The URL can be used to link to this page

9 Knob Hill CITY OF ! CHANHASSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard POBox 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 faK: 952.227.1110 Building Inspeel'on, Phone: 952.217.1180 fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 fax. 952.227.1170 Finance Phane:952.227.1140 fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phooe952.127.1120 f,,951.227.1110 Recrea1ion Center 1310CoullerBoulevard Phone: 952227.1400 f,,:952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resource, Phone: 952.227.1130 fax: 952.227.1110 i. PubiicWorks 1591 Park Road Phone: 951.227.1300 fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 fa<. 952.227.1110 Web Site 't:l,w,:.ci.ctJanhassen.mn.us .- GJ· MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Bob Generous, Senior Planner ð~ April 2, 2002 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Knob Hill 2nd Addition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer, Metro Area Properties, is requesting preliminary plat approval to create nine lots, two outlots and public right-of-way with a variance request for the use of a private street for a development known as Knob Hill 2nd Addition. The developer is proposing eight new lots and one lot to contain the existing home on 7.59 acres of property zoned RSF. The developer is requesting the use of a private street to access the four southerly lots. The applicant has also prepared an alternate preliminary plat showing a public street. The developer's primary argument is that neighboring property owners would be less opposed to a private street than a public street. However, based on staff review of the public street option, the use ûf a private street is not justified since there is no enhanced environmental prote.ction due to the use of the private street. -City Council action includes approval of two separate motions (highlighted at the end of the staff report starting on page II). Staff is recommending denial of the variance requests and approval of the preliminary plat with a public street. -The following are summaries of the motions: "The City Council denies the variance for the I,Ise of a private street based on the findings in the staffreport." And, The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-2, Knob Hill 2nd Addition, creating nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way for the Knob Hill 2nd Addition. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On February 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed development with a variance request to pennit the use of a private street to access a portion of the site. In addition, the applicant requested a variance from the subdi vision regulations on Lot I, Block 2, due to the inability to show a 6O-foot by 60-foot building pad because of an existing utility easement containing a water Todd Gerhardt April 2, 2002 Page 2 main. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance requests. However, the Planning Commission voted to table the subdivision to pennit the developer to work with staff to realign the roadway and attempt to preserve additional trees. On March 19,2002, the PIannin~ Commission held a public hearing to review the,proposed preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2n Addition, which included the use of a public street only. The Planning Commission voted four for and one against a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the staff report with the addition of conditions 30 and 31: 30. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block 1. 31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed ~vergreen buffer plan along the eastern property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees will be transplanted and also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted. g:\pJan\bg\yillagcs\Knob Hill 2nd executive summary.doc "---"--'. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval for nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way with a variance request for a private street and a variance from the subdivision regulations for a 60-foot by 60-foot building pad, Knob Hill 2nd Addition. '? - LOCATION: Located at the end of Knob Hill Lane and south of Lilac Lane ~ APPLICANT: ) ] L.. L I 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: Single Family Residential, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units per Acre) ACREAGE: 7,59 acres DENSITY: gross: 1.18 units per acre net: 1.39 units per acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to divide the property into ( nine single-family lots with a variance to pennit the use of a private street to access a portion of the site. In '- addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the subdivision regulations on Lot I, Block 2, due to ( the inability to show a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad because of an existing utility easement containing a J water main. ~ t .. 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. cy load ',',' ..; o ·,õQ) 5,.<l2 o ø Q Cir. ast o ..c ~ \J ~ . Z1 . ¡lac Lane en -. ....... ..Iav ~~ Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 2 If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Section 18-57 (r) Private streets Chapter 20 Zoning Article XII RSF District Regulations BACKGROUND 'The property is zoned Single Family Residential district and is guided for residential - low density (net density 1.2 to 4,0 units per acre). An existing house sits on the highpoint of the site in the west central portion of the propel1y. Three developments sUITound 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, lthilien 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 drain~ water from the northern portion of the property to the wetland complex at the bottom of the hill, north of Lilac Lane. The developer is proposing a nine lot subdivision of a 7.59 acre property zoned RSF. The developer is requèsting the use of a private street to access the four southerly lots. The applicant has also prepared an alternate preliminary plat showing a public street. Staff advised the developer that the project would need to meet the standards to justify a private street. The developer's primary argument is that neighboring property owners would be less opposed to a private street than a public street. However, based on staff review of the public street option, the use of a private street is not justified since there is no enhanced environmental protection due to the use of the private street. 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 Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 2 uniform conservation easement is being proposed on the western and southem development boundaries. The applicant is proposing that the some of 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. The applicant has also realigned the lot lines for Block 2 eliminating the need for a variance from the subdivision criteria for 60' by 60' building pads. Staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition without any variances, subject to the conditions of the staff report. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, subdivision ordinance and zoning regulations based on the revisions recommended in the staff report. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Knob Hill 2nd Addition are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 7.59 ac or 330,620 SF 3.65 ac or 158,994 SF 48% 35% or 2.66 ac. 31 % or 2.35 ac. The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 13,504 SF 1.2 16,205 SF 15 trees A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city for approval. The applicant's mitigation planting plan includes 21 trees, 8 deciduous and 13 evergreens. Staff recommends placing a tree preservation easement over the western portions of Lots 2-6, Block I 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 I, Block I Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block I Lot 4, Bock I Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' Rear 60' Rear 60' Rear 55' Southerly 60' and westerly 60' Rear 60' Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 3 WETLANDS One utilized wetland exists on-site. The wetland is a Type 3 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to fill the wetland to accommodate the proposed extension of Knob Hill Lane and two building pads. It appears that the wetland may have been unintentionally created. Staff has infonned 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 stonn 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 pennit application. The proposed grading will prepare the site for a full basement house pad on Lot I, Block 2 and lookout-type dwellings on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Staff is recommending that the pad elevation of Lot I, 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 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 stonn sewer inlet in the rear yards of 1368 and 1376 Ithilien. The extreme northwesterly corner of the site drains to the north through an existing IS" culvert in the Knob HiJl 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 I lots. This stonn water will be conveyed via stonn 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 lO-year and 100-year, 24-hour stonn 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 stonn sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24- hour stonn event. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 5 .."., of 00",,,,,,,,,,, ~'w'~ '""" '" I"""",,,,,,y """"" "dI """ Md "',_""',,""', 00'''''' wI. , WOod-fi"" b""""" ,"""'" "dim <wo w",," of _'''''''' of '~b ~'woy I, "'"_00 "dI "" Goy', Best Management Practice Handbook. Surface Water Management Fees , Water QUality Fees Water Quantity Fees ""- oC"" Im"",,o", ""'"" u'''''_ wi'b <hi, "'~'OP"""" dI, w~u '''''Ioy CO" Cm Ib, pro_ "'","0'",,"' "" '-' "" .I'~~fom;,y "'1"'''1''' ",~,_" rn", oC $8(J¡¡¡"",. B_ '" dI, """""" """'- """ oC _~m"",y 7.05 -, dI, wmu ,oo"oy C"" _I~., wilb <hi, proj""re $5,640 Th, Goy', S"""" WMu MM.",,,,,,", "M (sWMP, ~'''''li"., . 00'"",,,,, "..., C" ,'" "ff're" '''''' "'~ '-' "" M · "'""" "lywido rnœ C" <h, I",",,~,," oC W.... 'OM'oy .=.. Thl, 00"' 100''''", IMd """""'"' pmpo." SWMP 001,,,,,, 0"" "MooI. Md ,_ w_ PO""" ""'" C" mooff '","", S;"I~C..;¡y "'I"",,,, "'~I,p",,"" h.~ , 00",,,,,," 'h..., oC ",9'" '" "'~I,,,,,,,, """. Thl, results in a Water quantity fee of approximately $13,959 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits Thl, proj"" propore. <h, oo'''ru"" oC '" NliRp po'd. Th, .pplkM' w;n be =dJ"" C" w." 'OO"'y wh're NliRp b""oo ore proWd., .. ",,' ruooff Cmm Ib, ,Iœ. Thl, w;n '" d,,,on;,., opoo reW,w of "" po,,,,, Md .om ",w" cokol.',~. Cre,," m., .100 '" 'pp"., .. dI, 'PP"'M", SWMP "" C" -'=I,I,g I, "'OroM" wllb <h, SWMP" <b, prow,l" of "",I" "'''mre,. The 'PP"om, w;n "" be u.~.., C" ""'" <h~.. """CO"" """. No "rnli, "JJ '" ~~, Con,mpornry pond areas. A' <bl, ''"'' ,,,, ~,,",,,., ...'" SWMP C"', d" "yo", .. <h, Cloy" ,,,, 'me oC fi,,,, p'. re,,,,,, 'g, I, $19,599. Other Agencies T", "PP"'M' """ "PP'ye" Md -, ",""I" fiom ,,,, 'ppropri"" re,,"~"Y ""ool~ (,.g., Mi""""". C=k W"""., ÐI<lrict, Mi,,,.,,. """"" Coo,"" A"",'Y, Mi,"- _, of N""'rnI Resources, Anny Corps of Engineers) and Comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES M"lci", ",w" Md w"" ""w" I, "'''''.bI, .. 'h, 'I" fiom Koob H;n w,. Th, '>I.ti" horn, 00 dI, pro- I, """'y 00"""", .. m""I", ",wu .., WOlff Crom /Coob HI" Lme. W"'m"',;, .1'0 _<ri', <h, -'00 "" oorthw~, .do. Th, ."",.., i, pro"",log" """ '~ff M' W.", "". "'00, K,ob Hili 1.0" .. ~~Iœ Iti, pro"",", 1m,. SrnIf I, "00_,,,,, dI.. MR- 3 ", low"", by approximately three feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1. -r ,...,.." <..!~:.; Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 6 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 The developer has proposed two alternatives for the development: a private street and a public street. The development does not meet the criteria necessary for the approval of a private street, therefore, a public street shall be required. The plans propose to extend Knob Hill Lane in its full width approximately 800 feet and construct a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of the lane, in front of Lots 4, 5 and 6. The new street will provide street access to all of the lots. The existing bituminous driveway along the northwest side to the parcel shall be removed and restored with vegetation. 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 IO-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 I 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 3 I-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 3 I-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. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 7 PARKS AND RECREATION The Parks and Recreation Commission met February 26, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to recommend that a trail easement be required along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block I, which will eventually connect with an existing trail in the Curry Farms development. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance for the eight new lots. COMPLIANCE TABLE Private Street Description Area (Sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Notes RSF District 15,000 90, 100 ft. if 125 Setbacks: front - accessed via 30', rear - 30', . private street side 10' Lot I, Block I 62,833 317 168 Lot 2, Block I 26,102 106* 268 60 rear conservation Lot 3, Block I 20,126 107 202 45' rear Private Street conservation Lot 4, Block I 18,022 107 182 rear conservation Pri vate Street to be determined Lot 5, Block I 24,391 108 * 205 80' rear Private Street conservation Lot 6, Block I 25,506 103 * 190 Pri vate Street Lot 1, Block 2 15,763 123 195 Lot 2, Block 2 15,499 91 173 Lot 3, Block 2 21,635 145 170 Outlot A 47,036 Outlot B 23,391 Knob Hill Lane 30,478 Average Lot Size 25,541 Total 330,781 p, * at building setback line. Alternate Plat (Public Street) DescriPtion Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Notes RSF District 15,000 90 125 Setbacks (ft.): front - 30', rear - 30', side 10' Lot I, Block I 63,138 333 211 30,30, 10, 60 rear conservation Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 8 Lot 2, Block 1 32,693 108 266 30, 30, 10 60 rear conservation Lot 3, Block I 23,383 114 234 30,30,10 60' rear conservation Lot 4, Block 1 18,405 141 184 30,30, 10,55' rear conservation Lot 5, Block 1 28,190 57 * 193 30, 30, 10, 60' south and west conservation Lot 6, Block I 25,831 101 241 30, 30, 10, 60' rear conservation Lot I, 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 Out!otA 11,062 OutlotB 24,353 Knob Hill Lane 50,351 A verage Lot Size 27,223 Total 330,781 . * 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 an the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with an applicable city, county and regional plans induding 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, induding 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. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and an other improvements required by this chapter; Finding; The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure, Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 9 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Private Street: The subdivision ordinance requires that the city find that a private street meets both the criteria for approval of a private street and variance findings. , < PRIV ATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (I) 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 pennit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. The use of the private street does not pennit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources. The proposed plan does not provided added protection of slopes or wooded areas. A public street can be incorporated within the development. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 10 FINDINGS VARIANCE (Section 18.22) Private Street The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and 4. The granting of the variance wiIJ not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, Finding: The hardship for a private street is a mere inconvenience since a public street can be accommodated within the plat. There are not physical limitations to the installation of a'public street. There are no environmental features on the site, which would be preserved through the use of a private street. The granting of the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 60' x 60' Building Pad The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and 4. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Findings: The variance for a 60' x 60' building pad is a mere inconvenience since with a redesign of the plat, a 60' x 60' building pad can be accommodated for all lots. While the site is constrained and the recommended plat revisions push a house closer to the existing houses in Ithilien Addition, the design requirements can be accomplished within the plat. The granting of the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council denies the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report. .. "The City Council approves 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: L Lots 1-6, Block I, shall contain tree preservation easements in the rear yards as follows: Lot I, Block I Rear 60' Lot 2, Block I Rear 60' Lot 3, Block I Rear 60' Lot 4, Block I Rear 55' Lot 5, Block I Southerly 60' and the westerly 60' Lot 6, Block I Rear 60' r~ ~, 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. 3. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property, The shed on Lot 2, Block I must either be moved to Lot I, Block I, 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 water services 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. ",. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page 12 10. 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 NURP b¡¡sins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,599. 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. IS. 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 plans. 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 lO-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, rnust 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 IthiIien and the pond's HWL in accordance with the City's SWMP. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-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 I, Block 2 shall be raised to 1012 to better facilitate drainage on the west side of the lot. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 13 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 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. 'de f.ô ",II ~A ":;; 5 "~ 1i ';1 '1 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. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restore with vegetation. d. Show the storm sewer pipe, slope, and length. e. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance. f. Add a legend which describes the existing and proposed contours, Type II silt fence, property lines, etc. g. 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. Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 14 30. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block 1. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance for the eight new lots. 31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastern property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees wiH be transplanted and also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted." Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from John Knoblauch to Bob Generous dated l/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 Hegeman's to the Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 3/12/02 8. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/19/02 9. Five Pictures of Delivery Trucks on the Private Street 10. Planning Commission Minutes of 3/19/02 Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19,2002 Page I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MlNNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Metro Area Properties, Inc. and Jim and Sharon Donovan for a nine lot Subdivision On February 19,2002, and 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 from all interested persons wishing tö 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 (l ,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: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c. 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; d, The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable environmental damage; Knob Hill 2nd Addition February 19, 2002 Page 2 f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1). Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2). Lack of adequate roads. 3). Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4). Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. The planning repol1 #2002-2, dated February 19, 2002, revised March 19,2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION without variances. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of March, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg\development rcview\knob hill 2nd prelimianry plat.doc , , Þ 1.\.---..--...----- [. ) ) ¡ J ~ ,'~ z o Ii: æ o fß Q ~ W a. Q .s= .- ,,-.... ';jCON 5j0 ..,~ ., 00 Q) §1;.r.N, (/) ~~ >'.5 -~""'C'lûj 2 G>'~ 0 ¡- 4) ~ (t) t)\t- :51i)z"":5:5 :2:5](I):;;:o~ 4>ø-::s"- 0 oQ)'-(I)4)~ c3\:o 0°>'''''0-'0'''..0 o c:J(I)z=-- _c:<D.....CI() .... g Q) Q) <I) g 0 ",.2 Q)'" ê.soo c:..-= 6t~.s=.·~Q).E.2~o·-.!!<Ô õ:J Q)"'''''- C c"Q ,... E..,O) ~c..~ ...·-c:J.. - E"" - 0'" o-·-....i:.r.N.,- o ~CXJ""'ã-o=~oo-;-..o O)~N"'" CL...o :::::EOfl).....CP êJv1l!.r.:"8..2~-~..,(I)3!g¡g 0) CO"" lit- O\t- 0 C 4) '-== 0 g' <I) v 50/t: 0 <1)"'11,3 0 g'",1i) 'ü ~v(l)~ <1)....:5.6..>< 5j.., Q)'iS C "'.., 0- 0 o-';;-.r. .., Q) <I) '" Q)o CL., ",CL".!2..,O):J., E"'~ g-~~ C_ E.~ v.6 E"";> Q)- Q) g g.., -g,¡¡.r. E..,,,,' o (I).J:o..... ......c-:.'-.... (,).r. Q)'" 0:5.., 0'- ., :JN~ ..,.... <I) Q) ",,, &.., ::0'0 N ;> iñZð ê.gg.s'õ~ Q) 1"1 >.,"'0(1) (I) en 3: .-.,.,- .r.-.ocQ)<I)<I) o E:t1::L.'-Q)<I)""o Ou4>-t: -4) ~Q) 0 .,,-'c'-"'" Õ °o"'tJ"+' E c 0'1..... 4)_ 4) g'.5 "" CQ)I"") C:... CQ) 0 Q).E....,~.... o~"'O e .,- 0.r.Q)Q) .-- !!!:5 "'-' 0 .....0 Q) .,e·~ co~ .., Q) ...:.. ..... "0." 1- 4)_(1)4>0......... ::s~t")- c:..¡.:t-O......s:;;,OI/')-- ,.. 3: ° ",.- -.... Q) 0 .= ,., .... - .r. '" ., <I) Q).~3\: .r.N 0N.6 .,::0....:: L.. ~"O "'0 Õ .... t") Q.N 0 "'tJ 5 '- "'0 .c_I~ (I) 5~"'O- ~~C(/) Q)'" ......"t Q) C Z·- .... 0 Q) <'010.....0 <1>0.....0 --14)'"0 .5¡..c :s~C)-t:=(I)°o-g 0 . C"" ~.6 0.r.1= 'Q)"""><'O cg¡!3 Q)L.L.....EQ)+' .:::&.0 '-0-0) "''1 :5°oz°"'C f'!Q)U)oOco~"E~=.cQ) Q)"" .- ::0 <I) - .... '" ...........Q).:::t:.L{)........Q) 10..... ~·..:sc O(l)()'- .5c.......,,·-.... ~oo Q)c"'" ·-"c..,0.6.,.,(I)/t: 1ií 3: Q) E Q)- ° 0., ,... ° .,.r..r. ~OCL!E-'0<ÓCL>,::O<l).... 1.&J :;......¡: t7)ï::2t:-.;~ 0.0-0 g 0 ",0"·õ~._.,~.2", ..,CQ).r. c(/)"4) 0. &.rn .~~õ2~S:5t: '>,<I)Q) N .r.>'''' .... 0 -.c.....o~OU~~(I)Q).....Oõ~z N....OOo :,ë::J Q)°3!E·ü..... "'""..,f....:5êj~oo~6..... :soco c: 00') ::J 0 C'" ... :J:::E-- o ofJ ° _.. ><..._ '" 00 C ~ .-- Q)(I)-·........'OE·-o·-......, Õ (l)1)J! .£,,! cu ~. ~o c.g. CUOCl) ~o~>." èõ o~ (I) UJ 3\:,., 0 51 0 1;] ~ ., 0 >,-' '" .... I/')ce:J(,).... ..... .o_c -OQ)",·Q) 0 .,......"'00 .,3: <I)<D.r. .. _..,'-0 _a.... ofJE~£E::~Q) Q)£~ ... :::J't- 0 II' ...> O"'~~ ..........&OcO...OIl)"O....,C' C:G)'-::3" ~ ~ï~ 4> ~ ..1~·s~ gJ.sa .,e....N >__ oQ)3:"'= ......0 OC ~_ C:~oL."'Q. je-<O 0 Z _~ .,^,_ 0 g co c..,,.,ofJ >"- .-'......'... 4>z 0__ . C A....... ....v ",'.0 <I) E.,v--o 0..... ",._CO 'Q) 'Q o.r. 00 ° <I) ""<1)'" CO.., _ ....ofJ - CL"'(I) ~ ~ (I) -~ ::sN""'""" 4> '3\:~.,'õ~....C~ovgJO.,i:£ -z<l)ofJ ~'õ"Q)(I)"';;:Q)O"- 3\:...."Q~8~....Ñ....Q)~"'0..,e'O ZOoo3\:sQ)..I/')~g....Q)§~ofJ . - .;:: E~O)O) II) Q)......... c en 4)"'IIt' 0(1) c.....o.cG)::JØ)~e_c .r.........r. Q).- Q):J .00 -.., £ 'is ° :¡j ...... _~...."O 0')0&0 E - CL4> lit- o::J... ......10 0 I,() G) 03\:z·6"5"'~2]vN ,cx:i"E ..,z E..,og:J....'O.cVofJ"'"o ... Q) (I) ~-:>O·ï:... 0') ......'1-0 .,:2 o"'~ofJ;: :J 0:J "'~""O'" 0 CL.,Cv;>"':="'O"'04>;> 4> ",4> .,....<1)14)(1)<1) Q)ofJ êJ :5"''''-0~...."Q 1;."'3-.5 .r. 'õ ::2 ~z1i)2 CI 3 Q)2 CO) &. ..w .:JL.::S"'''tJ-'-.oc'''O::Joo <l)Q)"'C ._"'., .. c:'" ... = C 4>-_., <I):J -""-,!?v- 4-~~~nM~n~~~E~~£ .., Q) .., .... ° o ~ Q) .r. .... ° .... '" C ~ ° u o ., z o ¡: Õ o « o z o (,) LoU (I) -' -' J: CD o Z ~ ai .... o :¡:; :J o .., C o « ž o Ii: æ o (IJ W Q ~ a. ~ a. Q w ~ Q .... o :¡:; :J o Ñ ..>< o o ã5 ri., - _0 N'" Q) -c: ~c "'~ .... ,3;.; .... .c: -:J -u8 ..2c CD'ã, ,Q) I/')C C ~~ ri..: ° <"'if Q) ..:= "'- o~ .J <>. ~§ ~If ~ ù It) Q '1:: ::( E z ~ z w g¡ ~ z ~ t- C¥ CI A t- CI :z ... ~ w "->¡¡ Cij ~ '1 ,,"¡j¡~'-i;¡."_>¡k,,:~ -,.:..~ , ~.: _;t.iz;~ ." '.. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION i/ÒD !::- .-f 15'° I'£c. ¿~ f 1)0 '.J!.- s .IC;</ ~'Î! .~ . 7"-<"'; '7 < ~..... -,,~ 15 ""'vv--r '., - APPUCANT: jt1 É-mo fI..e éA- PRo f E ~ T.IE S .I:MOWNER: ADDRESS: /I./So k/llc ß 1-i:t::U.._ i.-1tW £ ADDRESS: ~X c.Ë t.-SX-o ~ ./'1'\1./, >5"33/ TElEPHONE (Day lime) C2 S~- TELEPHONE: J:L¡\.<.. ¡"rND Stlff.l<oJ O<wov~ 13 7 J ./....I: '--/I-t.. L JT.IV ,~ ~,~S~, fi1.JI/. SS3.3 "1:>2 - '·/7e - S-I ~ ~ _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWlEasements - lnterim Use Permit X Variance !-I>!t. 3::.. _ Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ S[¡n Plan Review _ Notification Sign - Site Plan Review' -X. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARMlAPlMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) li Subdjvjslon' TOTAL FEE $ A Dst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. R'E.. ~ \JE ST ''''t-¡-\--A,-'í c....:t..-r'( f:'\..o v~ rt+:i- S Bw1ding material samples must be submitted with site plan revIews. "'Twenty·six full size folded caples of the plans must be submItted. including an BY:." X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ND1E- Whenrnubiple aoolications Rrp nrnr~c:::c:::ørf tho !:)""""..I"'IO"I..;.,+^ I",^ "'......11..... .................... t..... ....._.... _......1:_....:_... - Escrow will be required for other appllcallons through the development contract . . ( 1.EGAl. DESCRIPTION y: f\! () ß /f-:J;.u.- ,Ç /(3-í 0;::- jC¡VO ß ~'££ d. t'1J !tpp.z T :ZeN PHOJECTNAME lDctmON ¡-f.:zL-L. I /hV£ Pl.trN "TDTALACHEAGE WE1VINDS PRESENT PRESENTZDNlNG HEOUESTED ZONING l'HESENTtAND USE DESIGNATION 9./ Ackf-5, YES ~NO {<'Sf- HEOlJESlEI) tAND USE DESIGNATION ~ 'L</C cE ~L..-y HEASOI\1FORTHISREQUEST <;c'BD r::V :r-$.I",j , ;!his 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 . 'Depatlment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 1\ detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written J¡¡¡ûce Df appDcation deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. trhiSis10 œrtifythat 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with ¡aU City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate oITille, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make this app1ication and the fee owner has also signed this application. f wiD ~eep myself ¡nfonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further Jnderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ~uthoñzation to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of '"y knowledge. Iñe City "ereby 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 ~xtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. / ~õ/~2- Date i II e/od;- bate C >i,gn . Applicantl '(. . If, ~ - '¡ t~,-- '~/r, ~{'4_.~A~ iiynáfure DI Fee Owher -WTa:a1ion Fleœived on / Ii ß If) ,;Lfee Paid I I the applicant s"ould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. . nnt "nn.acted. a CODY of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Receipt No. 