
but is now a technically because of a right-of-way being removed.
In our situation, neither Pipewood nor Meadow CT can be considered an arterial or
collector street based on the definitions in the General provisions of the city code.
Neither Pipewood or Meadow CT was "designed to carry large values of traffic between
various sectors of the city, county or beyond" and neither is a "street that carries
traffic from minor streets to arterial streets." They are not "through-streets". Also,
in Article III, Section 18-57, street minimums, the collector street requires an 80 ft
right-of-way while arterial streets have a 100 ft minimum. Pipewood is 60 ft and Meadow
Court is 50 ft.
Even if the proposal is eligible for a variance, which it clearly is not, to approve it,
ALL of the following conditions must exist ("Section 18-22")
we added our comments in CAPS:
1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience - FAILED, IT IS A BIG INCONVENIENCE.
2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land - FAILED, IT IS GREED TRYING TO FIT AS MANY LOTS ON THE LAND AS
POSSIBLE.
3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property - FAILED, THERE IS NOTHING UNIQUE HERE, THE
DEVELOPER JUST WANTS TO SQUEEZE EXTRA LOTS IN THERE AND IS FORCED TO ADD A CUL-DE-SAC AS A
TERMINATOR FOR PIPEWOOD.
4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare
and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan - MAYBE (GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE, JUST OUR PROPERTY VALUE)
To sum up this issue:
The proposal is violating city code "Article III, Section 18-60.F, G" and is not eligible
for a variance. Plus, it only allows for a 14.5 ft right-of-way around the cul-de-sac
when at least an additional 20 ft (beyond the 14.5 ft) would be required for the
combination of the double-frontage and back-to-side lots.. .and that is only if the
adjacent streets qualify for the exception (which would then require a variance) .
We also wanted to bring this
meeting: "Cartway Lane" doès
not even touch our property.
brought up that the variance
is FALSE.
point up again since it became an invalid excuse at the last
not constitute an "existing double-frontage" since it does
It borders our neighbor's property, but not ours. It was
is not needed because there is already double-frontage - this
The next issue is the right-of-way to the North of our house to connect Pipewood to Meadow
CT. The developer was threatening to use that to connect to Meadow CT if the proposed
2
cul-de-sac was not acceptable. Our neighbor's house is right on the easement line and our
house is only 15 ft off the right-of-way. A 30 ft setback is required, and therefore,
both of our houses would have to be removed. This is not a valid argument, nor a
practical option.
Plus, it is not possible since the easement is a 50 foot right-of-way, which is below the
minimum requirement per "Article III, Section 18-57" which states 60 ft. A "Private
Street" has a minimum of 30-40 ft but Meadow Court is not a private street per the
definition in the General provisions of the
code.
In light of this information, it appears that the alternatives are as
follows:
1. Remove Lot 11 and push the cul-de-sac even further west. This would eliminate the
double-frontage as well as eliminate the need for the variance on the flag lot. To keep a
buildable area for Lot 10, would somehow need to push the wetland setbacks further south
(possibly by extending the wetlands into some of the area previously occupied by lot 11).
2. Remove Lots 10 and 12 and push the cul-de-sac further west and re-draw the lines for
Lot 11. This also would eliminate the double-frontage and the flag lot.
To summarize:
The developer's proposal would:
- Require a variance for the flag lot, but would be In violation of city code regarding
the double-frontage.
- Cause significant negative impact to the value of our property (Article III, Section 18-
60.F)
o We would have two "front yards" as defined by the double-frontage.
o Our second front yard (formerly our back yard), would be bordered by a cul-de-sac,
driveway, and a SIDE yard of another property (also addressed in "Article III, Section 18-
60 .G") .
Our proposals would:
- Be in accordance with city code.
- NOT require any variances.
- Cause the least negative impact to the value of our home and neighbors' homes.
- Reduce drainage problems from the North by removing additional homes and grading, as
well as additional buffer for existing homes and drainage.
- Still provide the ability to connect Cartway Lane to the new cul-de-sac.
- Still provide a good connection to Pipewood from the North (W 62nd
St. )
with the next phase of development.
- STILL give the developer and the city a lot of money!
Not sure what you have found to this point, but we are still reading through the city code
and current and past cases to ensure things are treated appropriately. We will provide
more info when we have it. However, it is extremely clear that this proposal has
significant problems and should not have been approved. We would appreciate your feedback
on these issues and proposals.
Thanks again!
Jeff and Lisa Jewison
3