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: 1l1ankS 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. ft. two stories that I have built in this area would not need this part of the pad anyway, especially since it is a garage left pad and typically most of the home is not behind the garage on most of my floor plans. 3. 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 ofthe 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 ofland that includes many significant trees and steep drops to the west and south. It will preserve this beautiful area better. Yours truly, , Ww. c.l{twI'¿~ ., ,.. , . Jolm Knoblauch cñ LU ¡: æ LU a. o æ a. ~ æ « o ~ LU ~ " ¥~ 'I. .... ì (IJ I - I a. \ ~ \ (IJ _...l c: 'Ë ,- - ~ ~a. f z o ..J¡: ..J- -0 :to fD« 00 ~Z o o LU (J) 'I. ~o 'I. ci z - I I , I I I I ) , - / // .......-:;.::0- // J H HiHHHWl i ¡ i, U mmmm! f . j!Ji !IJi C Û mHimm i 111 JUJ h Ii ,¡ I f& ¡ .gimmm; I ...... ~ luJ¡ 11;:1: ,. ¡¡iHim I, ¡ J If , ~ , ,"!uJi!!!!!!!;iii I f II *U rf' LI I ! J! I'm ! -- 1'- I' l'U' :I¡"i,- dj~!d,Jdu~ ~ f;¡:;î;!!H:liij f 9jbJ1IljJ.j. I liff¡ì~!!!;:I"' ¡ ,j~i!IJr;IJJ!! i !I:I ,lfiªIJ¡i S /1 :IJ iJ,·IJ , . : ;,~ ~~flîIjj·· J !IJ ,.IIJ,·I'Il1 I ¡ II!!! II' .IJl' , -:,;';ffJJìîIjl! ! 1~'~:riH'i!!;Ji !J H!':III!!j!~I!; I if $ili":IJ¡'I,~f! il ~ :š,"JI,j!ijlilïIf' '"I S '~I' Û·:I.;· . !!J"IIJ iijl'ii :1 , :IÏH~1t ;!.U~l ,¡! ,r/-....". ~ ~"- ..:.--.:. ~~ : ¡i II -.-j IiI fL _"U If' r-r' f' g I -If Hi ~ :iJ ~ 'HI j J " , , , ......... ' ..... , - .......~ >.. // ,.~~ . .- '-v/ ". L¡ ., _nl:J, " þ ,~ ~ 't ~ "" ~i: ..-1-I~~ ~ "I ~ ; .' " ..::::r-- ~ ~ i ~* I' .1 l :1 III ! ·1 I ·1 ¡ ,I I' I " }' J !, II' I! j J ,f ~I I d ~ '1"1111 III II 111 ¡II I' 11//1' JI' d II II II II Ii nil I! HI,!!,!!!!!,,!!! filii Ip,! . r"l-" 1...+ l'l¡ .," .1/, t, I 1 i § N :1 , ¡ !!~ ~ ~ I ~:ir ~..u! >III! I u æ ,,; w ¡:I; :: :5~ ~.¡ :sÎ I&I~! ~I! o . a: 0- w 2 UìI . :J f If ' j!J .!.. "' '" _I" d f'l r', _I ¡jA!ii I {Ii]! A. ,: ¡. ~ f ~ i ...I ...12 :to - ml- oã ~~ WQ 0::2 :>0 ~ (,), U.m L ~ ~Q ~>- " p " ¥!¡. " .... ì (\' I - I a. I I ~ I \ (\' _.J. c: ,- E ,- - ~ e { n ~I! ~!illt II!ÍI ¡ wil ~¡ ¡¡!lii )1 II llill!ïi , ¡~lIh¡lIImu!m I~! ! i l..riþþ.;;¡"m'I"¡i ~"! ¡: I . " ..., '!I I" ' ' .ïd ,:11 ~ : i . ~ ' - ¡ ¡ . ¡!¡.j !!, 10 ¡ j! j I, :!l 'J'< , t h· ., ! H Ii !!!!!!!'I' , · ! H mmm~'~~ Î .. -5 -' ~ ¿è¿ ",d- .. . ~. .....Hii.:.:" f il · ~PI""'" ...." ¡¡II Ii' ;tg;(~~~S,~li! i AI, _ _ _ oi~=t ø 5ISlR~ I mr..··! I { . H í...J!I1L.,1 f · II i II p!!m !3m! I ;,! !lm ' ¡ f! ill!lU II Þ'1' ..! '1'1 H... I ~I ,II ¡I!'¡"j H~!~:!ìi!¡'!!! : ¡mmiií!líH f 11:ìì~lh~li~' ~ I¡ 'i 'I"! II , jJ.JI!IÎjll ! !!i'¡I!~iÓllí~' I ¡i!:~I'i aN· JI I dlfM1;;¡'¡¡t. , j:;;J.'jijEI:" : !!L¡~I¡!!'I!íd j ;:,t'111IA.>¡Ï' ¡ -l"·~ I'" ·"1 " < Î'iiu; ].~¡ Ii'I ¡ ¡¡Iit'¡> ¡'I"! ~ 'I,¡j ¡1¡"~;';!f ¡ <'j' I, 1/"11 ¡¡,i!¡ ¡¡iNI :~ I :1' '<¡Ii' ..j ,-.' ~ ~ ¡¡!j;¡;¡.j!'i;;¡~ ~. ~ W!W!~i!l!¡!ì ~ !J Ilj"¡I,¡",J'" i J i- E' 1, AI ij'1õ ..r_ ,iHj~ll¡'jt¡!i,i ~ :1 o .. J ;¡ ;:;l t ~i U 2 - ~ , ~ u) W - I- 0:: W Q. o 0:: Q. ~ 0:: « o 0:: I- W ~ //'" 0'-,,",":'::"::" ~§ , it ~ ,=_ .:'lJ I~ 7- i I~ ~ ~ ~-··l· < i : ! ~ § ,I 1...1 i ~ 20 "I i~:II ~¡ : 1.,:--'-: :!i ~' I~. _i_ --.J u ~ - .. 'I ¡I I' ,! : , I' 'I lil\ :!U ffi0 ~a ~i ~= i~ d ~ J ;t..= 5zzi i~~tf i"~J ú æ ~ ~ ui w - ~. ~c::l w ~= ~~z II: z' :aã ~K; cs~ o'~ II: ... W ,. ,~ ~ ii, .f11" hi ¡.j I~i .Iii I'J 21 H! [m]'i . I . ¡. !.!i!ii ,! il,,¡I¡i Jill .. , .. ~~. ! ;' ~ ~i I ~I -::> ' ~I " , I I ¡ ! ¡ I i ,- -- , .' j!,'! It ~ /" , ¡ ;1/" i" IN ¡Ii ¡ . o o 2 - CI)" UJ ¡: £r UJ Q. o £r Q. ~ £r <1: o ~ UJ ~ , "", , .... !11 - a. è !11 .r:. - .S - ~ a. 'i,¡ ¡I 'I II: ~I J! ,! " :1 - -- .. - In!! !¡¡W!!!'! · , II :,:;..~:a"'''· I _ ~......',. 11"' :; ¡ ;~ jijg¡;;;::~: ,-~} u, !'Pfl .lJoiIjii) ,..¡ I ;:d~~~~5à¡~~i! r.¡ Hi) .,' _~!! ~';:; If !., - 1/lI!o .. I , t 1 t' .! :I .1 j i ! !Im ' w ~. ".,)u ft r ~II' .... " .. o! ~ ~ :~¡J! ~ff.~~. ,.1" ~,' ¡~I'::ln¡' I' I· ,~ .··t~.· i'~, a.:~·t··'·~f :~~~. t ~~ t! t~; ~~ ..,¡,j",. '-"I', . ~~r'" t n,¡~¡i.;q r .~r.~ '~i.! );~~!r~¡;~ 1','h;..:·~JJ!l:ï ., } ",.,;.,,¡,t,,..,,,," I i!!;¡iWi;iU: I ;i ¡ ::¡¡:;(~¡;¡i~;~ I :, f .rIF;':¡rj~fr;~r~ ø'~ ~ ' :;:,;,' t ;; t ¡ b ~ b1' 11" .1 .. ilf'" , !~..! . :': fi ). ;:! f~ : r~~ ,I J I, I; II C1 i!1 ~ ¡ iH '. ¡'¡II,¡ ,!! .'! ¡i! :¡'! ~ _ "I' I "I! r H¡lii hW!" JI'I!lÎ ¡. i ",!!!!!imlHIH:¡ ¡:fl' I .,1 !..¡.~.'"'''' h,~&lt~ ~ i' . "~oI'¡ !t,i 11.: fu J!..i HI ! :~j ! h~ ~ ..~~~ I ~W ~ - rn~ ~~ ~I !~ .f ~ J i~:; ..~o:¡ i~~~1 ~.!! <i . ,; w ¡::: r::; ffi j! ~. ~ II :I~ Wlll~ :i slj ., 0-- Œ . W ~ I I , , ., " ,~" 'd i ~;: l ';,1 ¡, I Ii:; I :.1: ¡ ~~ t ~ ,r, ! t~ ~ j~!,¡u {!jj ~! UIH "ø- i ;; (~) , I I I' , / /J/ ~'..., ;,./»' / , 4..' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. fl :~ ,\ PROPOSAL: Subdivision Request 'I , ~ APPLICANT: Metro Area Properties LOCATION: Knob Hill Lane 'I 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 :1 for a private street and a variance from the subdivision regulations on 7.59 acres of land zoned Single Family ¡ 1 Residential, RSF,located at the end of Knob Hill Lane, Knob Hill 2nd Addition. ¡ 1 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: ~ ì 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. ,~~ ,<1:' 3' , I " Smooth Feed Sheets™ DANIEL & MARIA LEARY 1275 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9053 JAMESHDONOVAN & SHARON E HERMANSON 1375 iliAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9059 DAVID L PETERSON & THOMAS G PETERSON 6451 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 DONALD M & CAROL OELKE 6431 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 THOMAS ALAN STEWARD & COLLEEN ELIZABETH STEWARD 6471 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 HUE & CATHERINE J LAM 6401 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 CHARLES B HEBERT 6411 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9036 BRUCE R & NANETTE D TWADDLE 6321 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9035 TODD D BOGEMA 6371 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9044 MARK E & KATHRYN \V BASTlANSEN 6301 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 9035 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 SUSAN M HUME 1531 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6500 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTC 690 CITY CE DWO BOX 147 CHAN EN MN 55317 0147 .--- DANIEL J & SANDRA A COLlCH 1321 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7529 PETER J & ANNETTE L KOROLCHUK 6330 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 KIRK A & CAMILLE M SWANSON 6340 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 BRENT W & DIANE E fESTER 6350 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 DAVID L & JOAN K PRIEM 6360 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 PETER B & LEAH J THORSON 6370 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 Use template for 5160œ DAVID M & LORI R TUOMALA 6380 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 553177527 KENNETH F & PATRICIA J GARVIN 6390 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 553177527 STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOMS 6398 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7527 BRIAN D & DIANE S WYFFELS 6421 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH BRANDES 6411 TETONLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 DAVID K & VANESSA J SLOTTEN 6401 TETONLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8332 GREGORY F AAMODT & JACQUELINE R AAMODT 6391 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 FRANK T & MARY L UGGLA 6381 TETONLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 MICHAEL R & CINDY J GREEN 6371 TETONLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 JAMES S & RHONDA C DOWNIE 6361 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7528 ; ~ (!)09tS i :f ~ saqel ssaJpPV Jasel .~" TEVEN J & MARY E PROSSER . 475 KNOB HIlL LN . CELSIOR MN 55331 8062 , j .:~TEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B D 9398 TETON L :t N MN 55317 7527 \ œ>MI~y8 ,,""" 26 35-117-23 34 0013 l STOKES t l STOKES 21710 LILAC lA SHOREWOOO MN 55331 26 35-1'7-23 34 0015 JOSEPH l GA~AGHTY 6075 APPLE RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0020 JEANNETTE AMES 6145 APPLE RO SHOREWOOO MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0029 THOMAS K FLAVIN 6080 MILL Sf SHOREWOOO MN 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0035 CITY OF SHOREWOOO 5755 CQUNTR Y CLUB RO SHORFWOOD MN 55331 TOTAL lABELS BATCH 504 00009 ~6 3ó-117-23 34 0016 Ré)y LECY LECY rONSWUCTrON 15012 STATE HWY NO 7 ~rNNETONKA ~N 55345 26 35-117-23 34 0019 BASH' 0 SABRI 6125 APPLE RO SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ¿6 35-117-23 ~4 0033 ~qAnLEY A H[PPNER 21?~O ULAC LA SW)q~lo/n'1,) ~N 55331 26 35-117-23 34 0034 THOMAS ¡; JENNIFER WILOER 21740 LILAC LA SHORFWODO MN 55331 Feb 12, 2002 Members of the Planning Commission, Chanhassen Thank you for the opportunity to share information related to Knob Hill Lane, the current pñvate 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 fàiling. There was rutting, pot holes, distress, and the edges were breaking of[ Mr. 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 fàiling and that the street was "too" 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 commnnity. Please protect us and our fellow citizens from builders and developers who fàil 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!Jl'02 12:2S FAI ISl 4S2 SSSO CITJOF : ':' ~~w 6J/J a.,. C- DtØt 10 "" 1/7 0-' ..M'_S531; .n.... J52.mlJlOO Gmmr/ña 3J1.9j;.:j·W ~lIJrpmrræu Fe !ð2.937.9JJ1 1Nì1Ji"l lRpmmml Fe !}J2.JJ{.1J}/ \I'd Sir. _ri~....", -. - CAllPBELL KNV1'SON Ii 002 January 16, 2002 Mr. 10hn Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane ExcelsiOf. MN 55331 Re: Private Driveway Access - Knob Hill Addirion Project No. 96-10 Dear John: This letter is a Collow up to our January 7,2002 telephone conversation regarding the existing private driveway off of£:nob Hill Lane. On the telephone I aslceel if you knew why the private driveway was not constxucted to a 7 -ton design as pet' city ordinance. Your reply was that you have seen no ·proof' to the contrary and that you believe the driveway was built to the 7-ton tequiremenr. For your information, I have included a copy of an engineering analysis performed by American Engineering Testing. Inc. (AET) 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 bcenprovided 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 comcting the driveway? Please contact me to discuss this matter at your eadiest convenience. I can be reached at 952-227-1164. Sinccn:ly, CITY OF ..cHANHAsSEN ~í~ ~tJ~ Matt Sum, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Enclosure: AET Testing Repon MS:jms c: Teresa Burgess, Director oCPublic WorlcslCity Engineer Roger Knutson, Campbell Knutson P.A.: s""n;\pn!jæø","obh;JlIknoblauth Icuer 5...... · i -. 05/1'5/01 15:42 FAX .!I12 937 5739 , ' l} I , ~.. ~ ;, ClTYOF CHOOIASSEN 690 Û9 c.- Driw. PO 11= 147 c;¡,."¡,.",,,Mi_55317 p¡,..,611937.19OO Gtnn41Fø611937J739 Enintrrin: Fø 611937.9152 P.hlk S4rt¡ FI% 611934.2521 Wi! 1DUJJJJ.å.,}¡..Jw¡m.mn.", CITY OF C~~SSEN ~OO2l002 May IS, 2001 Ms. Debbie Hegeman 459 Knob Hill Lane ChtDhassen, MN 55317 . :i¥. Re: Private Drive Off of Knob Hill Lane-Project No. 96-10 'J ~ ~ 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. A5 such, the private drive should have been built to a 7-ton design. It should be noted that the City does not typically mspect the instalJatio*n. of private driveways. It is the responsibility ofthe developer to make sure the private drives are built to specification. If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call at extension 114 or email meatmsaam(å!cLchanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 111Jtt~ Matt Saam Proj ect Engineer MS:js c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dave Hammergren, Attorney g:\cng\mam1eacrr\he&;ermn letter.doc Felhaber Larson Fenlon & Vo~ - - A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law MINNEAPOUS 601 2nd Avenue South : Suite 4200 Minn..poUs, MN 55402-+302 612 339 6321 J Fax 6123380535 Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612) 338-4608 E-mail: fkrielzmantã>.felhaber.com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East 7th Street ¡ St. Paul, MN 55101-4901 6512226321 I Fax 65t 2228905 January 30, 2002 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBEll, KNUTSON, P.A. 1380 Corporate Centre Curve, Suite 317 Eagan. Minnesota 55121 Re: Debra and Cramer Hegeman 11459 Knob Hill lane, Excelsior, Minnesota Our File No. 16567.000 Dear Mr. Knutson: This Jetter 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 andlor 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 8 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. J 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. J wm 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, lARS f"n l< ~ "'\i ¿..~ F re rick R. Kri Enclosure cc: Debra an , FENLON & VOGT, P.A. ") .-' Cramp.r Hpnpm~n MINNEAPOUS 601 2nd Avenue Soutb ! Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 339 6321 I Fax 612 338 0535 January 3, 2002 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, P.A. 1380 Corporate Centre Curve Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Felhaber Larson Fenlon & VogL A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612)338-4608 E-mail: fkrietzmantmfeihaber.com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East 7th Street ¡ St. Paul, MN 55101·4901 651222 6321 I Fax 6512228905 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL ~ -, -.Ji1 . :~ 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(0) (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 Hegemans, 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. 1 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, FrER, LA~ON, FENLON & VOGT, PA Fre~~ ·'JI"-;';~·,_::¡'.I~1i:' , Felhaber Larson Fenlon & Vogt_ A Professional Association - Attorneys at Law MINNEAPOLIS 601lndAvenue Soutb I Suite 4200 MiDneapolis, MN 55102'-+302 612 339 6321 Fax 612 338 0535 Fredrick R. Krietzman (612) 373-8418 Fax: (612) 338-4608 E-mail: fkrietzman(!i)felhaber.com Reply to Minneapolis ST. PAUL 2100 Minnesota World Trade Centtr 30 East 7th St...t I 51. Paul. MN 55101.-+901 6512226321 I Fax 6512228905 November 30, 2001 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, PA 1380 Corporate Centre Curve Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Debra and Cramer Hegeman / 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota Our File No, 16567,000 Dear Mr. Knutson: As you are aware from our telephone conversation on November 26, 2001, our law firm represents Debra and Cramer Hegeman, the owners of the home located at 1459 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota (the "Property"). Although the Property has an Excelsior address, it is under the jurisdiction of the city of Chanhassen (the "City"). The purpose of this letter is to. request that the City enforce against the developer of the Property, John Knoblauch and his company Deutsch Construction, Inc. (collectively the "Developer"), City Ordinance Section 18- 57(0) (the "Ordinance") with respect to construction of a private street (the "Street") serving the Property and the lot directly to the west of the Property owned by Shawn and Jackie McIntee (the "McIntee 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 desian. caved to a width of twentv (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) ObviÜlJSiy, 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. .. '. 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 the seven-ton design. ~ !¥ m (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 Mcintee 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 Mcintee Lot adequate turnaround space to be used when exiting the Mcintee Lot. Currently, vehicles going to the Mcintee 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 Mcintee 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 Mcintee 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 Citv's Knowledae of the Developer's Violations of the Ordinance Enclosed is a copy of the March 29, 2000 letter to Ms. Hegeman from David C. Hempel, the then Assistant City Engineer, in which Mr. Hempel and the City acknowledge that the westerly portion of the Street does not meet the width requirements of the Ordinance. It is troubling that the Certificate of Survey referenced in Mr. Hempel's letter does not accurately reflect the Street as built. However, as soon as the City became aware that the Street was not constructed in accordance with the Ordinance and that Certificate of Survey, the City should have enforced the Ordinance against the Developer, and required the Developer to reconstruct the Street in accordance with the Ordinance. There is no reason that the Ordinance should not be enforced against the Developer. . Roger N. Knutson, Esq. November 30, 2001 Page 3 Also enclosed is a copy of the April 7, 2000 letter to Ms. Hegeman from Jill Sinclair, the then Environmental Resource Specialist for the City. In that letter, Ms. Sinclair states that any trees that need to be removed for the widening of the Street in aCCOlldance with the plan originally approved by the City, can be removed without penally to the party widening the Street. Ms. SincJair'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 by the AET letter), which will eventually cause the Hegemans (and the Mclntees) to bear the heavy financial burden of repairing and/or reconstructing the Street if the Developer is not required to do so by the City. Further, the failure of the Street to meet the width requirements of the Ordinance has created an inherently dangerous situation for all persons that may be walking on or near the Street during the times that vehicles are entering or leaving the Mcintee 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 10 construct and develop in the City even though the Developer has violated specific ordinances rneant 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, LARSON, FENLON & VOGT, P.A. r-v~.i\ Fredrick R. Krie man EncJosures \- cc: Debra and Cramer Hegeman '!!J .. £] AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. CONSULTANTS · GEOTECHNiCAL · MATERIALS · ENVIRONMENTAL May 21, 20m Cramer and Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 4 RE: Hegeman Residence (Driveway) 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, Minnesota AET #20-01228 This letter presents the results of our additional observations of the condition of the driveway leading to your residence and the neighboring residence, as well as additional information that recently became available. Our services were performed in accordance with verbal authorization received from you on April 27, 2001. Our recent scope of services included the following: . Observe the condition of the bituminous driveway. . Review recent information that was discovered and presented to us. · Perform an engineering analysis and prepare this revised report summarIZing our recommendations for repair of the driveway and providing a 7 -ton axle load roadway design. This letter includes information acquired in our previous testing program, performed last summer, and information provided in our letter dated August 16, 2000 (and revised September 19, 2000). Reference should be made to this letter for the results of our previous work. Project Information You have indicated that you are having ongoing conflicts concerning the construction of the driveway leading to your residence from Knob Hill Lane. Because you share a driveway with your next door neighbor, the City requires that the driveway be constructed to a 7-ton axle load design. Drawings prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc., show a design section for 7-ton urban roadways to consist of 3Ih" of bituminous over 12" gf Class 5 aggregate base. We understand, from information provided by the City of Chanhassen, that Knob Hill Lane was constructed using this design section, after placing about 2' of sand for subbase material, due to difficult soil conditions. We also observed some areas of pavement distress along the bituminous portion of the driveway, particularly along the edges of the bituminous pavement. This distress appears to include rutting in the wheel lanes, reflective cracking at isolated locations, and breaking-off of the edges of the bituminous. "AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 550 Cleveland Avenue North. St. Paul. MN 55114. 651-659-9001. Far 651-659-1379 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 perfonn the Marshall density test, an asphalt extraction test, and an aggregate gradation test. The results of our testing were presented in our previous letter. Of note was the fact that each of the 13 core samples taken from the bituminous driveway had relative densities lower than 95% of Marshall, a typical MnlDOT 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 MnlDOT Specification 3139 for aggregate gradation and Specification 2331 for asphalt content and void ratio. We could not evaluate confonnance to the actual mix design proposed for use on this project because that data was not available to us. Subgrade Testing We perfonned 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 MnlDOT fonnuIas 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 MnlDOT 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 MnlDOT design criteria that a GEof 17 is required for a 7-tonaxIe load design. This is based on a GEof7 from the minimum 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 MnlDOT design 2 2.5" 8" 13 17 3 2.25" 8" 12.5 17 4 2.25n 8" 12.5 17 ,) Cramer and Debra Hegeman AET #20-01228 May 21, 2001 Page 3 Calculated GE Required GE Core Bituminous Class 5 Base at Core based on 7 -ton Location # Core Thickness Thickness· Location MnlDOT design 5 2.75" 8" 13.5 17 6 2.5" 8" 13 17 7 3.0" 8" 14 17 8 3.0" 8" 14 17 9 1.0" 12" 14 17 10 1.5" 8" 11 17 11 3.0" 8" 14 . 17 12 3.5" 8" 15 17 13 3.5" 8" 15 17 14 . 2.0" 8" 12 17 Ave. Values 2.52" 13.35 17 :/!' ~ .. . The Class 5 aggregate base thicknesses given are based on the information stated by the contractor and builder that 8" of Class 5 was used as per the design section, except at core location #9 where the Class 5 thickness was actually measured when peiforming 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. En~neering 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 n. 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. "':"~"·,'t.fFl'-.'··","\ 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 detennined 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. Remar~ We trust this letter supplies you with the infonnation requested and outlined in our proposal. If you have any questions, or need additional assistance, please call me at 651-659-1364. ;;Z?ß'#~ Michael P. McCarthy, PE 7 Principal Engineer MN Reg. No. 16688 ~99~ Eric I. Pederson, PE Senior Engineer MN Reg. No. 24032 MPM/EJP/mm Attachment: Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND DESIGN -f!! ! ,< ,~ ~AT. BitumiDous pavements are considered layered 'flexible' systems. Dynamic wbccI loads transmit high local stresses through the bituminouslbasc onto the subgradc. Because of this, the upper portion of the subgradc requires high st:rengthIstability to reduce deflection and fatigue of the bituminouslbasc system. The wbccI load intensity dissipates through the subgrade such that the high level of soil stability is usually not nccdcd 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 subgradc zone versus the lower portion. Moderate compaction is usually desired below the upper critical zone, primarily to avoid settlements/sags of the roadway. However, if the soils present below the upper 3' subgrade zone are unstable, attempts to properly compact the upper 3' zone to the 100% level may be difficult or not possible. Therefore, control of moisture just below the 3' level may be needed to provide a non- yielding base upon which to compact the upper subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance is dependent on the soil subgrade drainage and frost characteristics. Poor to moderate draining soils tend to be susceptibte to frost heave and subsequent weakening upon thaw. This condition can resutt in irregular frost movements and 'popouts, ' as well as an accelerated softening of the subgrade. Frost problems become more pronounced when the subgrade is layered with soils of varying permeability. In this situation, the free- draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water infiltration which exaggerates the movements. The placement of a well drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minimÌ7.e trapped water, smooth frost movements and significantly reduce subgrade softening. In wet, layered and/or poor drainage situations, the tong-term performance gain should be significant. If a sand subbase is placed, we recommend it be a 'Select Granular Borrow' which meets MnIDOT Specification 3149.2B2. PREPARATION Subgrade preparation should include stripping surficial vegetation and organic soils. Where the exposed soils are within the upper 'critical' subgrade zone (generally 2'h' deep for 'auto only' areas and 3' deep for 'heavy duty' areas), they should be evaluated for stability. Excavation equipment may make such areas obvious due to deflection and rutting patterns. Final evaluation of soils within the critical subgrade zone should be done by test rolling with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment. such as a loaded dump truck. Soils which rut or deflect I' or more under the test roll should be corrected by either suhCuning and replacement; or by scarification, drying, and recompaction. Reworked soils and new fill should be compacted per the 'Specified Density Method' outlined in MnlDOT Specification 2l05.3Fl (a minimùm 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 imponant consideration. Fall and Spring seasons usually have unfavorable weather for soil drying. Stabilizing non-sand subgrades during these seasons may be difficult, and attempts often result in compromising the pavement quality. Where construction scheduling requires subgrade preparation during these times. the use of a sand subbase becomes even more beneficial for constructability reasons. SUBGRADE DRAINAGE If a sand subbase layer is used, it should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent water build-up. This can be in the form of draintile lines which dispose into storm sewer systems, or outlets into ditche,. Where sand subbase layers include sufficient stoping, and water can migrate to lower areas, draintile lines can be limited to fmger drains at the catch basins. Even if a sand layer is not placed, strategically placed draintile lines can aid in improving pavement performance. This would be most imponant 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. OIFUEP016(02/01) AMERICAN ENGlNEERING TESTING, INC. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Û9 CmIrr Dmr.PO Bar 147 ~~j53n Phtmt 612937JJœ ØmzI ña 612.937.573' rïnttring ña 612'37.m2 ¡lie SizfirJ FIlZ 6W34.2524 œ ZJ!fflPn'; rltm:h4S1nUlDJ.1lS March 29, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob HiJI Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Private Driveway Consttuction - Lots 2 and 3, Block I, 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 consttuction in conjunction \vith the project, Knob Hill, has been consttucted in general accordance with the amLroved plans UP to your residence. Upon reVIew otthe attached Certificate of Survey for the adjacent lot (Lot 3, Block 2), I concur that the driveway beyond your home has not been constrUcted in accordance with the Certificate of Survey. City ordinance requires that private driveways serving two or more properties must be 20 feet wide and built to 7-ton design. For individual driveways (serving only one home), the City allows driveways to be reduced to 10 feet wide. The City typically does not get involved in the driveway consttuction 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 fÌ'Om 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! may be of further assistance, please feel lÌ'ee to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~d'~ David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms c: John Knoblauch, Developer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director \\c&I\YGI21en1'Pn>jeasl!cnobhiINo_ !e.er.doc . . cmOF CHABBASSEN 691JCigCmla DrØr,PO k 147 ChaL-. ~55317 PJ.t6I2.9J7.15œ GDnrI ¡". 6I2.137.5739 L,:-:"t ñz 612.957.9151 p"h/it s.frrJ ñz611.934.1524 1IQ~rrhøssm._Jl . - - ...- . April 7, 2000 ~ ì ,'$I; t¡ Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Ln. Excelsior, MN 55331 > :';; ~ .~~ .; , Dear Ms. Hegeman, , In 1999,1 inspected the neighboring property, 1451 Knob HiD Ln., in response to a request to remove trees in order to construct a larger driveway. In a letter to the developer, Mr. John Knoblauch, dated September 14, 19991 concluded that any additional tree removals would be penalized since they appeared to be in excess of what was approved for that lot assuming the driveway had been built according to the building permit survey. However, it has come to my attention ftom a facsimile of the neighboring property survey you scntthat the cxis' driveway differs from what was ro osed to and a ved b the ci . I approved the survey for the lot and in doing so accepted that the trees in qùesnon would oë removed for the driveway. The fact that they haven't been removed to date doC:! not now protect them nor docs 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 fecI free to contact me. Sincerely, . '1~1~~~\V Environmental Resource Specialist ." .. ,. , . . of . . ., . h.n ...JI.....4.'..~ . _~...t..__t-.......L _J./_ TOT~ P.B2 it ~'if' .... ~ 1 .. .. ~ ~ ~ .- !!? :~ .... '" C . .. .!Y~ f ,~ . Q -.. - ~ .- .- ':0 (/ .... 2 I >/1 :/r.:! .1 -0 => -0. n 0 ~ 'CD ,\ n ..... ~ -0 '6' ~ ~ .. ... ... CD .... => . g .... ~, Q ... t~ ï: õ " ,",J o ~ ~~ ~ f1'- ~i m g ,<" ~ d-" ~ ,-' ~ ' rt~ ~;8 ~ IDrt CD '" P. ~~~ ~~ 1T1i~ ~~ !.... J ~ì~ CD . ¡III t ~ t1rtf IDa'" ?ID~ gl >~ CD O¡ oaO tj::f IDID 'g 31 tj. !.:: oa tr:: . '<ID ..!! CDrt III S:~ ...0 1D:f ~~ ~ ,\1 ~;f 1110 '<ct' nn - - 88.00__ '- "" ~'l: r-.¡ '"" . r- < - ~ ~ 8:g , ~ ..¡ r- -. þ ..,'" z "'0 ~ (O- N": NOt O1Ot- e ~ ....... )0.. , ",..... . ~ '-' ¡ . "-: , 2 U¡:~ ._' "'f ,- ~' ~ ~.. ....¡ '\"'....~ . t'1!i It:,,,, " '2~n.;9.~ CD n ;,,; .~. .~ '.1\ mo ~"'.-... C%~~~~f: ~t!I <-ø'" gl!~~~ -' _C~.-...Þ" % n ¥' 0 m \11 '" ... !!..., ,I> r 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 13 76 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 I IthiIien 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. (I) The house elevation on lot 3 block 2 of the 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 I 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 ¡:ij'",..", ."....,-"....~ ....._<"....".,.,..". ~:~;"~('...' 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 ofChanhassen to even look at this property before I and the local homeowners affected by the future development of said development and the City ofChanhassan has a chance to look and see if the wetland area on said property meets the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. r 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 wet]ands and old growth hardwoods all of which will be destroyed by this development. Sincerely, Chad Haasken / . . / ;// ~'-.': I ..... -¡t): i?01.3 6,~7Vl/{lOt/S r-- C I 7"-{ C;l14,cj 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 ...PIease try to think of other ideas that can enable us to have a consensus on this..... it ,~ ~-i¡: ,; I'm not opposed to the development..development is often inevitable, and if anyone does it, I'm OK with the Knoblauchs.. J) I'm very opposed to the imposing road right in our backyard (as compared to the ITont 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 po sible basis for being able to get approval for a narrower privme 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 ITom 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 of the sight of the huge peice of asphalt as we look out ITom 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. Enable the 2 proposed homes on either side to be moved over so as to have less of an impact on their neighbors. r _ ...-- I ". Option# I-Private(shareddrive) (¡.. Ct:.;,c(' ) 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' ITom 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 (Jot 6) to minimize proximity to other homes. Lots can also be configured so as to create a conduit for various driveways as needed .¿- '-I ¡)/l1) p: (O¡.'7 _ t. n r- _ t· \? /,- " ¿. ..,"17 "CJ~ 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. of ,'i' : o 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 Cily Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVindustrial. , 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 Sheets™ DANlEL & MARIA LEARY 1275 LILACLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES H DONOVAN & SHARON E HERMANSON 1375 LILAC LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID LPETERSON & THOMAS G PETERSON 6451 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD M & CAROL OELKE 6431 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS ALAN STEWARD & COLLEEN ELIZABETH STEWARD 6471 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HUE & CATHERINE J LAM 6401 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE R & NANETTE D TWADDLE 6321 YOSEMITE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 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 STEVEN R & SANDRA K OLSON 1530 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SUSAN M HUME 1531 CREEK RUN TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CiO SCOTT~OTCHER 690 CITY C R PO BOX 147 CHANHA SEN MN 55317 .../ PETER J & ANNETTE L KOROLCHUK 6330 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIRK A & CAMILLE M SWANSON 6340 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W & DIANE E FESTER 6350 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID L & JOAN K PRIEM 6360 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 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 Use template for S160~ STEPHEN R & CYNTHIA B DOMS 6398 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN D & DIANE S wYFFELS 6421 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH BRANDES 6411 TETONLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID K & VANESSA J SLOTTEN 6401 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY F AAMODT & JACQUELINE R AAMODT 6391 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK T & MARY L UGGLA 6381 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & CINDY J GREEN 6371 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 CiO SCOTT BOTCHER sõX'; 690 CITY CENIER DR FO OX 147 CHjNHASŠEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ ¡ROBERT D SUTFIN & ÎDIANE L MCGUIRE 13201THILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1ICHARD E & CYNTHIA FROEHLING 1328 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ;COTT H & JOANNE R DAKE 1336 ITHILIEN 2XCELSIOR MN 55331 WBERT A & SANDRA J HANSON .344ITHILIEN ¿XCELSIOR MN 55331 1IKE J & ANN M PREBLE 352 ITHtLIEN iXCELSIOR MN 55331 'IMOTHY P & COLLEEN M BROWNE J60 tTHILlEN XCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH J & T AMRA L BOEHM 1391ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENT D & L YSA M MOSHER t385 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDALL L & DIANE H SCHWANZ 1377 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 5533 t EDWARD N & RHONDA R PERKINS 13511THILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID G & DIANN L JONES 13291THILIEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY P & LEORA F MATTILA 13211THILlEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160G) :f:' ',-,J, -'þ JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LN-- EXCELSIOR' MN 5533t ~ ';' ·3 JH: JOSEPH W & MARGERY J KNOBLAUCH 1465 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 " ',:, it "2 ¡i CRAMER C III & DEBRA A HEGEMAN 1459 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHAWN R & JACQUELINE A MCINTEE 1451 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK A & PATRICIA A RUHLAND 6275 YOSEMITE EXCELStOR MN 55331 RALPH J & RENEE L HENDERER t5t5 KNOB HILLLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,FFREY S SMITH & JEFFREY P & BARBARA J JOHNSON MARK T & KATHY A PAULSEN JRI S JOHNSON 1512 KNOB HILL LN 1501 KNOB HILL LN \68 ITH!LlEN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 XCELSIOR MN 55331 'lAD M HAASKEN JOHN C & SHARON A KNOBLAUCH STEVEN J & MARY E PROSSER 761THILlEN 1450 KNOB HtLL LN 1475 KNOB HtLL LN {CELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,MES L & BARBARA A QUIRING 84 ITHILIEN :CELSIOR MN 55331 CHAEL S HATCH & .URA HATCH n ITHILlEN ;CELSIOR MN 5533t THOMAS M & SANDRA L RYAN 1480 KNOB HILL LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN C & SHARON-^-K~CH 1450 KNOB HILL"LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 "_/ STEPHE~R&CYNTHI . S 6398 TETO CIjAN ASSEN MN 55317 .- DAVID F SMITH & LAURA L FRANZEN SMITH 1331 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ":"'S},""~,'-" (i)09I!i Jasel sao'- . _~.dpp" DAVID E & SHANNON J HEUPEL 1331 ASHTONCT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BOB GENEROUS P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ®.uJ3^"ø . . CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEiVED March 12, 2002 MAR 1 2 2002 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT -~ nu,nl....,o;i"11 Planning Commission < 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. Jo1m 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. Jo1m 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 fini.hing his father's home, we encountered numerous problems with John and his supervision of the sub-contractors. 1) Our windows were bmed at the wrong height and all had to be redone 2) A recess in the kitchen wall to accommodate an oversize remgerator was deliberately left out, until we complained and forced the wall to be rebuilt. 3) We requested all high efficiency HV AC 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 CllIpe! contract specified an upgraded C8Ipet and CllIpet 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 ft of flooring that feels like green plywood. 5) Our master bath includes a Jacuzzi tub with a window hung 2 inches above the deck of the tub. The pmpose 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 coIreCt window, Mr. Knoblauch elected to install a DDlch smaller window several feet above the deck of the tub. When we found this out, we refused to accept his substitution. 10hn ordered the coIreCt 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. 10hn 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 10hn why he had not used the appropriate flush brass receptacles commonly used for floor applications. He acted like he didn't mow 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 10hn 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 ofChanhassen Building inspector, examine and record the width of the cracks over several months, just to document the failure of the floor. Finally, after 10hn' s refusal to take responsibility for the floor, we called Marv 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. 10hn Knoblauch never apologized or aC!mowledged his failure. Later we found out that on the day of the 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 rrom 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 ac!mowledge 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 Y. 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, !mowing 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, mñch 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. 'iI .. Did Mr. Knoblauch lie to City officials? Probably not, but the question is, Did he attempt to deceive them? ., Mr. Knoblauch did lie to the Hegemans. On the day the forms were set for the private road, Mrs. Hegeman asked him specifically ifhe 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 McIntee 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. McIntee 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 McIntee 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 mindset 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 CITY OF J'HANHASSEN it] Cmrtr Drivt, PO Bor 147 ~Mi1l1ltS01il55317 J'b¡¡",611937.19OO . GmmJl FIIr 611937.5739 :ngiDming FIIr 612.937.9152 Pz¡blir S#zy FIIr 612,934.2524 U'fb www.ri.tlmnhassmmn.1lI March 24, 2000 Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob HilI Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Private Driveway Construction - Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Knob HilI 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 within 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. If! may be of further assistance, please feel ftee to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN A..fl:p'¿'¿! / David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms \\cfs I \voI2\eng\projects\knobhi11\private driveway .doc · · CITY OF ¡ CHANHASSEN " - Cmttr Dmr. PO Bœd47 .o..Jt] ì¡zz1nmm. MimttstJø5S317 Phtme612937J!JOO ~FIl:t612937J73' \inmiizt FIl:t 612937.'152 !ù: SIzftrJ FIl% 612934.2524 ,. =å.chiznh=lIllUlI March 29,2000 VIA FACSIMILE '" ? Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Private Driveway Construction - Lots 2 and 3, Block I, Knob Hill Project No. 96-11 Dear Ms. Hegeman: This letter is a follow up to your facsimne 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 ap roved lans u to vour 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 bunt 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 et involved in the dnveway 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 bunt 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 /Sl-/ð~ David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms c: John Knoblauch, Developer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director \lcls l\voi2lenK'Prv;ecu,¡g,obhilNlo¡eman letter.doc ·"-~,,~~','n>;;rt~}>' ./ 612~7456~~~ VLL- SEP-28-99 86:45 AM 30HH.KNOBLAUCH em OF £IlANHASmI . A9IIÜ!1I.ÏR1rr/J';"'.I'f)/Ior U7 OuT.... Mi._ ~U17 1'l.w61:2'1J7.lf)(J(} Cnrotllia 612.9,/7, f7J9 bptnio: Iia 61:29,1,7,9111 M,s+!IiÞ.·6I.W,¡..'fl4 1IIi.......d,~..../II 3prll P.81 c.. J¡}) SÎr\ddl' September 14, 1999 Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dc:ar MI. Knoblallch, In repros \0 yuur request to c;nlitf¡c thc driVCWIIY of 145 I Knob Hill Lllnc, the c:ity IItron¡ly discourages any fur1hcr n:moval ofvegctatlon on the lot for that purpose. You wel'O allowed a fifteen (oot tree removallimil for access to and the construction of the building. which has been cleared for the currenl home. Removals In excess will be pcnalimd at a rate of2:l diameter inches, For cxamplc.ifyou rcmovu 6·inch tree you will be required 10 plant of total of 12 inches oftrccs as replaccmenL After inspecling the proposed removalal'ea, it appears there would be a substantial amount of I'q)laccmcnl plantings required. In conclusion. I would like to øtrcø again that the city does not bclif:VC any trees or vegetation should be removed on that lot in order to increase the size of the driveway area.. If you should have any further questions or comments regarding this issue, please feel fi'cc to contact me a1937-1900, cxt. I SO. sin~rn;\~~{MV Jir Sinclair c:: xt- (":) D Environmental Resource Specialist q ~"Î - 5 7 3C1 ...Ç'~ p le:-qS-L c CLC\ ~ H-e0~ j/P3-55q- 100 L/ 11wûg.¡a..."'A f'II/IÚIt-.;" wilh tit"" Id'l, "".¡;"'sm..it,. m"trri",,¡......... "',;,,;.,~. ."* i-"'¡Ñf..rh A ._, "'Jr".I;,~ ..J. ..J .1_ · .. - r - "j .. ~ · ClTJOF CBDSSEN , j ~ · 690Û!1Cm1lr DtØr.PO Bor 147 CJo-l-..~55317 "0 H-61l.9J7.1'J1X1 r-..tñrÐ2.m5739 ~ñr6l2.9J].9152 · 1Wits.ft9ñrfiI2934.2524 W,¡, ~.1wtm....... · - --- .. April 7, 2000 Ms. Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Ln. Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Hegeman, In 1999, I inspected the neighboring property. 1451 Knob ffiU Ln., in responscto a request to remove trees in order to construct a larger driveway. In a Ictter to thc developer, Mr. John Knoblauch, dated September 14. 19991 concluded that any additional tree removals would be penalized since they appeared to be in excess ofwbat was approved for that lot assuming the driveway had been built according to the building permit survey. However, it has come to my attention fi:om a facsimile of the neighboring property survey you sent that the existin driveway differs fÌOm whal was ro osed to and a roved b the city. 1 approved the survey for the lot and in doing so accepted thaI the trees In qùemon woula Þë removed for the driveway. The facl that they haven'l 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 10 contact me. Sincerely, J~I~~~iv Environmental Resoun:e Specialist ." ., ,. .. . . .1".1 . ..... ...JL.....:.&..I..-J- . _....I.__~.......J. _J.l_ TOTAL P. ß2 and deposits. This would have required that two trees located on the McIntee lot directly in the path of the approved drive be removed. And in :Iàct, John Knoblauch recèived permission to remove these trees as evidenced by both the enclosed letter IÌ'om the city forester, Till 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 fåiled to continue the aspbah driveway to the property line dividing the McIntee and Hegeman lots. We believe this fàilure to construct the approved driveway was a deh'berate attempt to make the McIntees lot more attractive to any future buyers. It also kept the Twaddles happy by leaving two attractive trees on the McIntee lot. Other than those two trees, there was not much appealing about the McIntees 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 of the private drive. In court, the McIntees 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 fàiled to tell the McIntees, was that this was never discussed with the Hegemans. The McIntees never discussed it with the Hegemans. Even during driveway pad construction, the McIntees deh'berately withheld this information ftom the Hegemans. The Hegemans did express concern about the size of the turnaround area located on the McIntees 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 McIntees to build something that would negativelynimpact 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 fàils 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 nnr thp. M.....Tnt,.,,.,C! ,..u,..... C!n1-r..MaA "........:.......,1" _1..._... .c...._ +1.._:_ _-:._40_ ..1....:_._______ .. ..~ · 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 Mclntees built. The Hegemans questioned John the day the furms fur the McIntees pad were set, specifically why he had created an angle in the path of the private drive, why it deviated so 1àr 1Ì'om the property line of the 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 McIntees lot were in the direct path of the entrance of the private drive onto the McIntee lot. He fàiled again, to disclose that those trees were scheduled for removal to make access for the private drive and for adequate parking on the McIntee lot. In conclusion, Mr. Knoblauch deliberately changed the approved path of the private drive across the Hegmans lot and in coUaboration with the McIntees willfully fuiled to build a driveway pad on the McIntees 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 McIntees 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 1Ì'om these large vehicles will ultimately result in additional expense for concrete repair to the Hegemans while the Mclntees concrete remains ImdAtru1ged. 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 injudgement. 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 itselí '~. ~~~'~ The barrie1's will remain up because they are a simple fix to a problem that was not caused by the Hegemans. We hope they remind our "neighbors" that we did not invest close to $500,000 to have our property used as a bus stop or a cul-de-sac. The :Iàct that the McIntees now wish to complain about the appearance is ridiculous. There is no monetary damage to the McIntees. The only damage to the McIntees is to their pride. Their legal fees were paid by their insurance poJicy whiIe the Hegemans are currently out of pocket over $50,000 to legally ''fix'' the problem. The McIntees built a big house on a smaIl 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 Drovision for nie:ht ligJning. Who will bear the burden of a lawsuit when a visitor to the McIntees 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 McIntees asswned that the Hegemans would allow their private property to be used as a parking lot. The McIntees asswned too much. The incovenience to the McIntees is there own creation. They don't like looking at barriers and we don't like looking at uninvited velùcles turning around on our private property and leaving tire tracks that require hard labor to remove. The McIntees have never offered to be responsible for any damage created by their guests or deliveries. In fact Mr. McIntee 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 McIntees nor their complicity in the creation of the document that was unlawfully delivered to our address on December 14, "in the Christmas Spirit" The Hegemaos The Hegemans want to make it perfèctly 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 ftom the McIntees do not use the private drive. It is not for public use and violators will be prosecuted. · '1 ( 10z..o.0 ) DENOlt:::¡ .....O..-Otia:.D ëL.':'VA) ION INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE IOZ!), ~; = FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION 1012..61.. = BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION IOU.6b = TOP OF FOUNDATION ElEVATION · · SCALE: l' .. 3D' /J9.&I ,MIt$! 7)/Q,f7 U7 ~ ß~ I. GUI/. = /t1Z'Z. n -1, r:!o¿.~ ..LOc;,s, - " V4C4i.rr LtJr. L1 rì ï- --7 -'-.... , N 8/" 45~ Q)" I .~I IV /' .. , ,... < , ,....... 0' lði'i',t) .. ci~-:j»- -- . ,. /' -- - ---../" ~ ~ ~:-I' QOZP:þ 77.1Z ;.I ß8'S()'So"W /2-4-Jl7: L.Þw/ilZ &It.4P:JJ,l/CO gpr. um/IA"'6 Þ'4J.1. AT "'WAk ~A""16t: al~' 612. hereby certify that this is a true and co~rect representation of a tract of )d as shown and described hereon. As prepared by me this '3~ ' day of IOVEMf1.é1Z- 19 _'1"1 /J .1', ~ - .-" ...." ...- UI-' ......"... AA o...~ .e, ...&.~" CITY CHAH r:NCINF1=1J1··- .. lCIooz CARVER -. ')UNTY. MINNESOTA. - QõJEt DENQ"ŒS EXISTING El.EVATlON (lOIS.%) DENOt'ES PROPOSED ElEVATION WI. - DIRB:noN OF """""'" ........... . - FINISHED G4RAGE FlOOR ElEVATION O. ... BASEMENT FLOOR ELEvATION o . 3 -' TOP OF 'FOUNDAT10N ElEVAT10N ' I I N81'45'50-W 92.26 SCAlE:: 1· - 30' 1l{S'/ kINe VIt.c. lll. ~ f ¡... j ~ $ I 1 8 .. .. I I WET . LAND IJWI... '1'17.,Z. J./WL. 1001./'1 / DRAINAGE ÅND UTlLfTY EASEMENT "../" ,-,.. '.; 10C1£ / - -. ~U!o.101O.1' d),..co 11II,z. " .... ,.Iii £,..:","f1 -r.~ --¡= .- EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 4."~.:i· Ú""'~ ------ 'J!!!'JI ~OU. i) . . .,npJ - J=",1. 1§§9 ~ ~~ 7 / /qq9 ~/1IiÞu . ~ dIe~ e~~ , '. , Deutsch Construction PO Box 127 3106 Leroy Avenue New Prague, MN 56071 Att: Marv RE: Failure to comply with survey / driveway access and easement to 1451 Property Dear Marv: I had a conversation on Friday June 4, with John Knoblauch. I informed him that I had received a survey for the property located next to ours, specifically 145 I 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 conneèting 1451 and 1459. The current angle constructed by John at the request of the Owners ofl45 I creates a difficult entrance and exit fimn the 1451. It appear¡; this was done to circumvent 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 of the dogleg is not easily negotiable and visitors and trucks fail to turn at the correct angle and therefO£e either back into the trees on the property of 1<459 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 145 I 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 Temovat This will quite likely increase the liability to ·our property. The engineers survey, clearly shows that there should be no angle and that the access is parallel to the property line and is approximately five to six feet tiom 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. Jo1m did not ever disclose to us that the maple trees located on the property of 145 I were in the clirect path of the future driveway to 1451. His failure to disclose this "IMPORTANT" detail has caused enormous damage to our relationship with the owners of1451. Ifwe had been given a plat of the property of145 I 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 of1451 and the proposed drivewaypaå is clearly shown. If those trees had been removed, there would have been room for building materials and construction crew vehicles to be parked on the property of145 1. As John has done for all other sites, this is usually the first area cleared and yellow stone put down to accommodate parking and building materials. Instead John deh'berately chose to deposit major construction materials on the property of 1459 without our pennission or consent. Construction crew vehicles were parked on the property of 1459 blocking the entrance and em 1Ì'om our garage area on a daiJy basis. Two specific vehicles were parked less than 6' ftom 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 ftont 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 ftom May through October of 1998. This effectively prevented any work ftom 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 ifhe had removed the trees on 145 I and cleared the documented turnaround area as noted on the survey of145 1. J 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 pOSSl'bly have "forgotten" to mention a DossibIe solution to the problem. I do believe he deh'berateIy, and probably with the knowledge of the owners of 1451, agreed not to take dbwn 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 of property 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 deh'berately deceived and subjected to unnecessary inconvenience related to the construction ofl451, we wish to be compensated at the rate on 1000.00 - One thousand dollars per month for the duration of our inconvenience. The duration of the period was ftom 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~ er work. We expect to be compensated for this expense also. . t.ø/..7ßì1 . - . For every week forward ftom this da~that you fail to correct e concrete pad an easement between 1451 and 1459, we will assess you damages for inconvenience of$ 1,000.00 per week. We hold you responsible 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 posSi'bIe failure to inform them of where the right ofway/easement accessed their lot ftom our lot, and the subsequent changes necessary will quite naturally upset them. For this irreparable damage, we assess you the amount of$ 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 ofl45 I and 1459. Further loss ofmy time ftom worlf, 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 ftom 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 - T938I'8 .....;'-'f'\ ~i".'i"" '0·' . 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 attomey 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 turn around in, and that they are not allowed to park in the easement. Please notifY them as soon as possible 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 by red 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 cityltown of Chanhassan officials at I :OOp.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. (P-741 '.., ~ cc: John Knoblauch /7 / / Hap LeVander, Maun & Simon PLC ~ ~-:>_ If you have any questions, please do hesitate to contact me. . We are truly disappointed in John, as your representative. Sincerely, . ~¥'~hk~ Cramer & Debra Hegeman - e£A v .£AA£_ AVA V- A,.£_ ·..-r..r- .~. Ie DORIS P. MIERENDORF I NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY ~ e.p¡...Jan, 31. 2000 · G.='..m..~....' . - ~ r f"'" 6h/f7 Z 385 77b 217 us Postal Service -Receiþt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for Inlernational Mail See reverse 10 POSIa¡¡e Certified Fee Special Defivery Fee Restñdecl Delivery Fee 1'2-> .$·20 --------- TOTAL: $ 7.3£1 ~ U.S. POSTAL SERVICE E)':CELSIOR 545 2NII ST 55331 *** -------------------------- ERK #04 IrE: 06/07/99 12:24:28 PN ------------------------- ------------------------- 9 PVI 9 PVI :3 PACK PRCIII 3.20 3.20 .9[1 ---------- TOTAL: $ 7.31.::1 ------------------------- *** THANK YOU *** ~ SENDER: iii C Complete items 1 andlOl 2 for additional services = Complete items 3, 4., and 4b. . ... a Print your name and address on the reverse of this 'onn so thaI we can return th', ~ card 10 you. I f [J Atta~ this form to the lronl of the mailpieca. Of on the back if space does noc . perm. S CO Write "Retum ~ Req/J8stsd"on the mailpiece below thl .rtide number c . The Return Receipt will show to whom the _!tide was delivered and the dOlO· a delivered. ~ 3.. Article Addressed to: 4a. Artide Number ã.. fv\ovV ì)e.A.-\-kc~"'\ .."2 - 3Ys . 776' Zf6 ~ .;-,. e.' ~LO./'9ì C 00'\= \-n..I cf,¿¡" fb, $e~ce Type ,.J-J \,/\ I ~ ~ . tJ Registered 310(0 l¿.ro..¡fw-e Ço&¡../d. DExpressMail N<2<...0 Pn.ìS:u.J; fY)N 0 RelUmReceiptlorMerchandi'e 'fldJ 7 I 7, Dale 01 Delivery C ('i 5. ReiVed~Y: (Print Name) to .!$. 1 L . 11 I· 8. Addressee s Address (Onl if reqfJested and ~ N (. /L1. S -r r= I IV fee is paid) [ 6.~!dd'" <: Agent !i! PS Form 381 , December 1994 I also wish to receive the follow- ing services (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2, 0 Re'lricted Delivery (jii,Certified o Insured o COD 102595-99-8'0223 Domestic Return Receipt - _._.~-- - --- --._----- -._-~----- .' ø " ;;; ø I!? ø > e ø S ~ o " ø '¡; ã., E o u '" '" W 0:: SENDER: I also wiSh to receive the follow- ing services (for an extra fee): o Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional seNiees. Complete items 3. 4a. and 4b. o Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return Ihis card to you. e Anach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit., \ [J Wnte "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. . 0 The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: '.J ohn Krob )c.U.\~ \ '-\- SU K\ìùbli1H Lx. 'Ci-c e \S\2X'" hìi\L-J.:2- _:::>~JJ 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery 40. Artic!e Number 7/ . 211 2. - 3[;>' 7 " 4b. Service Type r 0 Registered Express Mail o Retum Receipt for Merchandise ~ertjfied o Insured DeOD 5. Received By: (Print Name) 0:: ~ ~ o ... !i! 102595-99·8·0223 Domestic Return Receipt . -:-,:..----. ----..--- ._._--~---- .--... ëã ..II :E .... rtI ..II I'- I'- U' <Q ITI N '^ ~ ( ~ \ .,. . s I - of p" ti ti ~f ~ ~ ~ .! I~ d 1 : ø .~ ø of ;; c c "8 r¡. "8 .. " ~ ·0 ~ un §! ¡j " ~ ð . .. 0: S66~ l[Jdv 'OOB& wo~ $, Planning Commission Meeting - February 19,2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR NINE WTS. TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT·OF-W A Y 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 WCA TED AT THE END OF KNOB mLL 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 641\ Teton Lane 6398 Teton Lane 1392 Ithilien 6401 Teton Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Commissioners, 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 detemñned 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 the 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. 8 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 butI'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: OfBlock 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 I? Generous: Block 2. 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. Sacchel: Lot 4, Block 1. Generous: It'd be 40, Sacchel: And LotS, Block 1, the westerly piece. Blackowiak: Westerly 40, Generous: Right, because we already have the southerly 60 feet. Kind: Got it. Sacchel: 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 fIat 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. Ijust 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. BIackowiak: 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. ~"?t~':i..ts'~,;-' Planning Comnñssion 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. BJackowiak: 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 HillIS! 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 II 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 bow 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 I. I would propose that home would, I heard a concern over the lookout on this bome. 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 preserving 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 offocus 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. BIackowiak: Okay. Commissioners any questions of Mr. Knoblauch right now? 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 concem. 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 26"' 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,l'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 staffs anuno 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 concem 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 1,0006 \12 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. VIi. 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 cleared 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 canoþy 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 % 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: Weill 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. Ho\v 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. I 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 dual 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 concem 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. BJackowiak: Commissioners. Deb, questions at all? Kind: No, he left. BJackowiak: 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 ifhe'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 that. 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 concems 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'll 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. , )0 ~ .~ , 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 looking 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, Sacchel: 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. BIackowiak: 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 Jot is considered land Jocked. 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 J 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 Jooking at houses and a driveway and all that kind of stuff. That's about all my concems except the ones I wrote in the Jetter 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 this 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 1 would hope that what's finally recommended would be of most benefit to the existing homes that are already along the eastem border of the property 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 comer 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 naïve, 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 undemeath 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, Ilive 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 II? I'm sorry, would that be. Generous: Lot 6. Blackowiak: Lot II, okay, Mike Brandes: I'm on Lot II. 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 SIotten: 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 1 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 1 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 26'" 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 2"' 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 like Mike's. We're looking into the side of it. Generous: Yes. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 David Slotten: Ýou 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. Ijust 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 26'h. I think they're at 7:00, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak; In this location. David Slotten; But I'm just thinking in a combination 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 you 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 BIackowiak: 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. BIackowiak: So it wouldn't be paved. Would it be just a trail or what would it look like? Generous: Grass most likely. BIackowiak: 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 II 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 asphaJtthat 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 1392lthilien 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 Ijust 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 ofland for privacy and for view. And I'mjust hearing that the public street would cause, have less ofa better view than what the private would be and I trust the Knoblauch's with their design and so Ijust 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 ofthe 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. BJackowiak: 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 Ijust kind of had a question, We were directed by staff to extend that watennain 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, staff, 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. BJackowiak: 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. BJackowiak: 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, ifit'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 tenns 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. BIackowiak: 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 % 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 that 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 51 believe this is, need to be moved out oithe 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. r don't see how that could stay there even with the private drive. That's definitely not, I don't see it. In tenns 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 altemate, 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 severat 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 "'~;'iiIR"'!I:¡<"" "..' "". 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 I, Block 2. In addition, changing the easement needed would potentially help tm 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 thi& 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 19"', 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 19'" 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 concems 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. Weill 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 ¡fthat'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 infonnation we have now that there can be come adjustments made to create a small buffer between the easterly property line. My concems is I don't think you know this is, I've OOçn through, this isn't my first bar-be-que as I often say and you know, but a lot oftimes 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. BIackowiak: 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 Blots 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 theréfore 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 the next meeting. Your Planning Commission meeting on your date is what? Blackowiak: It would probably, well our,next meeting's the 5"' 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 5"' meeting. We could. Shannin, correct me if I'm wrong, see it on March 19"'. Does that sound reasonable? And that would assume that you get your plans in by, give me a date. By March 5"'? AI-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 19"', 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 19"'. 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'll 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. AU voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to O. Bl¡¡ckowiak: Okay. Next. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission tables approval of the prelioùnary 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 O. 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 comments 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 I. Or Block I, 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 UIi 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 oùssing 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 oùnutes, we'll be right back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 5.584 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8.617 SOUARE 34 h,"\:,',' ·o.t.L iiIII .. . . /-/1]- (72- C',c,~,.'.H+' '~_: ,', ..~~"'- ,'- , ~"~¡'-'" .....,.,, '. ....".. _..,,'~, ',',#t,"""-~"":_-"-:'_ ··c . " . .,,,Ii" ", ,". . ....~. . -",'" -;-., , , ·::.,:!"Af':'i"~;¥~ « . b-d..\-O \ d~ 111Ìu-c..../ -fo /Lf5/ « ,,~ .,,",...'. ....". ,····":',·1'·,',:;' ""~I_"é' ",.;,;{Æ!!¡ '~ ·,to. : ~ . ,.'" ...; . '>'. . - ',,' ..~;,~ 1 .. 1 t CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19,2002 Chairwoman BIackowiak caIled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Claybaugh, and UIi Sacchet. Deb Kind and Bruce Feik arriving during discussion of item 3. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer CONSIDER REOUEST FOR 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. METRO AREA PROPERTIES. KNOB HILL 2ND ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Deb Hegeman Meta McKenna Vanessa Slotten Mark & Pat Ruhland Chad Haasken David Smith Mark Scholle Mary Prosser Barb Johnson Sharon Knoblauch Everett Jonge 1459 Knob Hill 1459 Knob Hill 6401 Teton Lane 6275 Yosemite Avenue 1376 Ithilien 1341 Ashton Court RLK-Kuusisto Ltd 1475 Knob Hill Lane 1512 Knob Hill Lane 1450 Knob Hill Lane 6650 Vernon, Edina Blackowiak: The first item was erroneously noticed as being a public hearing. It is not technically a public hearing. However, since we did send out the notice saying it was a public hearing, we will allow about 10 minutes for each side to update and comment on any issues that have changed since the last meeting that we saw this. Given that, we'll start with that first item. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you Bob, Commissioners, do you have any questions of this new plat? Sidney: Madam Chair, well one question for staff. Lot 4, I guess differs in terms of the rear easement. It·s 55. Why is that slightly different? Generous: To accommodate the 60 by 60 building pad. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. UIi, any quick questions? · · Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 · Sacchet: Yes, I try to make them quick. To stay fashionable. Since the road was moved a little bit, those streets in the center of the property are close to the pond. There's some really big trees. It looks like we are able to preserve most of them? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: There's like one that has to go but ones further up, they can stay you said, Generous: That's part of the reason of the alignment for the road there, They were trying to curve around that area. Sacchet: Okay, But it cuts into it a little bit. So staff will make sure the ones can be saved? Generous: Yes and we' II have tree protection fencing. Sacchet: In terms of that radius for the cul-de-sac, what are. I guess it basically looks like there's several options here. I mean we're cutting either into the tree preservation easement or we're cutting in the cul- de-sac radius. or we're cutting into the pad. The building pad, correct? So what's, why don't we want to cut into the cul-de-sac radius? I guess that's Matt. that's for your question. Sweidan: When the radius by standard is 60 feet and we mainly use it as a fixed ordinance. Now we are going to 55 feet. It could be done, I'm not saying that it can't be done, but usually we fix our ordinance according to the 60 feet. And you know if you want to push it like for 55 or 50, we look for like you know some strong reason like tree preservation or something that it's not like it can be applicable to it. But as long as we can see that it can be done with the 60 feet, we like to maintain, Sacchet: Do you have anything to add Bob in terms of those 3 options? Why it is recommended the way it is? Because I think that's a valid question, Generous: Well we were trying to maintain no variances as part of this. And so to do that and get the full cul-de-sac we had to give on easement. Now we had noticed that previously to going less than a 60 by 60 pad. There's a huge building envelope there, It's just putting that square into the site sets it back down the hill. It can go wider, and that's generally what we' II see. Sacchet: And the same holds true for the width of the street? Generous: Right. Sacchet: I would assume. Now another question, I'm a little confused when we say custom graded. I was under the impression that means that basically lots will not get graded except for where the road goes in and the sewer and water stub comes in, but the rest would not be touched. However, when I look at the blueprint I see a significant area that is labeled tree canopy removal area, which includes not just the building pad because basically they can cruise that whole area that the building pads are on, and so I'm confused. I mean is my understanding correct that custom graded means you're not grading and cutting trees til actually you have a house plan that goes? And then why would there be a tree removal area outlined like that? Can you explain that to me please. 2 ^"'I":~~:"to';', Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 Generous: It's two things. Customer grading, at the time of building permit they'd actually come in with a specific grading plan for this site. What we told them initially as part of the tree preservation ordinance, basically is what's the worst case scenario and show us that on the plans, and then we work backwards from that. That's where the tree replacement and reforestation calculations are all done based on that. But generally you're right. When you do the individual grading, they don't have to take out as big an area as they would show on the mass grading. Sacchet: So in this case are they actually planning to take all, that whole area, basically cut that area that's called tree removal area or? Generous: No. Sacchet: No. That's not the intent, okay. That's important. Now I have one more question from Deb, since she is not here. She was concemed about buffer plantings towards the neighbors to the, that would be the east. Now I noticed that there was a lot of trees moved to make a buffer along the road. Does that fulfill sufficient buffering? Generous: Yes. We anticipate that will be a pine curtain if you will. They're relocating the existing pines on site, or some of them, and moving them up. Plus they're planting an additional 13 evergreens immediately towards the cul-de-sac bubble, Sacchet: I guess we'll hear from the applicant and the neighborhood on that more. I believe that's my questions. Yes indeed. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other comoússion questions? No? I have one more question I guess. It's kind of building on the 28 foot street width versus the 31. Could we do a 28 foot street width and a 55 foot cul-de-sac without a variance? Sweidan: You can a 28 feet without a variance, but the existing Knob Hill Lane, if you notice it's 31 feet so we would like to maintain it all to keep it to the existing one. And if we are going to reduce it to 28, that means there's going to be like a knick...transition part. Blackowiak: It will be tapered 3 feet. Sweidan: It can be done. Blackowiak: Okay, and 55 foot cul-de-sac, could that do without variances as well? Sweidan: No, the 55 with a variance, Blackowiak: 55 with a variance. Sweidan: Yeah, the cul-de-sac, yep, Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Thank you, At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Again we're going to try to lioút each side to about 10 oúnutes and discuss the changes in the plan that we've seen since the last time we've seen it, and also if you could address any concerns you may have with the conditions that are attached to this subdivision. 3 · , 'it John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane. I'm President of Metro Area Properties. Don't really have too many comments in regards to the new drawing other than, as far as the pad. I'm concerned about the setbacks on these 3 pads being pushed any farther back than they are now. I'd like to see this 50 foot stay the way they've got it drawn. As far as the things that I'm not happy with, I guess it doesn't much matter but I'm not real fired up about this house pad here being a lot closer to this property line. This variance because we shifted, I didn't get the private drive. These lots shifted over which makes this lot less valuable because it's closer to these property lines which of course those people don't enjoy either. I've also lost about 40 feet of property here that would have been included in these lots which obviously would have made them more valuable, so a couple things that I mentioned over the phone is that. to staff is, we kind of feel that, I've tried to make this thing work for everybody as best I can and I'm kind of running out of gas with everybody wanting to tweak the plan here and there. Ijust basically want it to work for everyone and that's ultimately probably not going to be doable for everyone to be happy like I mentioned before. I think this plan, the 50 foot radius at the end will work great. We have not had that many problems with our, I believe it's a 40 foot radius here as the temporary so I feel that the 50 feet is adequate, The 60 foot tree preservation is a good deal as far as I'm concerned for the lots and that. I appreciate wanting to preserve that area, The other thing I'm not too fired up about is obviously giving up this 20 feet here. This lot already has lost some value obviously with the 20 foot trail easement, but I understand where Park and Rec's come from on that, but they've got to take what they need, The only other request I would have is that staff would look at alleviating any silt fence or any work bordering Clason Lake and down around the existing home. I'd prefer to stay out of that area and do silt fencing up along the road and then individually silt fence each house pad. To run around down in there with the bobcat and equipment and stuff, I think will do more harm than good. And also it will probably dig up more, create more erosion than we need to down there for the underbrush that's there. Also definitely along the existing home along here. Since basically there's going to be no work done on this acre and a half, we're not doing silt fencing down on that lot. I think that was about it. I guess the movement of the trees is a concern of mine. It's been basically requested to transplant trees as needed from this lot, and also in this area. I'd like to keep obviously some of those along the property line and I can't remember the number of trees that we've got right now. The requirement, if it's 30 or, 27 or 30, something like that. But I'd like to just basically border the street here with the trees. Plant the trees and do as little movement as I can on this, on the existing ones. Just because it's likely those are going to be moved and ihe time of the year where they're susceptible to lose them, if we could move them obviously when they're dormant we'd have better luck but some of them are pretty big and they wouldn't do very well, especially considering this will probably get graded in the summer time. That's about all my concerns. Any questions? Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 ,if '~ , .Co'. *' Blackowiak: Well thank you. Bob, before we go on. Any comment about the individual silt fences and also transplanting trees versus just buying new? I mean that's an option too, isn't it? Generous: Well I'll start with the trees, We only anticipate that he relocate the trees that had to be moved due to grading. Especially for the storm water pond and maybe that first house pad on Lot 3. John Knoblauch: The plan kind of shows it kind of all, that's what kind of made me a little nervous is, and I know Mark talked about that. That probably we would be just removing trees that would have to be moved, but the plan would just kind of always makes me nervous because when I go into the engineering department, they kind of hold these as gospel a lot of times and that's, you know it says I'm basically going to remove all those and don't really have the plan to remove them all so, 4 ~~'1;~'£:'~,_::~£;:;1" Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 Generous: And then as far as the silt fence, that's only put up just downstream of where the actual grading will take place, so and then on the west side, the silt fence would have to be Type ill but it doesn't have to be at the property line. It just has to be between the grading and the downstream side. John Knoblauch: Okay, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be down that close to the lake? It could be just on the kind of the west side? The west side of those lots. Generous: Before the trees even. Double the tree protection fencing. Blackowiak: So as long as there's a silt fence between those two areas you're fine? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes, I share your concern about the transplanting of trees and moving them around and I guess would you be willing to work with staff to come up with a more detailed plan of like which trees exactly could be moved and wouldn't move? John Knoblauch: I'm sure that will probably be, it might have to be done on site. I'm sure the pre- staking, possibly construction staking might be able to get a grip on what ones could be left. The issue of the drop-off of the pond is going to be a lot of times it's the topographical. If they drew on there might be off a little bit so I definitely wouldn't want to jump on it you know, and that's kind of the problem, I'd almost, you know I wish we could move them in April when evergreens are better suited for transplant but that's a good question. I don't know. Sidney: I guess I'm leaning towards adding a condition that you do that. John Knoblauch: Absolutely, Sidney: At an appropriate time, Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it? Sidney: Yes. Blackowiak: Craig, go ahead, Claybaugh: Yeah you commented on some of the radius on cul-de-sac and the width of the road. There was 3 conditions addressed in there by staff with respect to elevations on the pond. Catch basin number 2. manhole 3, I'd just like you to comment briefly on those. John Knoblauch: Well are you talking about dropping the road, lowering the road here? Claybaugh: Specifically the, on page number 4, The high water level of the proposed pond shown on the grading plan as 1003.9. Must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. Then back in, back on page number 9, item number 8. Catch basin manhole 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge. That was something I believe that was new. And on sheet number II, item 25, let's see. Lower manhole number 3 to be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order 5 .. .. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 . to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1. Something that hadn't been touched on so I was just wondering if you could comment on those 3 conditions. John Knoblauch: Well I'm not really aware, I didn't discuss those with Mark. I just got the staff report yesterday and to be honest I've been pretty busy so I didn't have a chance to analyze it. Unfortunately we don't get those very early on so. But I'm sure I'll take a look at it and I can't comment on it right now. The sump, I'm not familiar with, we didn't have any sumps on the first catch basins. Claybaugh: Right, that's why I wanted you to comment on it. Those are. John Knoblauch: That's a, that doesn't really sound very practical to me as far as doing some kind of storm lift there. I don't know, Claybaugh: Okay, well they're in front of us as a condition for approval so that's why I was hoping to get a comment on it. John Knoblauch: Can you comment on that Bob? Sweidan: The second catch basin has to be sump. Any catch basin before the storm water pond has to be a sump, Blackowiak: So that's a city requirement? Sweidan: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: And usually we. ..the request that would catch any you know depressed actually with the storm water system. Before discharging to the storm pond, Claybaugh: Did the elevation on that catch basin number 2, or catch basin manhole number 2 change at all from the first plan or was that something that was always in place there and just wasn't identified with a sump pump the first go around? Sweidan: It changed a little bit due to the location of the, if you remember the Lot 3, That was pushed to the east so it was between Lot 2 and Lot 3 so we have to push the catch basin prior to it. But overall it didn't change the system, John Knoblauch: Yeah, we didn't have that in the first addition, That must be a newer item that's been added as far as, because normally at the 2 year date we're cleaning those out. That's what I've seen done in most incidences is that basically we've got you know a company that comes out and vacuums those storm drains out so that would be news to me as far as what would be required there, but I'm sure we can work with staff on it. Claybaugh: Okay, that's all I have. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick question, One thing I'm a little perplexed by is where you put the house pads 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19. 2002 for Lots 2, 3, 4 in relationship to where the existing house is on Lot 1. It seems like you have Lot 1 there and then all of a sudden you jump in front of it with the next one. Wouldn't it be better to line them up a little bit or was there a reason behind that? John Knoblauch: The reason I wanted the engineers to show them back farther is to take advantage of lookout possibilities on that first lot because the topographical doesn't fall until that. Sacchet: So actually it's a walkout or lookout? John Knoblauch: The first lot is shown a half a lookout where the existing shed is. And that's really the number one reason is just, it's much more difficult to market flat lots. Sacchet It's more valuable that way, okay, John Knoblauch: And there doesn't seem to be really any setback issues or anything that, so we decided to show it back there, A person could, if a person wanted to move it up, they could. Sacchet: It kind of impacts the existing building, but I guess that's less... John Knoblauch: Yes and no, The existing home when it's leafed out, you can't see Mark Bastiansen's house here. It's pretty heavily wooded in this area so we planned, we even talked about this, we plan to leave as best you know a buffer here as best as possible. And yeah, I mean I basically am going to own that house so yeah I'm concerned about it too. I've got to be able to sell that house so, but I don't think that will be a problem. Not on an acre and a half in Chanhassen. Sacchet: I was just curious what the thinking was, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Rich, any questions? No? Okay. Thank you very much. John Knoblauch: Yep, you bet. Blackowiak: This item was noticed to be a public hearing so I will open the public hearing. Again, let's try to limit our comments total to 10 minutes and the issue before us is the subdivision and changes since we have last seen it. So with that direction, anybody wishing to speak to the Planning Commission, step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Chad Haasken: My name is Chad Haasken. I live at 1376Ithilien, which is Lot 8. The one right there, My main concern is for resale value of my property, and I don't know, I think these do not, both these lots need a variance which I don't see the use for them, They don't? Oh they don't. Blackowiak: No. Chad Haasken: Well then my only concern is Lot 3 being so close to my property. I think that's going to devalue, I probably won't be able to sell it as much. And like I said in the first meeting, I still have concern on drainage. We've done, I've done numerous, numerous developments and I talked to Cal Haasken and he even feels that there's a strong possibility for that and he's done developments in the Carver County area a lot so those are about my main concerns about this development. 7 .. :.., Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 . Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bob, can we take a quick comment on those? The side setback on Lot 3, no variance. Meets. ~ Generous: It meets the ordinance request. .. . Blackowiak: It meets ordinance, okay. And drainage, Matt? Sweidan: Drainage as before the neighbors they were requesting that street to be shifted toward the west. ¡; Blackowiak: Correct. Sweidan: Now with this buffer it shouldn't affect much, even though the previous proposal which was the street toward the east, that wasn't much help for them. This new proposal. Blackowiak: So you feel that there won't be an affect on the drainage? Sweidan: It shouldn't be affected. no, Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Vii, comment? Sacchet: If I might just ask a quick question from engineering about this particular topic. Since that storm pond is pretty much next to where there is that natural dip in the terrain, would it be a possibility to drain that dip into the storm water pond? See what I'm saying? We have that area where it goes down to about 1002 \/2 feet in the person's back yard. On the property line there, And then we have this little hill and then it goes down on the other side into the storm pond. Would it be possible to drain that dip? Sweidan: If the pond will not drain toward the east. It will drain toward the north. Sacchet: Right. Blackowiak: Your question is, could the dip drain to the west? Claybaugh: Could it be made to drain to the west is the question. Sweidan: The existing? Blackowiak: Yes. Sweidan: I don't think so because there's existing catch basin or you can see like an L-lift that's taking the storm water system toward the east from that dip. So there's a drainage existing already there. Sacchet: There is a drainage in that dip already? Sweidan: Exist, yep, Sacchet: Okay, okay. Well then it's not an issue. Thank you. 8 ~';{~"'!:~i'-^.,''t('. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 Generous: I should point out though that this plan is actually reducing the area of storm water draining into that back yard. This project's picking up a lot of the existing storm water and will re-direct it towards the ponds so they'll have less water coming. Blackowiak: Good. Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to get up and speak on this item tonight? Dave Smith: Dave Smith, 1341 Ashton Court. And I think it's everybody would be in everybody's best interest to minimize the amount of asphalt and maximize the amount of green so I think we should promote narrowing the road to 28 and the cul-de-sac radius to 50. That's it. Blackowiak: Thank you, Debra Hegeman: Debra Hegeman, 1459 Knob Hill Lane, I'm short here. I recognize the concerns of all the neighbors and I have to admit that probably my property is least affected by the proposal because I don't live near it. But I do have concerns about the builder, Metro Properties. I understand that the documents that I included probably have not been read by everybody, but I feel it's extremely critical that this Board and the people attending and future people should know that Metro Properties, through their representative William Engelhardt, when they got approval for the private road that is part of my property, submitted false as-built drawings for approval to the city commission, Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me ma'am. 1 have to keep this on track tonight to this specific proposal that's before us. Debra Hegeman: Then I'd like to address the concern about the radius for the road, Blackowiak: Thank you. Debra Hegeman: To reduce it, I know it would increase everybody's property value, It would make you happier, but it creates a safety hazard for the vehicles that will be using that road. And I have personal experience with that. 1 live on a 600 foot private drive that vehicles cannot turn around on. If you have 30 to 40 foot box trucks.. ,delivers, UPS, everybody's ordering over the internet now, they're not going to be able to turn around. They're going to be forced with inexperienced drivers to attempt to back up possibly. That's what I worry about every day on my private drive. There are too many children in this neighborhood to have this type of liability exist. 1 know the home values will go down so my solution is, why do we have to put so many houses into this 7 acres? Redpce it to 3 or 4 homes. Make the lot sizes more palatable to all of the people. Why does it have to, why can't the land be developed so that it's better, not just more crowded. This is what you get when you have Mr. Knoblauch build you a house on a half acre of land. That's these people's front yard. This is.47 acres that these people live on. That's my next door neighbor. That's his driveway pad. When cars park on his driveway pad, no one can get there and turn around, It's a half acre of land. Was it used wisely? I don't think so. Do you think so? Can you turn a car around there? Blackowiak: Okay ma'am, if we can just direct your comments to the commission. And I understand your frustration but I'm trying to keep us on task tonight for the subdivision before us. Debra Hegeman: All I can say is that I recognize what everybody wants. I hope the commission does the safe thing, That's all I want to say. 9 .. .. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 .. Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on this proposal? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any final comments before our vote? LuAnn? . . Sidney: I'd just like to say that I'm comfortable. I was going to say fairly comfortable with the proposal now that it's variance free and it meets ordinance requirements. I guess I would suggest that we add a condition to state that the applicant should work with staff to come up with a detailed evergreen buffer plan and I'd like to see that include the number and height of the trees to be moved and where they'll be moved to and also the height and location of any trees. Those are my comments. ., Blackowiak: Okay. Great, thank you. Further comments? Claybaugh: No additional comments, no. Blackowiak: Rich? No? Okay. Sacchet: Yes I do have comments. I really have a problem with cutting into that tree preservation easement. The tree preservation easement is a delicate thing to start with, and it tends to not necessarily be taken all that serious in the first place, and if you already start cutting into it at this stage, we take all credibility away from it. And by having it 60 foot in one place and 50 or 55 in another place and then again 60. we make it, it doesn't stand up the way I see it. It doesn't fulfill what I think it should be fulfilling. That means to have a consistent sense of these trees being preserved and have the nature aspect maintained that way. Now I would much rather have the cul-de-sac right-of-way reduced personally, To me that would be totally justified to give a variance for that, on that basis. Or for that matter give him a variance to have the building pads slightly smaller, but I really oppose to cut into that tree preservation buffer. That to me is not acceptable, Other than that I think it's a pretty good proposal. It's certainly there was an effort made to accommodate all our concerns we had last time. I don't have really an issue whether the street is 28 or 31 feet wide. I mean if there is a benefit by having it 28, I don't think it's a big deal if it changes from 31to 28 when it enters that particular development. But it appears that there's enough room to actually make a 31 foot. and it doesn't seem to make that much of an impact to that. However, the cul-de-sac thing does have an impact. I do believe that it does create either way some environmental damage so I would like to propose that we don't say this does not cause environmental damage but that we say does not cause unreasonable environmental damage. That's on page 8 and page 13, finding number 5. I'm not quite sure where to go with this condition number 17 that states the cul-de-sac right-of-way has to be 60 foot radius because we do not have variance findings in front of us, and in order to not require that we need a variance situation. Blackowiak: Well maybe you need to make the motion and then direct staff to explore options before it goes onto council. Sacchet: Okay. I don't have an issue with the concern of the applicant that the, actually I think it's a good idea not to have that silt fence on the western and southern edge of the property because it just creates that more damage than it ever will solve. I would like to ask to be explicit with the custom graded lots that the trees are not touched iii there's actually a plan for building. Blackowiak: Okay, why don't you make the motion and just include all that information in your motion, Sacchet: Okay. You don't want to hear it ahead of time? Blackowiak: No, I don't think we need to. 10 Planning Comnùssion Meeting - March 19,2002 Sacchet: Okay, that's fine with me. BIackowiak: I mean if you're going to make the motion, then it's. Sacchet: Okay, so do you want me to make a motion? Blackowiak: After I make my comments. Sacchet: Okay, please. Blackowiak: I'll ask for a motion, okay. My comments are similar. I can certainly understand the frustrations of some of the neighbors. Specifically this is a variance free request and if the plan meets the requirements set forth by the city then we need to approve it, whether we like it or not. And that's any plan before us. So we have very little leeway there in terms of how we like it or whether think it should be more dense or less dense or, that really can't play into our final decision in terms of does this meet the requirements set forth by the city. And if so, then we need to approve it. So I'd just like to preface our motion with that because I think I get the feeling that some neighbors would like to see less density or smaller lots or I should say excuse me, larger setbacks so keep it away from the neighbors a little bit more, but we're limited in what we can do in terms of our own personal feelings. We have to go by the standards the city has set. Saying thatI'll ask for a motion. Vii. Sacchet: Yes, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Comnùssion recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition, plans prepared by RLK-Kuusisto Limited dated January 17, 2002 and revised February 6, 2002, creating 9 lots, 2 outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject to the following conditions. I through 30. And I'd like to change condition number I for Lot 4, Block I to read, rear 60 feet to be consistent there, I'd like to do something with 17. Now that's a challenge, I'd like to propose that we strike 17. Blackowiak: Or maybe just to work with staff to. Sacchet: Or if we would say, direct the applicant to work with staff to address the 60 foot radius requirement of the cul-de-sac, Blackowiak: And how it relates to the rear 55 foot set. Sacchet: The rear 60 foot tree preservation. Blackowiak: Tree preservation easement. Sacchet: Okay, that works. That works for me. And I'd like to do a similar thing with condition 19. Direct the applicant to work with staff to explore alternatives to putting silt fence on the western and southern edge. Help me out. Blackowiak: I thought staff was going to, they could put it up above the tree line. Sacchet: They put it, okay. We ask that the silt fence will be put above the tree line. That's fine with me. Then I'd like to add condition 31. Custom graded lots will not have any trees cut in the building pad area until there is a plan for the building, Then I'd like to add a condition 32. Vegetation, the applicant II ,. .. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 .. < .. will work with staff regarding vegetation in and around the storm water pond. I'd like to add a condition 34. Applicant will work with staff to maximize the preservation of mature trees on site in general, and in particular in the area of south of the current pond. And then a condition 30, where are we? Blackowiak: Actually I think that was 33. This will be 34. " '-!II Sacchet: That was 33 and this is condition 34. Applicant will submit a detailed landscape buffer plan for the eastem edge of the development and indicate, well how can we put this concem in there for not all trees will be. Blackowiak: Work with staff to, Sacchet: Just work with staff to establish a plan for that and that gives the flexibility to which trees will actually be transplanted. Blackowiak: Right. Sacchet: That's my motion guys. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion, Is there a second? I need a second if there is one. Sacchet: 11 doesn't look like we got one. So motion doesn't fly, BJackowiak: So will you withdraw your motion? Sacchet: I withdraw the motion because it didn't go anywhere, Blackowiak: Okay, I need somebody else to make a motion then, Sidney: I'll make the motion. Blackowiak: Okay, Sidney: Give it a shot here. Blackowiak: Thank you. Sidney: Make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition as indicated in the staff report. We have conditions 1 through 30 and I'd like to add one additional condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastem property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees will be transplanted. And also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted. Not the best stated but I hope you get the drift. Blackowiak: Get the drift. Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second for this motion? Claybaugh: I'll second it. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Sidney moved, Claybaugh seconded that 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 outIots 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 Lot 2, Block I Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 4, Block 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' Rear 60' Rear 60' Rear 55' Southerly 60' and the westerly 60' Rear 60' 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. 3. Demolition permits must e obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. The shed on Lot 2, Block I 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 water services 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 handing the discharge. 10. 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 re-establishment of vegetation. 1 I. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: I. 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 NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site, This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At 13 :. ¡" Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 ... . 14. '. . 15. 16. 17. 18. this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $19,599. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits 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. "& ~' Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each of the custom graded lots at the time of building pennit application. ~ Prior to final plat approval. a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Revise the cul-de-sac right-of-way to a 60 foot radius and the street pavement width to 31 feet. 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 (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 1376lthilien 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. 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 I, 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 14 ,·t):~!·,g,:'1.~J; Planning Commission Meeting - March 19,2002 obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 24. Add the following City ofChanhassen Detail Plate Numbers: 1002,1003,1005,1006,2001, 2109,2110,2201,2202,2203,2004,2205,3104,3106,3107,5301,5302,5232,and5234. 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. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements, b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey, c, Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restore with vegetation. d. Show the storm sewer pipe, slope and length. e. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance. f. Add a legend which describes the existing and proposed contours, Type II silt fence, property lines, etc. g. Show typical house pad with definitions. 2S. 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. 30. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block 1. 31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastern property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees will be transplanted and also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: And the reasons Vii? Sacchet: To me it's unacceptable to cut into the tree preservation easement and I do think we should be specific about cutting trees in those custom graded lots so it cannot be misunderstood how it says on the plan, tree canopy will be removed. That's... Blackowiak: Okay. Motion carries 4 to 1. It will go before the City Council on AprilS'". 15 - .. '" .. Custom Construction 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Office: 952-474-5662 Fax: 952-474-0313 .. April 2, 2002 To: City of Chanhassen Staff, Planning Commission and City Council Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As you may be well aware, we have tried our best to deal with the resident at 1451 Knob Hill Lane (Mrs. Hegeman) for the past 5 years but have had very little luck in working with her on even the smallest of issues. In the more than 200 pages I have in her file, I picked out about 25% of my file to show you the extent of what honest people have to go through with a person such as Mrs. Hegeman. Marv Deutsch, from Deutsch Construction, and I are the best of friends. We have both been involved in many homes and I have a list of 100 homeowners who are willing to back up our names. The other 10 homeowners at Knob Hill have been happy with our handling of their homes. If they weren't, Mrs. Hegeman would not be the only one responding negatively to my second phase of lots (see her letter dated February 7'" that she sent to all the neighbors). Even the McIntees, who share the private drive with the Hegeman's, are happy with the construction. Marv Deutsch and I do not understand Mrs. Hegeman's agenda and we absolutely deny any wrong doing that she accuses me, my family, my company, or Deutsch Construction of. The time and money spent by myself, city staff, the police department, our court system, etc, is a disgrace to all of us, and as taxpayers, we all suffer because of tIùs "victim" act she portrays. On more than three occasions (including the court judge ordering the Hegeman's to go to arbitration with us and the neighbor), we have offered to buy the Hegemans house back from them for fair market value but they have refused to even sell it back to us. We have done everything we can. I was very disappointed that the city attorney is advising staff to include in their reports of the Knob Hill II plat the defaming letters that Mrs. Hegeman has drafted. They have no significance to our new lots. This is my notice to all of you that I will not respond to each and every letter drafted by Mrs. Hegeman, To me tIùs is a tremendous waste of my valuable time. But because staffhas been instructed to include all Mrs. Hegeman's documentation, my attorney unfortunately has recommended me to respond in the same manner. I apologize for the inconvenience tIùs has caused city staff and their respective departments. Please include all tIùs information in your next staff report on Knob HiIlII. Thank you for you attention. Yours truly, ,~"'" {iÇ.vdl.4iiL- John C. Knoblauch BKnoblaucli uilders LLC Custom Construction 1450 Knob Hili Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Office: 952-474-5662 Fax: 952-474-0313 April 2, 2002 Fred R. Krietzman FeIhaber, Larson, Fenlon and Vogt 601 2nd Avenue S. Suite 4200 MÎ1meapolis, MN 55402-4302 Dear Mr. Krietzman: This is to follow up on the phone conversation we had two weeks ago about meeting your expert blacktop engineers (Michael P. McCarthy and Eric J. Pederson from American Engineering Testing Inc.), to meet on site at your clients driveway so they can show me the exact size and locations in theirreport of what was mentioned as "rutted or distressed areas". I am especially concerned about these comments in their report based on the report change of class 5 aggregate thickness. The first report claimed an aggregate thickness of 12", based on boring #9. In the second revised report, the class 5 depth was changed to 8" based on an apparent review of a road plan or a verbal account from the road contractor. Why was the class 5 aggregate done as an estimate when they were doing these illegal borings anyway? Your engineer is recommending improving the underlying subgrade soils only in areas that show rutting or are distressed. Do they have a map of these areas? If not, we would have to meet on site to identify these areas and identify how many of these spots there are. Also, they were unable to recommend a depth of removal of the subgrade soils in these specific distressed areas. Can they say now what this depth is? According to their report, these distressed areas had to be corrected and patched before a new lift was installed. Your engineer recommends a lift of2" to raise the G.E.Ievel above 17 based on the new G.E. with 8" aggregate. They can correct me if! am wrong, but with the 12" existing aggregate it would seem my initial offer in 1999 to put a I \->" lift on the southerly 220' of the drive would be enough with the thicker class 5 that is in place, Also, in regards to the Marshall density, I only have records for 8 borings and they claim that all of 13 borings on the blacktop failed apparently by 2% to 7%. Do they have the other 5 boring tests? Please provide me with them if possible. I also presume, based on your letter, that your demand to the City of Chanhassen in your March 11 th letter to reconstruct the private driveway to 7 ton design, you are referring to the bituminous area of the private drive and not the concrete area. Based on this engineering report, is that correct? I presume you have your answer from city engineering on the 20' width requirement for the driveway that is not being required after the driveway branches off the last resident on a private drive. Your earlier infonnation must be incorrect. If you read the ordinance carefully, the 20' width requirement only applies to the "common area" of the drive, not the entire length of the private drive. - .. Mr. Fred R. Krietzman Page 2 -. Keep in mind, all the Hegeman's had to do was get along with their neighbors to get this done in 1999. They choose to sue me and the neighbor 2 months later and have continued to this day to not get along with neighbors in the area., .. , Also, please take into consideration, that because of Mrs. Hegeman's constant negative contact with ourselves, the Mcintee's, other neighbors and city staff, our effort to address her concerns about her driveway have been affected. I made it clear in my 1999 letter how I planned to handle it. At that time I informed her she had better work out her mental state and get along with her neighbors, otherwise I will not work with her on her driveway issues. Since then she has put nail boards in her driveway, stolen a $300.00 sign, swore at 6 and 8 year old kids with the "F" word, Wrote far out letters to neighbors, filed a frivolous lawsuit, sent letters to our city government officials with fraudulent statements, put up barricades, called the police on neighbor kids, and illegally took these borings that you are using in your report. So, because of Mrs. Hegeman's own stupidity, the blacktop portion of the private drive is now in need of seal coating because it was installed in 1997 and is nearly 5 years old. What does the engineer take into consideration because of the homeowners own neglect? . In regard to your claim of us installing the driveway by not following the as built surveys, please be informed again that there is no as built survev done on this property. The City of Chanhassen did not require it. The surveys that were done on these two private driveway properties were proposed plans with the building permit application. Custom grade lots are often changed on site (except for elevations and house locations). If these proposed surveys were to be taken as the only way that driveways and landscaping could go in, then Mr. & Mrs. Hegeman better consider putting in the 40' long by 3' high retaining wall that is shown behind their garage that they did not install. The Hegeman's proposed house driveway locations on the survey does not follow the proposed grading plan for the Knob Hill addition either, because the lots are custom graded and their house was jockeyed with their approval because of its size and the location of trees, etc. Please read my letter I sent you in June 200 I again. If the first judge and jury came out on site and did not find a problem, I am a little baffled at why you continue to bring this survey issue up. Although you are the third attorney, I'm sure there are many more to come. So I guess I will have to prepare myseIfto keep repeating the same information to your replacement counsel like I have over the last 5 years to your inflexible client. In closing, I'm happy to discuss with Mrs. Hegeman the blacktop portion of the drive if she shows any effort at all to show some reasonability. I will not hold my breath though, as her last two letters to city government have shown no sign of a responsible adult. Along with her refusal last month to donate $ I 5 to one of our neighbors, who requested the neighbors share in the electric bill for our front entry monuments, it is clear that her negative behavior is still out of control. Contact me if you wish. Yours truly, ,/) I' ¡/ Ÿß.. £.1 /t1j.'A, l î/~~ . John C. Knoblauch - DEUTSCH CONSTRUCTiDN INC. P,O. BOX 127 3105 LEROY AVENUE NEW PRAQUE, MN 56071 .~) Februarv 4, 1998 Dear Cramer and Debbie Hegeman: in response to Vour letter dated February 1, 1998 the following points need to be ciarified, each item is numbered in accordance with your letter. 1. The a9reed upon closing date Is printed in your Residential Construction Specifications, hereinafter reterred to as the "specs", and is printed on your Purchase Agreement, hereinafter referred to as Vour "PA". Both the specs and PA are signed bV seller (the builder - Deutsch Construction, Inc.) and the buver (you - Cramer and Debra Hegeman), Your closing date has no relation to the completion of 1465 Knob Hili Lane. 2, The plans (blueprint of Vour home) and specs were reviewed and discussed with incredibie thoroughness during the late fall months of 1997. There shouid be no confusion about the building contract since the plans and specs were approved by you on November 11, 1 997 according to page 15 of the specs. 3.,4. & 5. Your specific blueprints and specs are unique in themselves. There is no duplication of mv house or the modal at 1 5041 Bridgewater Drive and the plans and specs do not reference either one of these addresses. Please note that your structure investment (without land) and land improvements is approximatelv $ 284,000,00. 6. & 7. There is no reference in the written plans and specs to a wall of mirrors in the master bath. We discussed the option of installing a wall of mirrors, but a price quote was never given. The option was never inciuded In any of the pricing. All options are very clearly written in the plans and specs, If a price quote Is stili desired for the mirror wall, I will be happy to get ona and we can add this option at an extra cost as we've discussed before. 8. The retaining wall on the rear of the garage was a stipulation and requirement installed by the City of Chanhassen to build this particular style of home on your custom graded iot. When bidding homes it is difficult to predict all grading dlffferences prior to a proper home survey. The retaining wall would not be required If your garage plan was a typical front style garage, but because of the extension of the garage to the rear of the lot, the retaining wall becomes neccessary. You were not charged for extra block and footings depth in the rear of your garage that were caused by the low area on the lot, I would like to make VOU aware that according to tha specs on page 4 this cost couid have been charged to the buver but are being absorbed by the builder. 9, The fireplace paragraph on page 5 of the specs very clearly refer to the flrepiaces that are to be installed, as of November 18, 1997. You also received specs for both fireplaces at a meeting at my house approximateiy the third week of January. In the Initial discussions about the great room fireplace you indicated that a fancy setup was not required and that we could cut some cost in this area. As a result I lowered the firepiace cost from the Dufferln Park model $700.00. .r 10. & 11, The rough openings in a house are typically framed higher than normal becausa Its much easier to iower a rough window opening than to raise it due to the headers. As a rasult, the framers framed the back of the house too high. After a half dav of work I noticed the mistakes and nQtified the framers, so the right eievation window openings were Inltltally framed correctiy. Tha window that was ordered for the master bedroom area is the correct window according to'the blueprint. The window order'is based ... on the biueprlnt and has no reference to the builders personai selections. The master bath tub window is .6' wide bV 4' high. In the Dufferin Park modei the master bath tub window is 4' X 4'. There was no mistake by the builder in the window order and the builder will not be Incurring any costs related to çhànge~rder windows. ,~ " , " " ., . " ,.t· or , , ,. .~ . .. .. - ~ :.. ~ 12. In regards to adequate time and supervision directed at your home, your home schedule is one month behind 1465 Knob Hili Lane because vour completion date Is one month iater than 1465 Knob Hili Lane. You will receive a construction calendar explaining the rough time frames of your homes construction. You shall be at approximately the same point as 1465 Knob Hili Lane 30 days prior to vour closing '" date. I wouid like to clarify that as of your letter dated February 1, 1998 the mechanical subcontractors have not begun work. Only the excavating, block and framing crews have been there. When the mechanlcai subcontractors start, we will be dedicating more time to 1459 Knob Hili Lane. According to my experience in the industry it is not necessary to babysit framers on a daily basis. In regards to the framing materials being used at your house, building codes require certain minimums in sheathing and framing members. Please note that the City of Chanhassen has one of the best building inspection departments that I have been associated with. Please note the roof sheathing color difference is due to two different manufacturers of 16/32 material; one is oxboard one is norboard. The roof sheathing . has been verified as all 1/2" material. Aiso, please note that we used 3/4 " 5 plV APA approved plywood on your floor sheathing (a less expensive product, oxboard, couid have been used) and 14" I joist with 2" flange 16" on center for vour flooring system; the maximum span for a 14" I joist Is 19.2" on center and the flange can be as little as 1 1/4". The trusses we ordered include an energy heel that is not required. I also installed 16 roof louver vents, only 12 were required. 13. All piumbing fixtures are to be paid out of a plumbing fixture allowance that was given to vou in the spec book. The base allowance I gave you covered standard F.G. tubs, showers, bases, stools, laundry tub, sinks, etc" If you picked standard pipeline supply items at mv plumbers wholesale price. All your unique selections would go on top of this base allowance, thats how we arrived at the total allowance you have today. 14. We do not clean up the site until the rough·in framing has been complete and the home is being insulated and sheetrocked. At this time the lumber companv picks up returns of anv non-damaged product. Snow on material is common in the winter in Minnesota in construction and how we run our jobsite is not determined by the homeowner. The final product is our number 1 concern. How we get to that point is by making a mess with scraps, garbage etc. being ieft behind. We do however accomodate the homeowner with a personal rough-in inspection, at which time it is appropriate for any changes or corrections to be handled and there will also be a final walk-thru punch list completed prior to closing. 15. The door casing is 2 1/4" princeton and the base is a 3 1/4" princeton. 16. The telephone line we standard only accomodates 2 lines; although as a service to our homeowners in the last two years, if requested we will put in 4·phone wire (8 wires, 2 per line) so thats what we will put in per your request. 1 7. I have made a note on site to the electricians on 2 openings for lights in your walk in closet. (Note the attic access may be in the way). 18. At this time we are 90% certain that we will hit our scheduled closing date at the end of March, but due to the size of this home and the unique items you will have going in to finish the home I was unable to confirm a completion date 60 days away when the home had not been roofed yet. When to lock on an interest rate is a borrowers decision and a deadline for locking in is not required in our agreement. Obviously in response to your letter your impression of how things have gone in this process sound very dismal and you are very concerned about many items. Deutsch Construction has built nearly 400 single family homes and never have I received a letter of this nature prior to the roofing being on a structure and even one year after a home is complete. To accomodate your mood of the project I am offering to make any changes you request at buyer's cost of the change and waive our $50.00 per change fee up until the drvwall work is started next week. As a result of this, after Monday February 16th we will not honor or complete any other requested changes due to the tight time table. I wouid appreciate any other questions regarding products to also be brought to my attention In writing prior to February 16, 1998, otherwise I will presume that your bad feelings have been relieved and I have answered all the concerns in your letter. Sincerely. iCJ-4..C ~Ahn C, Knoblau' Cct 25 98 06:17a Cramer Heteman 612-474-4033 \~. 1 ( . Oct 25, 1998 Deutsch Construction PO Box 127 3105 Leroy Avenue New Prague, MN 56071 Ail: Mary On Sarurday, October 24 my hnsband and I had s converuricn ",it!¡ John and Sharon '(rwt:iauc;' r;hled to the \Tees 011 our lot at 1459 Knob Hill. My husband w~s not aware of three separate opUrions given to me by ianascapc protèss;o¡¡¡¡Ì;¡. Nonhwc~1 Landscape, Minnes&ta Landscape, and Bob iTom (L&R). All üfthese in<fuidual., agreed that the trees located to the front and left afmy garage woald Dct SUlŸive due to th~ ~xCd\'atjon and construction of the lot OIl 1451. .iehn had initially \\.Tapped these t\¥o tr~es v..-ith a plastic f~DC~ mati~ri~J. HO·'f'i~ver. :h1s did JJG\: ;)wrect ¡hðSe trees located specifically on 1459 crom the subWiuem conrinuous stress oftmjldia¿ m;¡:eria]s and construction vehicles plaœd or parked wit!ùn 24 inches ¡òr a period of jim, n" 1." J-:an six hlOIlthS ITom May 98 through Oct 98. These two trees 10st th~Ì.J- leav~5 .rn ¡.at~ S'...¡!;:r:~e~ '.'.'~!J b.;for~ lh~ faU seaSOn. I can only attribute thj~ to their íài1ìn~ nC21th rrnm the 5tt~s::: ::f~:J'::. .: ::nsrnlctÍon. Sob [who \vas rtcortmle1ldcd by 101m fc,I' landSC2?~ ~,vo~k) mer ;.....;ch æ.f;: ;n ~PP!ox. .J.prJ;:j. ·:.hat tii.TI~ I "indkated to him that we \Vëre art~mining 10 !;Jve 1Lc:se ;zees. 215 prorèss:iûnai ~?illj.> W1S that they would not SU1VÌve, 1.:1 ç:lT~J Dc¡, Tom Spanier ftom Northwest Landscape v'"-<ired my torrh; to p"rÍÚm rou:1r:e :::aim::nance on tile sprinkler system his complUlY installed, I asked his opUriOJJ ofrne conditilJI' )¡ :t" trces en my property, He aJso indicated that the trees !lear the garage would not survÌ\'e I al5D met \Ýilh Mark Jefferies. ftom M:."J11e8ûta Landscape on Oci 23 éie had Dci~>l1y toi.è. ::,,~ back in May 98 that the garage tIees had no chance of survivaL 011 Ocr 23, he again co:tttkrned !lis ~rlier opUrion. I also asked for!lls professional opinion 00 the damage ;:0 the trees located ac¡oss the private drive, These trees show exces,,"ve damage ftom cars and mlcks parked :00 n".r their roots and branches. He told me that these trees will not regenerate branches in the damaged areas. The hales in the "canopy" of these trees will 1Iot fill in. He .11.<0 s<¡id that th" If""" will grow approximately 12" per year, I have asked John to replace approximately five of these trees, I suggested a posSJ'ble solutic1l, would be to relocate these damaged trees to the former tree line between 1451 and 1459 thereby sùtving the dilemma of the trees knocked down by the excavation for 1451 that were locat.~ OD the property of 1459. These trees were not interfering with final grade or the builders ability ¡o eSlabli3h positive drainage. I feel positive that an engineering report, ifnecessary, ....ill snpport .. Oct 25 S8 06:17a Cramer He~eman 612-474-4033 :_-~- " my posirion. .. I do not intend to fill in this tree line until a decisioIl has been reached by Deutsch ConSlructiol1 and the owners ofl45I and 1459. '. John has offered to replace trees along the private drive if they die witlrin a one year pcriod This solution does Dot address the "problem", We purchased this Jot and the trees were in good to excellent condition. Their branches were Ilot broken or dead. John's failure to restrict parking in this area caused the damage to these trees. This is the liability of the builder and not the homeov.ller. [can appreciate your cuntract chuse not warranting trees close to the excavation sile, however the trees on the opposite side of a private drive located on the lot we purchased would not fall into this category. A reasonable pmon would expect that these trees would survive anù not be subjected to this t}pe of damage Johl1 also indicated to us that he mtends to haul dtunptrucJr.Joads of black din across our seven day old drivt;Way on Mommy Oct. 26, Cramer and I do Dot giw Deutsch Cons¡ruction permission to travel across OUI conc"," ",¡-J¡ multi-toD veh.icles, This dirt should have been hauled <illd dumped on Ü,e prop<mi'~s at 143] :J!lQ 1459 kt0~c, ;1:1, concrete was pou:-ed JIJM'g fàilllre to sche-duJe tl1Ïs \vark in a trrnt=ly fashion is :1Ü! úur ;~.;lb±~:, II Jchn uses our new concrete driveway for access, .1 expecr that Deut.Ò C0115tTUC:iof] ...illii;.;lc. lnd !lDWD,diti=lly warranty the ç.oncr~te clriVC"N"y ,)nù priv~te dri,,;! a':c¡;ss t01 one :¡"a7 from Ie, Jot. of the initial pOUT. ; lwve contacted several concrete subcontrJctors and to drive .heavy vehicles 1CroSS tillS ir~sciy poure!Ì concrete would constitute, mtheir opinion, "gros> negligenc¡:", r suggested to John that he a~cess the propcnics through the wooded area behind rus fathers house or even through the lots thaI remain unsold, He could even access the £oom uv.n of 145 J by u\Ì!izÌ!lg the private dirt road in front of the property ,l<ith permission from the OV,1letS of ¡hüt drive, If John ignores our direction related to traveling .:Icross our concrete driveway, we will bId Deuts¡;h Constmcûon liable fer damJ¡ge and expect appropriate repairs at your expen~. ¡[YOll have any questions, you may contact us <It home 474-4188 or work 424-1020, 0~ ~'~. ~"- Cramer & Debra Hegeman p.2 ~.; ~ iB , . (])eutscli Construction Inc. 3105 LeRoy Avenue P. O. Box 127 New Prague, MN 56071 December II, 1998 Cramer and Debra Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Cramer and Debra, This letter is to address your concerns with subject matter in your letters dated October IS, 1998 and October 25, 1998. Enclosed is a survey of your lot that was done prior to construction and also a city approved landscape plan for the Knob Hill area. Please note, with concerns of the area behind the garage, the original grade in this area at the back of the garage was 1013 and the rear hub was 1011. The finish grade at the back of garage was set at 1016, so the drop to the hub is approximately 5' now, in a IS' length. We had 12 courses of block in the back of garage with 4-5 courses planned to be exposed, just like your blueprint (normal construction would be 5 courses total), but the extra work was needed to accommodate the house plan and lot (with the garage that went towards the back of the lot an extra 12'). All 6" or above Caliper trees are to be noted on your survey and only one is noted in this area, A 10" Cherry which was in a hole 6' from the garage corner. My experience with trees (and I'm no expert) is that you can not bury them, they will not survive, but if their virgin grade is kept around the tree, they have a slim chance of making it. At a construction site, the treed area behind your garage was to be buried under 2'-5' offill and there was no reason to try to save any in that area. Also 3-5 more trees near the property line toppled after construction due to lack of canopy support. These were taken down also, as you were aware, based on our spec book language of no tree warranty before and after construction. I made it clear verbally that any tree within 20' of the home, we would probably kill or it would die from construction. In any event, we did the best we could in the back of the home where important trees were saved where most of your view was. Also, in regards to final grade behind your garage, please note that I was told by you that you were not in favor of paying landscape costs for a retaining wall in the back of the garage after the city required us to put a 3' retaining wall on the survey and I expressed to you that I would make an effort to avoid this retaining wall and blend your yard as best we could to the property line. So in conclusion, this rear garage area was handled as good as possible under the circumstances listed here and no further work will be done in this area by Deutsch Construction. I made an attempt at the front of garage to save 2 trees because the virgin grade was close to finish grade by wrapping them and trying my best to preserve them, even though we were building 2 houses with 5500 sq. ft. of space within 10' of your house. They lost their leaves a month and a half early which any tree under stress will do, and on vour recommendation, these trees were cut down without confnming that they were dead yet. They easily could have been left until spring to see if they were dead or alive. In regards to the trees on the private drive, please note that one tree has died and approximately 6 are still alive. These are balled and burlaped trees. Because of these trees being balled and burlaped, there has been no root damage. They have only been in the ground a little over one year and I'm sure the burlap is just starting to rot now, so the roots will be fine, The trees were put much closer together than was recommended, directly across from your home. These trees are stressed and have winter kill from their first year in the ground. They are 5'-8' high and have good potential to make it. Since they have been in the ground over a year, moving them would most likely kill them. I see no reason for this. I can clearly see where possibly two branches, 2' long were damaged by car doors and that's it. One of the main reasons I had my subcontractors parking so close to the treed side of the private drive was because of repeated threats from you that if you didn't have a clear passage to your garage you were going to start slashing tires, etc" etc" according to my drywall and wood floor sub-contractors, I still do volunteer to replace these trees for one year from October 1st, 1998 if they die naturally and we will replace the one dead tree next spring, even though it is not my obligation. Please note on the developers plan, the tree layout calls for 8 trees, I planted 29 trees along the private drive, more than triple the requirement. As I mentioned, these trees are not premium quality, they have holes and winter kill and are not perfect. Who knows, their leaders may not take off for a couple of years, but I wanted quantity so that's what I did, and we spaced them closer for more immediate impact on the area, Also please note, on page 4 of your spec book, no warranty on trees does not just deal with trees closest to the home, but Builder does not warranty at any time, tree survival on the entire property during or after the construction of the home, Also, as you were aware, when we needed to haul in black dirt to your lot and the neighbors lot after your driveway was poured, we entered off of the adjacent neighbors rock driveway after I agreed to haul in a load of rock over their driveway. So, to clarify my original idea in regards to the two loads of black dirt. It was indeed to bring it in ahead of your pouring, but because of the neighbors closing schedule and an untimely rain on the day we were going to haul, we did not get it in on time. To clarify, my intent after the 7 day period in which the concrete cured was to deliver the 2 loads of black dirt on the blacktop drive and bobcat it across with a 743 bobcat, which is the same weight as a car. In no way was my intent to drive across a 7 day old concrete driveway with a multi-ton dump truck. Fortunately, we were able to touch-up along the new concrete from the neighbors rock driveway and did no driving at all over your driveway of even a car. By the way, be prepared for cracks in your driveway, I have no less than 12 in mine and we haven't poured a driveway yet that does not have cracks with these soils and our climate, 2 To answer your concerns on the blacktopping of the private drive, as the developer, I am planning to put a 1"-2" bituminous blacktop lift over the area, starting approximately at the rear of the home at 1465 Knob Hill and terminating at your new concrete driveway at my cost. This work will be completed late summer or early fall of 1999 to allow landscaping and other work to be completed on your home and on 1451 Knob Hill Lane, because of this being the only access to your homes. As to your concerns with the house construction at 1459 Knob Hill Lane, 10 yard rubbish dumpsters were provided for the site and the site was picked up periodically by myself. Some wrappers do blow around on construction sites and we apologize for any extra debris that made it into your area. As to men urinating in your area, I did not witness anyone going to the bathroom in your back yard. But, it is not uncommon for residential construction sites to have this happen. We provided a Biffs Lavatory out on Knob Hill Lane for both houses that were under construction this summer. I apologize if the men did not take advantage of this service that we provide. To your concern with the lower level basement concrete. We plan to evaluate this more at the one year date. Anytime that movement is a possibility, we prefer to wait because if there is settling, any repair work that is done prematurely, may have more settling. If my work ends up being done in this area, it would not be started until for sure after road restrictions go off in mid to late May 1999. As to your concern over access problems. Please keep in mind that the private drive encompasses approximately a 30' easement area on the whole southside of your property and 1459 Knob Hill Lane has equal rights of access in this area, along with l/2 the maintenance. I wish there had been another way in to build these two houses, but because of the lay of the land, trees and privacy, there was not. Also, as to my unreliability and unwillingness to work with you as to the construction of your home. I can only say you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but I can say that you have a beautiful home based on extensive planning and prep work we did from the staking and moving the home twice to try to save the trees, to the rough-in inspection, to closing on time and to us completing your walk-through punch list down to the small piece of trim on your patio door. I think back of changing a window mid-stream, to me paying the bills for a tub fixture and two sprinkler heads that I'm not sure who hit. I also agreed to pay for some woodchip damage that we did behind the garage of $100.00. In my opinion, this does not sound like I am not reliable or that I am unwilling. 1 know you are not originally from this area, but before you make your final opinion on our business handling, I would like you to talk to some of the neighbors in the Savage, Prior Lake and Shakopee area. We were rated 7.5 out of 10 points in the consumer digest on builders that came out 2 years ago, the average was 4.5. There were only a couple dozen builders that scored higher out of 350 builders in the area. 3 In closing, we sincerely understand your inconvenience of living from June - October of this year with hanuners pounding, jockeying trucks around and the certain ugliness that surrounds building a neighboring home. In the perfect world your home and the neighbors would have been built at the same time but that didn't happen, you closed in March and they closed in October. As to landscaping in the spring, the only item that I will be taking care of is replacing the dead tree on the private drive. We sincerely apologize for your inconvenience and we understand how stressful this summer was for you, I hope since the neighbors have been completed for nearly 2 months, you now have a little more peace and quiet. I have enclosed a check for $100.00 for the wood chips I said I would pay for. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one. Sincerely, John C. Knoblauch Deutsch Constructio %/=(, P. S. I apologize that my response may not be in a orderly fashion, but hopefully I am able to relay my answers of your concerns to you, 4 ~ iP ~ fJII I~,j.'I999 ~ 7,~ Deutsch Construction PO Box 127 3106 Leroy Avenue New Prague, MN 56071 An: Marv RE: Failure to comply with survey I driveway access and easement to 1451 Property Dear Marv: 1 had a conversation on Friday June 4, with John Knoblauch. I informed him that I had received a survey 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 connecting 1451 and 1459. The current angle constructed by John at the request of the Owners of145 I creates a difficult entrance and exit rrom the 1451. It appears this was done to circumvent 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 of the dogleg is not easily negotiable and visitors and trucks fail to turn at the correct angle and therefore either back into the trees on 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 snowpIowing and snow removal This will quite likely increase the liability to our property. The engineers survey, clearly shows that there should be no angle and that the access is parallel to the property line and is approximately five to six feet rrom 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 "IMPORTANT" detail has caused enormous damage to our relationship with the owners ofl45 1. Ifwe had been given a plat of the 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, Tbe 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 pad is clearly shown. If those 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 all other sites, this is usually the first area cleared and yellow stone put down to accommodate parking and building materials. Instead John deh'berateIy 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 ITom our garage area on a daily basis. Two specific vehicles were parked less than 6' ITom the side of our garage for almost the entire six months. Tbese vehicles consequently damaged the two existing trees located on our property to the left ITont 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 ITom May through October of 1998. This effectively prevented any work ITom 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 possibly have "forgotten" to mention a DOssible solution to the problem. I do believe he deh'berately, and probably with the knowledge of the 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 of property due to the easement and the fact that those trees were scheduled to be removed to make room for a driveway and adequate turnarolll1d 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 of$ 1000.00 - One thousand dollars per month for the duration of our inconvenience. The duration of the period was fTom 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 sprinkler work. We eJjP ct to be compensated for this expense ary/7 !qq ~W For every week forward fTom this da~ that you fail to correct th concrete pad and easement between 1451 and 1459, wè will assess you damages for inconvenience of$ 1,000.00 per week. We hold you responsible 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 posst'ble failure to inform them of\\oÙere the right ofway/easement accessed their lot fTom our lot, and the subsequent changes necessary will quite naturally upset them. For this irreparable damage, we assess you the amount of$ 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 resuh 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 fTom work, 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 fTom 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 - T938I8 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 turn around in, and that they are not allowed to park in the easement. Please notifY them as soon as possible because I believe they intend to landscape in the near future and this will surely impact that work. We have enclosed a survey document of1451 and 1459. We have approximated by red 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 ofChanhassan officials at 1:0Op.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 concems related to the easement and taken pictures for their files. lfyoµ have any questions, please do hesitate to contact me. We are trnly disappointed in John, as your representative. Sincerely, ~f' ~ /ct~ Cramer & Debra Hegeman 117/97 ~7/L d~ ~~ - cc: John Knoblauch Hap LeVander, Maun & Simon PLC .a______ ___;~&_~&__£_____.._.__.. t(i) DORIS p, MiÈÀEÑÖòÃF", ! NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA . " HENNEPIN COUNTY My Comm. Expires Jan. 31, 2000 . !Øed4d ~~.Á:~. 3105 LeRoy Ave. P,Q. Box i27 New Prague, MN 56071 612-758-3969 To: Jim lee Jay Prior Lake Blacktop Inc, Plehal Blacktopping Inc. Expert Asphalt Co. July 6, 1999 Dear Blacktoppers, Thank you for submitting bids to me on the private drive in Chanhassen that services 1451 and 1459 Knob Hill lane, Excelsior, MN for a 1 1/2" finished blacktop lift, I have turned your bids over to the homeowners at these two residences. They will be choosing someone to do the job. Any future correspondence should go through the two homeowners. I will not be hiring you. My only obligation with the home- owners is to pay for a 1 1/2" lift from the rear of the neighboring home at 1465 Knob Hill Lane to the concrete driveway at 1451 Knob Hill Lane. Deutsch Construction and John Knoblauch will in no way be responsible for you and we will not be guaranteeing your work. The homeowners have been made aware that the work is not guaranteed through your companies either, In the event they hire one of you to do the work I will make a check out from Deutsch Construction to you for a maximum of $ 3,000.00 after the job is completed. If there are any funds due over this amount they will have to be collected by you from one or both of the homeowners. I will not be responsible for anything except the check for $ 3,000,00, Listed below are the home- owners. Please do not call them, I'm sure they will call you if they would like you to do the work. Furthermore, I recommend that you get both homeowners signatures accepting your proposal on a rewritten proposal listing the homeowners as the buyer before you begin work. Thank you. Sincerely, t:!:."~/:~L- Homeowners: Cramer or Deb Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Shawn or Jackie Mcintee 1451 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 ·. . ::beutdch Condtruction ..!}.nc. P. O. Box 127 New Prague, MN 56071 612-758-3969 July 12, 1999 Dear Cramer and Deb Hegeman: The following is a run down of your one-year puncWist items and a recap of the completion of these items by number, please reference your list. I, Tree line problem, this was addressed in my previous letter dated 1/11/98. A few items need clarification for the record this spring. Even though I was not required to replace any trees based on our contract language, I gave you 6 trees this spring. As a good faith gift we delivered a 6-7' Black Hills spruce, plus I replaced the dead one and planted it myself. When I informed Cramer that I would be dropping them off on a Friday and they needed to be planted in the next week, I got a very negative phone message from Debbie stating that this was not enough notice to get the trees planted. I found out on Wednesday we were getting them, I told Cramer on Thursday, we got them on Friday. I have never given anyone a free gift of 6 - $100.00 trees before. The last thing I thought I would get was a negative message from you when I was not under contract to give you anything. Also, note for the record that after your lengthy letter and complaints about your so called tree problems between your house and McIntee's at 1451 Knobhill Lane, and how you were unhappy with the buffer between the two homes, you took out 6 trees along your driveway, put in the 6 that I gave you and then used the 6 you took out and only put three between yours and McIntee's house and you put the other 3 in your front vard. 2, In regards to the concrete slab (basement floor) in your lower level we declared it defective this spring and jack hammered the floor out and re-poured it. This was a large 3 day project and we appreciated the help when you helped us move your personal belongings upstairs and down. We did the best job we could and went overboard with the construction of the new slab installing reroded bond beams into the footings and zip strip crack controllers for you. This item will not be a problem anymore. 3, In regards to your carpet pad upstairs after much investigation on my part and taking a sample of pad from your house we have concluded that the pad you have is the upgraded pad that is offered by the flooring store and was selected by you. But since you thought you were mislead about the product I did check personally at 4 reputable different flooring suppliers to make sure you were not mislead and here is what I found. At Abbey Carpet in Apple Valley, your carpet pad is their upgrade and sold as an 8 pound pad (for a $1.50 more a square yard. More than what you paid at Flooring Concepts, our subcontractor). At Thoroughbred Carpet in Savage your carpet pad is an upgrade and sold as an 8 pound pad for $2.00 more a square yard (double what you paid at Flooring Concepts, our subcontractor). Both Classic Carpet in Burnsville and Carpet Resources in Hopkins, did not have your brand of pad, but they were aware of the product and all four reps are aware that the pads are sold with a rounded off number such as 8 pound or 6 pound even though the teclmical data may say that they are 7.4 pounds or 5.4 pounds. Much like lumber that is sold as a 2 x 4 that is really only I W' x 3 v.". All agreed that the higher the poundage the longer and better the carpet would last but the pad gets more fIrm as you go higher in poundage in a bonded pad. You have said you don't think your pad is cushy enough for you. More cush in the pad means your carpet would wear out faster according to the dealers. All four other supplier's . phone numbers and names of the stores I visited are enclosed. Based on this information Deutsch will not be spending anymore time on this issue. As for the cedar shakes you say that you verbally requested along your kitchen ceramic tile to raise the carpet up to meet your ceramic tile better when it was installed, I have no record of that, but the following should be clarifIed. The reason you have such a large difference in height between your carpet pad and ceramic tile in your kitchen is because the ceramic tile installer that you hired on the side, installed 2 poured concrete floors instead of one under the tile. The first pour he put down as standard and the second pour he put a heat blanket in and then layed a 12 x 12 tile over the top. Your tile installer is the reason for the floor height difference of a half inch which you are aware of. I did check with the other flooring stores to see if this cedar shake teclmique to lift carpet up was commonly used - since I have never seen it before. Two said they do it upon request, 2 said they won't do it partially because of the increase angle it creates. (Flooring Concepts, our subcontractor, said to me that they wouldn't do it.) Even though your problem was not created by us, just because both Abby Carpet and Thoroughbred Carpet said they would honor that request, I am enclosing $200.00 to you, which is what Abbey Carpet said it would cost to install 20' of cedar shakes. Our contractor will not do the work so you would have to hire someone on your own, if you wish to have this done. 4. Your stairs to the lower level were checked with a level when the one year warranty work was done by Ken Villwock and myself and no defect was found. You were present when we had a three foot level on your stairs. We checked each tread and found no problem. 5. Your 2 patio doors were adjusted with the sill adjustment screws and we checked the screens, installing the basement one, and all are OK, these were checked by you. 6. We could not get the floor area by the stairs to creak or bang. With our extreme changing seasons it is not uncommon to witness some unusual sounds especially in the drier winter 2 months. We do not guarantee against sounds in the house so if you ever finish your basement you should address these sounds prior to finishing the ceiling. 7. Ken Villwock re-chaulked your main bathtub and also your other shower at your request. 8. Two spots that were pointed out by you on your roof, one above the front door and one above the double door garage door having a small ripple have been repaired with the shingles and renailed. Both Ken and I walked over your whole roof and saw no other defects or any other problems. 9. Two window sashes that were not closing just right were removed by Ken and adjusted. These were checked by you when you were there, and have been corrected. 10. Fireside Comer sent a rep to your home and went through both fireplaces with you and made adjustments, etc., and we paid the bill. II. Ken and I adjusted your tension on the garage door opener to get it to close tighter. The garage door opener was installed by you. Any other adjustments you may want to check your owner's manual. 12. The PVC vent size for your furnace was checked by you and me in the owners manual and it is installed according to manufacturers specs. I also called the heating contractor, Metro Air, to confirm this. The 3" pipe that was used, I've been told, is even better than 2 \0" in this application. 13. I got your faucet loose, please be careful not to over tighten your spigots. 14. The plumber visited your house when Cramer was present and put a number of straps on your \0 bath pipes. There was no rattling when he was completed. IS. Step in garage was poured with the house floor pour and is done. 16. We did supply and re-case your one door for free in your garage since the casing I gave you for free the first time didn't work. 17. The sheet rock repair was done by Kenny to the best of his ability. Spots were marked by you and over a 3 day period he completed the job the second week of June. Note in our spec book contract that sheet rock repair is an ongoing battle and there is no perfect job. 18.4 bobcat scoops of black dirt I dumped along your driveway from the neighbor's driveway, you said was satisfactory for your tree area, this is now completed. 19. The dryer vent was re-taped by me with foil tape and secured with plumbing straps so as to not have a problem in the future.. 3 20. Even though I dropped off a 6 yard load of woodchips for your yard free, I am enclosing another $100.00 for more woodchips for the back if you want to buy more, because of the concrete work that was done that damaged a small area of chips. 21. Also enclosed is $100.00 for YOur service call to YOur security company while we were at the job doing your basement. I don't know what the problem was, but I'm sure you got it handled. Even though your one-year punchlist was sent to us 36 days late from YOur one-year anniversary, we have tried to handle everything you have requested and more. As a result of this we have closed your work file on YOur omi-year punch list. No further work by us or our subcontractors will be done on YOur house in regards to a one year date. In the event you have a state law two-year mechanical warranty item (plumbing, heating, electrical faulty materials or workmanship) the only way we will respond to your requests is through third party counsel to verify if the complaint is legitimate. No further response will be given to YOur direct correspondence with Deutsch Construction or its representatives in regard to work on your house structure. In regards to your blacktop driveway work to put a second lift on the private drive. I received 3 bids for a I W' lift of new blacktop. With a cost of approximately $3,000 for 220' of the driveway, I will not be hiring the contractor to do the work. You two homeowners will be hiring the contractor yourselves. I will supply a $3,000 check to the contractor. I have enclosed the copies of the bids and they have been sent to the McIntees also. (Keep in mind I agreed out of good faith in my previous letter to pay for 220' x 20' I-l/2" blacktop lift and not the first 60' connecting to Knob Hill Lane.) If one of these three contractors don't do the work, you can get your own contractor if you wish. I would make anyone aware that I am only paying $3,000.00 total toward this job for them. Because these three bidding contractors know this already by the letter that was sent to them. A copy of this letter is enclosed. Any amount over the $3,000.00 in regards to this job that you are billed will be yours or McIntees responsibility to pay. Keep in mind I was not under contract to put in a second lift of blacktop, and two of the blacktop companies that looked at the driveway said it did not need a second lift (in this area) but would be beneficial to have for the future. Also note the new blacktop work that is to be done will have no guarantee from myself, Deutsch Construction or these bidding contractors. If I hear from the Mclntees that you are not cooperating to get this job done after their landscaping is completed I will hold my money commitment indefinitely. m( ~ c;~oblauch Deutsch Construction, Inc. JCK:pp 4 ::Deutdch eOndt,.uclion .J.nc. P. O. Box 127 New Prague, MN 56071 612-758-3969 July 12,1999 Dear Cramer and Debbie Hegeman, This letter is in response to your letter dated June 7th. I apologize for the delayed response but June is our busiest time of the year for new construction, so I haven't had the time until now. The original private drive that was installed was a blacktop drive that ended approximately 30' prior to reaching the McIntees property line, this is what you saw existing when you signed a purchase agreement in November, 1997 for your lot. It was a 310' by 20' wide blacktop drive. This is surveyed and documented on your house survey dated November 13, 1997, a copy of this was delivered to you along with tax infonnation on your lot and a copy of the Declaration of Covenants on 1 III 8/97 and a full size grading plan and plat of the entire Knobhill development, as was noted on my file. (Please refer to Article ill on lot uses and restrictions Section 28 in your copy of the Declaration in regards to your maintenance requirements for your private drive.) Your home was completed in March of 1998 and in a nonnal situation we would have poured your concrete drive prior to July 1st but because your neighboring home was under construction that was eventually to use the private drive jointly with you upon consulting with you we agreed it was best to wait to pour your driveway and upon the McIntee house (neighboring home) closing we would pour the driveways together in a connecting pour of concrete. I agreed at this time even though it was not in our contract, to cut the existing blacktop drive back 40' to the east in order to have your driveway be all concrete rather than piece mealed with a 20' x 40' piece of blacktop and a 30' x 30' concrete apron (since this 20' x 40' area of blacktop had incurred damage from the construction and would have to be resurfaced anyway) so upon completion of the McIntees home in late October we saw cut the blacktop back 40' from the original spot and poured everything concrete along with a 12' connector off out your driveway to the McIntees so they had access. There is nothing that I can find wrong with this situation. You received a finer driveway in the end because of the complete concrete drive out into the easement area. Both parties (you and the McIntees) were present in more than one occasion when the driveway fonns were in for this pour and fonns were adjusted for you by Ken and John from Deutsch in a couple of spots. I measured the McIntee concrete extensions twice to make sure it was within the easement area and I even had Mclntees turn around with their vehicles to make sure that they had room to maneuver, prior to the pouring of the driveways. < . There is no driveway easement on the McIntees property, only on yours and Lot 1. When we provided access for the McIntees to their lot line in the easement area our obligation was over. I have no contract with you in the width or size of the private drive extension of approximately 30' in length, that you refer to. As for the trees that were saved on the McIntee property, this should be none of your interest, but I will explain for the record that there is a 3' grade difference between the private drive to the south that services two different neighbors and the McIntees drive. We also have a minimum setback from any property line of 5' for driveways and the City has a maximum tree removal limit of 20' on virgin custom graded lots of trees 6" caliper or greater. Taking these items into consideration and the fact that three significant trees were saved because of the driveway arrangement, again I see no problem with the situation. Normally we make every effort to preserve trees when people pay for a treed custom lot. In fact the southern neighbors and McIntees are happy with us that we left a small buffer between them. As to having more room to build the McIntee home by taking down this 10' x 25' buffer area is nonsense. Not even two more vehicles could have parked there because of the grade difference, and in the overall significance of building a large $425,000 project with a 30' easement access it wouldn't have improved much the already tough conditions that we dealt with with your two homes access. You stated that the McIntees lot was not easily marketable due to the easement situation is to the contrary. Lots on private drives are more desirable because of privacy, one of the same reasons you bought your lot, and considering McIntees was the 5th lot sold out of 10 lots for sale and it was listed at the time as the highest priced lot, your statement is outlandish. In regards to house surveys, as you know from what I had mentioned to Debbie on the phone, the driveways sketched in on house surveys are proposed only. Driveways that are installed do not necessarily follow what is drawn on a house survey. This was confirmed by the City engineer and building official that met Debbie and I at your home last month. Your private driveway has no city significance that I am aware of and I would suggest not calling the city any more on your private driveway. In regards to snow removal I talked to Shawn McIntee and he told me that you had jointly agreed on a snow removal man and Shawn had left it up to you as to where to push the snow in the easement area. So apparently you can push snow off either side of the private drive where it crosses your lot, the Mclntees don't seem to care which side or where it goes on your lot. As to tire marks on your driveway area from other vehicles turning around, this is common on concrete. Your cars also will leave marks on your driveway, so be prepared for that. I have notified the McIntees that turning around in your driveway is not acceptable to you and is trespassing and they should make all delivery trucks or any other vehicles aware of this, so to be as preventable as possible. I suggest when you or the McIntees have large gatherings of people that out of courtesy you make each other aware of it and mark off parking if necessary so no ones access is 2 hindered. If you cannot get along with the McIntees then you can deal with them on having extra parking on Knobhill Lane, a public street and have both your guests walk to your homes. My verbal suggestion to Debbie back in May was to get along with the McIntees as best you can not only because you have joint easement together but also because Shawn McIntee is an attorney and if you don't work together he would, I'm sure, be enforcing his easement rights to the highest potential. But since then you have sent two negative letters directly to the McIntees damaging your own relationship with them. Telling Deutsch and myself that we are responsible for your handlings with your neighbor 8 months after we finished our job is unacceptable to us. In regards to Debbie missing work at her existing job, Deutsch has never demanded that she be present during construction or during repairs, this has been strictly on her own decision to miss work. We do jobs everyday with homeowners not present and have very few problems with this. It is actually more common that the homeowner is not around, rather than at the job site or house, when we do one year warranties, etc. As to your survey on your lot you may check your spec book contract that we only stake your lot corners once. I have provided metal green stakes at all your property corners and they are still in at this time. I have reviewed them with you several times. If you wish to hire a surveyor go right ahead if you want to verify the corners that are already in. This cost would be out of your own pockets, of course. With responding to all the previous issues considered, and their lack of substance conceming us, Deutsch Construction will no longer be responding to anymore of your correspondence in regards to your home or driveway or any other so called problems you have concerning John Knoblauch or Deutsch Construction. And, let this letter put you on notice that as for any other letters, phone calls or verbal correspondence that you personally direct to Deutsch Construction, its representatives, affiliates or John Knoblauch and/or his family, if we receive just one of the situations or correspondence, listed above, it may be construed as harassment and slander and I will take all legal recourse. I also personally will be pursuing to the fullest extent of the law a case against you for defamation of character, if any of the above events take place. Keep in mind that I have turned over to my attorney your file and correspondence, dates and over 4 people including Deutsch Construction that you have defamed me personally in front of. This is the last letter I will be wasting my time explaining situations that have already been gone over with you verbally in extensive detail. If you have an attorney and he or she wishes to contact our attorney, his name is Doug Elsass at Fruth and Anthony Law Firm in Minneapolis. His telephone number is 612-349-6969. Sincerely, ,J:!:~if:'¡~L Deutsch Construction, Inc. 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmt" Dri"" PO Box 147 Chanh"",", Minnesota 55317 Phon, 612,937./900 Gm"al Fax 612.937.5739 Engin,tring Fax 612,937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612,934,2524 Web www.ci.chanh....m.mn.us September 21,1999 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Use of City Drainage and Utility Easement for Driveway Access Knob Hill Addition Project No. 96-10 Dear John: This letter is a follow up to our meeting regarding the possible expansion of an existing driveway within the City's drainage and utility easement that was dedicated on the plat of Knob Hill. As discussed, the City's unwritten policy permits driveways to encroach within drainage and utility easements provided the existing neighborhood drainage pattern is maintained through the parcel and that any existing utilities are not impacted. In addition, the property owner must agree that if the City should need to use the drainage and utility easement, it is not responsible for replacement of any driveway damaged within the easement area. The City documents this agreement by requiring the homeowner enter inio aD encroachment agreement with the City which is recorded at the County. As far as the drivew~y .constructio~, it appears the driveway has been constructed in general accordance with the grading pIanaPPfoved for Knob Hill. I understand the driveway expansion is being requested by the ne, ighbi>r\ng property owner to hopefully alleviate the perceived . . .. ,.. ...; ">'", ..... ',,:'.'...:.:...".. .." .. '.0....' turnaround issue. It is the, Ciiy'~'~esire, whenever feasible, to save trees within a project. That is one of the reasons why the C:¡typ~pùtt.edthe private driveway within the drainage and utility easement in the first place versUŠ á full public city street to serve the lots. In conclusion, the City would permit'the driveway expansion to encroach upon the City's drainage and utility easement as long as the drainage iS,maintained through the parceIand the property owner enters into an encroachm.ent agreem~nt with the City. The cost of this agreement is $30 and is prepared by the City Attorney's office and recorded against the property. I hope this letter addresses all your concel11S an,dquestions as we discussed on September t5, 1999. If I may be of further assistance; please feel ftee to contact me. 0.<...··,.·, ,i;',.; Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN !J~~~". David C. Hempel ....~:-.}:<;;;. ,,;:,: ".' .' . . ',I";~"";,,,,¡~1.~Jt':Q¡.,,,j"'.:¡\{:i'I',; ASsIstant CIty En.gmeer· .. . ,~;~ r~~ilÚ;';t·:ji :;!~":j:)S ~,' '", .,,'. .' ,-:,., '~i,:;,"> DCH:ktm \('J ; Anita Benson, CitYEng¡ne~irf.~i!t Daniel R. Remer, Engineering Technician II g:\eng\projects\knobhi1l\knoblauch. Jetter 4.doc c: The City ofChanhassen. A f!!Owin¡¡ community with cltan lakes, quality schools, a charmin, downtown, thrivin, businesses. and b,autilù/ barks. A mat "act to Ii!lf. work. and, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 90 City Center Drive, PO Box /47 Chanhl1Sltn, Minnelot4 55317 PhoTll612.937.1900 GtntTIJl FIlX 612,937.5739 Enginttring FIlX612.937.9152 Public Safety FIlX 612.934.2524 U7rb www.ci.chanhassm.mn.UJ March 24, 2000 Mr. John 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 within 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. If I may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN JJ2y¿~ /' David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms \ \cfs I \voI2\eng\projects\knobhi11\pri vate driveway.doc 'ht City of Chanhl1SSen. A growing community with clean lakel, qUl/lity Ichoo&, a charming downtown, thriving busiTltllel, and beautijùl parkl. A glt41 place to live, work, and play. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hegeman, jJoV.tMðé/l. 3D, UX)O As your neighbors we are jointly writing this letter in hopes that you feel comfortable and accept the fact that we lTuly re'pect your wi,hes a, to no one abusing your driveway or your property, but we would like 10 address a rew concerns which we feel negatively atTect our neighborhood, They are a, follows: I) Placing board, with nails protruding upward on your driveway. Although these boards were located on your property, it is our opinion they look as if you were purposely trying 10 damage someone else's car or hurt a small child and this is definitely not acceptable whether it is on your property or not. 2) A number of vi, its by police cars as some of us have .,een has us concerned also. In our opinion patrol visits are very alarming and to the average child or adult signal, robbery or tragedy. tt would be appreciated to ,ee patrol cars only in the area on a true emergency so it is not as disruptive. Also, we were listed twice in one week in the police blotter in the locai new'paper and one of us heard a Curry Farm, re,ident joking about our area due to Ihese police reports. 3) Also we are concerned over the occasional faster speed while driving cars in the area. We have roughly 20 kids under the age of i2 nearby and even though we all may be under the speed limit we ask that everyone drive al a 15 mph speed (almost a school crosswalk speed) because the kids are many times not very observant of cars, 4) Finally in regards to the recent signs and chain barriers in your driveway, we all understand your rational but the orange barrier setup with sawhorses, etc. i, not reflective of the community we all live in, let alone the aesthetics of all our house" especially yours. We ask that you take the balTier and sign' down with the knowledge that all of us will do our best to avoid cros,ing over or turning around on your portion of the private drive, and to the best of our ability we will inform any vi,itors to keep otTyour driveway portion. You can re't a,sured that we will respect your rights and life'tyle choices much more when action is taken on removing your sign and barrier especially with the upcoming Holiday season, Keep in mind that if you wish to have some kind of barrier that is more appealing and that fits in with the architecture of the area to block your driveway ITom the common portion of the private drive, il is fine with us. Note, with our understanding ofthe Knob Hill covenants you should make sure that you receive arch commitee approval first before installing a more acceptable barrier. In closing, we definitely understand your wishes as to no one abusing your driveway or property, This letter is with goodwill and we trulý want to see something positive arise out of your driveway issues and to whittle down the negativism as much as possible so our neighborhood is looked upon highly and reflects the pride that we have for the unique area we live in (the looks of all of our homes being an important ingredient in this equation). Sincerely, 1~t(¡;/~ ~~.L1-J j ~~ ': Ì\h £~~ / ~ ~~ J/Vl~~~ ~ .~~ /?~(:;;t- :Atr-~L ~ 'buiµ¡¡a -11~-O,\.1~ '. December 16,2000 To: the Residents of Knob Hill Lane, et al. and Mark & Katie Bastian and Bruce & Nan Twaddle This letter will serve to address several issues related to an envelope delivered under fiùse pretenses to the Hegeman address on December 14, 2000. This envelope was thrown at the feet ofMes. Hegeman and the delivery person drove off after announcing "You have been served". Mrs. Hegeman did not accept this delivery and returned the envelope to the Knoblauchs as noted on the outside of the envelope. Subsequently, John Knoblauch left a message on the Hegemans answering machine. Mrs. Hegeman returned his call as a courtesy. During this conversation, Mr. Knoblauch indicated that all parties that signed the document co-authored and critiqued the contents before placing their signatures on the document. The Hegemans believe and will proceed to the full extent of the law, that any such or future communication will be pursued as an act of harassment and aggression against the Hegemans. The nature and the delivery and the substance of this document was the act of cowardly people who could not possibly have any "neighborly" intentions. A "good" neighbor would take the time to explore both sides of a situation before signing their name to an inflammatory document. The Hegemans have purposely not divulged any information to the residents of Knob Hill Lane or neighbors thereof related to the ongoing property and trespass dispute between the McIntees, the Knoblauchs, and themselves. The Hegeman's have not wanted to burden "innocent" neighbors with a dispute that they thought would be resolved through a court process. Unfortunately, the Hegemans are guihy of being naive. We found out that the court system is not always just. The court does not always seek the truth. People go to court and do not tell the truth. We trusted a system that proved to serve the best story teller or the person with the most money. We did not seek to mislead the court in any way. The same can not be said for some of the other parties to our case. Based on the telephone conversation with John Knoblauch on December IS, 2000, the Hegemans are prepared to share the following information with our "neighbors". First a word to the Twaddles and the Bastian's. We were willing to overlook the fact that both of your names appeared on a witness list for the McIntee's. Neither of you took the time to directly discuss any situation or detail with us. There are always two sides to a story, unfortunately your failure to talk to us and find out the "other side" leaves us with the opinion that you are not the type of people we would consider friends or good neighbors. Your signatures on the document descn'bed by John Knoblauch is a direct harassment of our right to privacy. You are not "residents" of Knob .Hill Lane and you are not a party to the covenants. You and your children and your guests have continued to trespass on the private drive. We can no longer look the other way. We will be using surveillance equipment to monitor our property and to record activity on both our driveway pad, our lawn, and the contingent private drive. Please respect our right to privacy. Please inform your children and their mends that they are not to use the private drive for access to and from your property. We have invested several thousands of dollars in landscaping between the properties. Your children and their mends riding bikes and skateboards represent possible damage to our landscaping. You have a private dirt driveway, please use it. Access to and from your properties over the entire length of the private drive to or from the property of any resident of Knob .Hill Lane except the Mclntees or the Hegemans is an act of trespass. We will prosecute future trespass to the full extent of the law. To the residents who did "not" sign the recent document discussed in this letter, please accept our sincere thanks for not allowing yourselves to be mislead by the authors of the letter. We would like to think that you did not sign the letter because you, as true neighbors, do not know all the facts and could not with a clear conscious sign a document without knowing the "true" details. To the residents who did sign the document: 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 of the 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 pennission 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 Chanhassan, the private drive must be 20 feet wide and constructed to hold a 7 ton limit. John received pennission 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 ofthese 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 McIntee 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 all 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 asphah drive to be placed as close to the property line of the Bastians and Twaddles as possible and allowing room for snow removal and deposits. This would have required that two trees located on the McIntee lot directly in the path of the approved drive be removed. And in met, John Knoblauch received permission to remove these trees as evidenced by both the enclosed letter ftom 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 fàiled to continue the asphah driveway to the property line dividing the McIntee and Hegeman lots. We believe this fàilure to construct the approved driveway was a deliberate attempt to make the McIntees lot more attractive to any future buyers. It also kept the Twaddles happy by leaving two attractive trees on the McIntee lot. Other than those two trees, there was not much appealing about the McIntees 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 of the private drive, In court, the McIntees 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 fàiled to tell the McIntees, was that this was never discussed with the Hegemans. The Mclntees never discussed it with the Hegemans. Even during driveway pad construction, the McIntees deliberately withheld this information ftom the Hegemans. The Hegemans did express concern about the size of the turnaround area located on the McIntees 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 McIntees 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 fàils 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 McIntees ever submitted ''revised'' plans for their private driveway pad. In case the McIntees fàiled 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 Mclntees 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 fur ftom the property line of the 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 McIntees lot were in the direct path of the entrance of the private drive onto the Mcintee lot. He fàiled again, to disclose that those trees were scheduled for removal to make access for the private drive and for adequate parking on the McIntee lot. In conclusion, Mr. Knoblauch deliberately changed the approved path of the private drive across the Hegmans lot and in collaboration with the McIntees willfully failed to build a driveway pad on the McIntees 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 ftom these large vehicles will uhimately resuh in additional expense for concrete repair to the Hegemans while the McIntees concrete remains 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 Mclntees to correct their original error injudgement. 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 itself. 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 "neighbors" 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 McIntees now wish to complain about the appearance is ridiculous. There is no monetary damage to the McIntees. The only damage to the McIntees is to their pride. Their legal fees were paid by their insurance policy while the Hegemans are currently out of pocket over $50,000 to legally "fix" the problem. The McIntees 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 niwt liwtinl!. Who will bear the burden of a lawsuit when a visitor to the McIntees 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 McIntees assumed that the Hegemans would allow their private property to be used as a parking lot. The McIntees assumed too much. The incovenience to the McIntees is there own creation. They don't like looking at barriers and we don't like looking at uninvited vehicles turning around on our private property and leaving tire tracks that require hard labor to remove. The McIntees have never offered to be responsible for any damage created by their guests or deliveries. In fact Mr. McIntee 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 McIntees 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 ftom the McIntees do not use the private drive. It is not for public use and violators will be prosecuted. ~ ~ OOice of County Sheriff Carver County Government Center Justice Center 600 East Fourth Street Chaska. Minnesota 55318-2190 ßud Olson, Sheriff Emergency: 911 Sheriff Admin: (612) 36i-1212 Admin, Fax: (612) 361-1229 Dispatch: (612) 361-1231 (Non-Emergency) - CARVER COUNTY 7-5-01 Mr. and Ms. Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Ln Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7 Mr. and Ms. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hil! Ln Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7 Mr. and Ms, McIntee 1451 Knob Hill Ln Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7 On 7-3-01 I spoke with Ms, Hegeman about an incident some time ago where she had placed a board with nails in her driveway to stop vehicles from backing up from the common portion of the drive into her driveway pad. Ms, Hegeman had previously informed neighbors that a deputy, perhaps me, had given her the idea to place the board in her driveway. Subsequently, neighbors questioned me if I. or a deputy, had advised Ms. Hegeman to place such a board in her driveway. I explained that I would not have advised such an act and could not imagine another deputy doing so. I have since learned that back in October of 2000 Ms, Hegeman spoke with one of our deputies after a vehicle had backed over some plantings and into her driveway pad. The deputy and Ms. Hegeman discussed how police use "stop sticks" tire deflating devices to flatten tires of vehicles during pursuits. There was also discussion about how the devices are similar to a board with nails, Although the deputy did not advise Ms, Hegeman that she should place such a device in her driveway, it appears clear that the deputy did inadvertently give the idea to Ms, Hegeman and never indicated that placing such a device would be a problem, After Ms, Hegeman placed the board in her driveway, a complaint was called in to the Sheriffs Office. I learned of the complaint and contacted the County Attorney's Office for a legal opinion, A letter was then delivered to Ms, Hegeman, explaining that sllch a device would be illegal. The board was removed at that time. Affirmative Action/EquaL Opportunify Employer Printed on 10% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper Ms. Hegeman asked that I author this letter to clarify that it was in fact a Sheriffs Deputy that had led her to believe placing the board in her driveway would not be a problem, and that the board was removed immediately after the County Attorney's opinion was issued. Sincerely, ~~#~ Sgt. David Potts, 819 Chanhassen Station 952-937-1900,ext 122 '~ ,; , ., :"f ,..." CITY OF CllANHASSEN 690 City Cmttr DriV(, PO Box 147 GJanhlJSSm, Minntlofl155317 Phon, 612,937. 1900 General F4x 612,937.5739 Engintering FIlX 612,937.9152 Public S4ftty FIlX 612,934.2524 ~b www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us July 19,2000 Mr. John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 5533 I Re: Fire Department access at 1465 and 1459 Knob Hill Dear Mr. Knoblauch: On Wednesday, July 19,2000, per your request, I inspected the driveway, specifically for fire apparatus access to the above addresses. Based on length and width of the driveway serving both houses, firefightingapparatus access!! acceptable. Note: The 1997 Unifonn Fire Code does have language that specifically addresses access for single-family dwellings; however, it applies to three or more dwellings served by the same road. In this case with only,~o houses, it would not apply. ~.:+: t:::";{"~;';:~?~,:", ,'",_ ,,-:_~:~Ì*-;: "Disclaimer: Access toth'es~"@bhouses IS under nonnal condit¡öt~:;- Obviously severe weather with trees blown down or blizzard conditions could havè:8ì\'¡'mpact on vehicle access as it would with any resideÎÍri9.thëþity.'~ ':':':." ", ' ,>:;",tt~:,~)~;ri:ì,~,::<'-:'_,;'~jJ:~:::~;;~L'"';,,,',:<A;;~:,_, +)"~* {<,. Also, during the inspection I îí.óf1c.èd·a decorative 'trellis that isb10c ing the direct view of the fire hydrant. City Ordinancé 9'"./':tèquires a 10-'foot clear spaëtiìrOund fire hydrants so they can be quickly located and safèIý-òpernted by firefighters. Ìfyouknow who owns this trellis cou Id you contact them. If Ìjot IWiIrsend Ii letter'to the owner' to move it. If you have any questions or~~¡\%~i:piä~:~call me ~t937~Ì9ot~xt. 132. t' "r:~~L~~~f::. " ""';'1:~~~~;~i1~~ì'~t,::;',i1,;;" ';{;:;)'~1~#{'\ ':';:{:~'~:: , ,/~~,_~;>:::E;:::?:Y!';Y>":'-:'" .,,·2. s~~& Mark Littfiri' . Fire Marshal g: \safety\m I\knoblauch ", ;>,F'( :',:,',',*, ~:;::f*' . --,-.,;\ MLlbe ,^",,' "-':;' ,'" ,.¡ ::" ....,. ""J' TIlt City olChanhassen. A growing community with cltan laktl, quality schoob, a charmin! downtown. thrivin! businesses, and beautifùl parks. A mat via" tn Ii"" wnrb. nntl,/,. August 10, 2000 Tð: 2)-ö () &:, fL51f>S '3 if--- h79' (¡¿1M: J1 ¡Ø j(f'/òßLfTvtH '/7'1 ~ 5"'~ t~ John Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 John, Please remove the sign "Private drive residents only". It violates our rights to have our guests and visitors come to our property. It also violates the covenants. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. Sincerely, ~qJ~ Debra Hegeman cc: Joe Knoblauch .;".. .-" """. ;:.:, '1-,: .._--~ ,- .' September 26, 2000 District Court Administrator Carver County Courthouse Civil Filing 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, MN 55318 RE: Hegeman vs McIntee, Deutsch Construction, John Knoblauch Court File # C3-99-1652 Court Administration: Please be advised of the of the fonowing information related to the above case. Scott Massie, former attorney for the Hegemans bas resigned effective 8/30/00. Debra Hegeman will represent the Hegemans in all appeal proceetlings. Mr. Massie asked to be fired no less than three times in the 14 day period prior to trial and during trial His request was made because he knew he had 1àiled to prepare for trial and that his work during the preceding months was both less than adequate and untimely. Two attorneys have reviewed his work files and are distressed to see how poor his work papers are. The Hegemans will be pursuing Mr. Massie for malpractice. . Judgement against the Hegemans based on jury trial should be vacated. The Hegemans object to any and aU costs taxed to them for the jury triaL The Hegemans specifically ask the Judge to reverse the jury trial decision and find against the defendants McIntees. Failure of the Court to recognize the ~igroifi"4Ince of approved plans for both the McIntees driveway pad and the private drive constitute a violation of the rights of the Hegemans to own property ftee ftom liabilities created by the McIntees and John Knoblauch and in accordance with all current City Bnilding and Fire Codes. The City ofCl".n"aos,n bas ignored its own codes and ordinances and violated the "writ of m~ntl~t11Il!::.". The City ofÇl1an"aosan bas 1àiled to enforce its own bnilding codes and the related fire code ordinances associated with the construction of the private drive at Knob Hill and the driveway pad located on the McIntee property. The City ofC1tlln"aoS"n violated these codes when they issued a certificate of occupancy for the McIntees home. Specifically, City and State fire code requires that a private drive serving two or more residences be 20 feet wide and buih to 7 ton capacity. (Exhibit A Çh~nh~.~~n City Code) if. J The City requires that a driveway be shown on all plans submitted fur construction. The mct that the City then approves these plans supposes that these plans should be followed. Mr Knoblauch did not submit a revision fur the McIntees driveway pad. Mr. Knoblauch also did not submit a revision to the private drive over the easement located on the Hegemans property. (ExIn'bit B - Plan for McIntee driveway plan as approved by the City) Perhaps when a driveway exits directly onto a public road, the size of a driveway pad can be left to the individual property owners discretion. However, when a property owner lives on a 300 ' private drive, special care should be given to the construction of a driveway pad. This care and diligence was ignored by the McIntees in their own desire to save trees on their lot. They deh"berately and intentionally reduced the size of their driveway pad in careless disregard fur the burden they would place on the Hegemans property. In fàct, Mr. Mcintee told Mrs. Hegeman he always intended fur his guests to turn around on the Hegemans pad. Removal of these trees is not detrimental to the McIntees lot. In fàct, their lot is considered ''heavily wooded". The City would not assess any penalty for the removal of these trees, see letter from rill Sinclair. (ExIn'bit C - letter Jill Sinclair April 7, 2000) The Court has disregarded the driveway easement document and its contents. This document specifically provides that the driveway in the easement is fur the McIntees to ingress and egress to and from their property. This document should be entered into evidence as an enforceable contract between the furmer owner of the lots, John and Sharon Knoblauch and the current owners of the lots, the Hegemans and the McIntees. Specific action is defined within the document for recovery of expenses against an ownerlbuilder violating the rights of the other owner. (Exhibit D - driveway easement) The easement document limits the use of the driveway to ingress and egress only, parking, turning, or the use of the driveway fur any other purpose other than access to the property on 1451 is denied. The Hegemans have every right to enforce the driveway easement document. The driveway located on the easement is not a playground nor community property. The driveway over the easement is not and was never intended to be used as a public cul-de-sac. The Court does not have the right to force the Hegemans to allow the McIntees free use of the Hegemans private drivewav Dad. The McIntees guests and deliveries constantly trespass within this area and violate the Hegemans privacy. z. and fire trucks and the 1àct that the McIntees deliberately for their own purposes created this nuisance should move the Court to reverse the trialjury's decision and find against the McIntees and against lohn Knoblauch. The expenses associated with this action should be recovered based on the driveway easement document. The Hegemans will1eave it to the Courts discretion how to assess the costs to the McIntees, lohn Knoblauch, and Deutsch Construction. The Hegemans estimate their current expenses to be: Attorneys fees Survey Expert witness Core drilling Total ~ Lle7f47lß1/) Debra Hegeman for Cramer C Hegeman and Debra Hegeman dated: 52p ~ I ~ $ 42,610.00 $ 1,974.77 $ 2,153.19 $ 3,050.00 If $ 49.787.96 6' 2 361.'.36 CARVER, DAKOTA, GOOOMU~, L~SUtUR MCLEOD, SCOTT "'NO SIBLE:Y COUNTIE:S ,J E:"'N '" O"'VI ES ,JUDGE O~ DISTRICT COURT L"'W CLERK C"'RVE:R COUNTY COURTHOUSE 800 E"'ST .TH STRE:E:T CHASKA, MINNESOT'" 553'. TELEPHONE: 812,361,1.20 F"'X tPZ·361.r.el LIS'" M VOSIK'" COURT RE:PORTER 61Z·361.1..Z ST ATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT October 13, 2000 Debra A. Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Road Chanhassen, MN 55331 Re: Hegeman v. McIntee, et. al., Carver County Court File C3-99- 1652, Dear Ms. Hegeman: I have read your proposed motion of September 26, 2000, Unfortunately, the motion is not in its proper for::1, did not provide adequate notice, and was filed too late pursuant to the Rules of Court in the State of Minnesota. I refer you, specifically, to Minn. R. Civ. P. 7.02 and 59.03, alo~g with the cases of Celis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58G N,W.2d 64 (Minn.App. 1998); Levine v. Hauser, 431 N.W.2d 239 (Minn.App. 1988); etc. I strongly recommend that you hire ~ndependent counsel if you wish to proceed with this matter any further. Legal procedure can be particularly intricate, and often must be followed quite strictly. I do not want to place you in the position where you feel wronged by the system, however, I am also unable to give you legal advise under the law. /4nc" erelY(¿) 11 . . / A /1{ / (/a,~ "---'- £'v, ~~an A. Davies ~dge of District Court JAD!pat Cc: Jan M. Gunderson, Esq. Douglas L. Elsass, E~q. ;r.; ~:~~~ ,~[::J;~ \.:1 .-: .- .,,"; ~., .-I¡'. .IPl 'V'¡;"" " I '.~ -'~.'.' '~k~ !",,,' .\}-:;: ~:~~~:' OCT 1 7 cUOO f!1'''T;d!i> A ",-,'Ji",r"1'M\ ," "-~ till ut ~~l\ iirlt..Þ'J 'Iii ~ ".-'. . Deb!"a Har;eman 952-474-4033 p.l Page I of! ~.~/ From: "Ceb Hegeman" cclebhegeman@\'IsI.com> To: "Cave HillTlmargren" <ddhammareponvoymail.com> Sent: ThUl'1ldaY, Apri119. 20011:13 PM Subject: Crivewlyeasement John and Sharon Knoblauch Pursuant to our conversation on \Neds Aprtl1 e, 2001, I have researc:hedthe dedlc:ation of the driveway easem«1t. The dri\l8VÆlY easement over portions 01 Lot 1 an<I2 Block 2, Knab Hillis dedicaled for the use of the owners of 1451 and 1459. Your father, Joe Knoblauch haS neither the right nor the authortty to use the easement parcel either lor access or lor parking or 10 extend that use to other parties. Specifically under # e. restrictions: 'Use d the easement Parcel shall Inure for the benefit of one single family residançe located on Lot 2, BlocK 2, Knot: Hili Addition, and one single family residence located on Lot 3, Block 2, Knab Hili Addlllon. Further, the area within the Easement Percel shall be restrided exduslvely for ingress and egress dnveway easement. No part $hall be dedicated for use ae a public street Of roadway, Therefore, by the restrletlve naUlr' of the document you and youl\\lfe wrote, we a. owners d Lot 2, Block 2 \\ill tormally advise you to not use the private drive or the easement parcel for any reason. You also ¡nstaJiad the sign at the front of the private drive which clearly state., Private Olive, Residents Only. Please inform the residents d Knob Hill and alnQUl'lding area, that no one has permiS1lion to use the private drive unless they are vielting the Mctntees or the Hegemans. The private drive and the easement parcel wI! not be used for paF1lOl1BI and public use by your friends end neighbors as a right of way to either the Twaddles nor the Baati.,laI'18. Cebra Hegeman 16M k~ 95¿, - ô?) ___7°00 ~1- 9 52. - 'i 'J .) , '1 ({S ò. 4/19/01 Apr 24 01 07:55p Debra Ha~eman 952-474-4033 p.1 Debra Hegeman From: 'Deb Hegeman" <debheQeman@lI!o/.COITP To: ''Cave Hammargren" <ddhamnørC!lonvcymall.COITP Sent: Tueeday, April 24, 2001 7:48 PM John and Sharon Knoblauch Page I of! 'Ihomser\~Nl~œcK re:P! -h/~~ 01-3- (- 9!fz-- ftfy- Cjð33' Our driveway Is a "private driveway". Ills not for public use. You sold us the property as having a ''private driveway", Our approved lot design shows thai It i. a "private driveway" Your protec:üve covenants refer 10 the "privale drive" In Article III Section 28, My definition of privata does not include the ·public'. The rll9ldenla of Knob Hill Lane with the exception of the McJntees, are the "public". My private dr.IleWllY will not be used by the public lIS an acc_1t> the homes belonging to !he Twaddl.. and the Ba.lÎansans, I will connnue to authorize Carver County 10 prosecute anyone wi10 Irespas... on the "private drive". Joe Knoblauch owns the land under the private drive and I do not dispute that He d09i not have our permission to use the private drive to perk on. or 10 give walking, jogging, or oth... access to Iols thai are nol even part of Knob HUI Lane, This type Of traffic leads other parties to attempt to use the "private drive" when it has always and IMII always be "PRIVATE", You were given permssion by the åty to subdivide for lIIese two lots IMth the use of e "private drive". \M1al part of the definition, "private drive" do you need clarification on? Debra Hegeman 7D';. TðM.. Ho/V¡ ~ .JDffl) K G:.(..Cf P.4x: 1.J'l -1') S' ,1'1 sö k¡Jo/Julvcf{ ?52. _ '-/7'1- § 6' Z- rol~, '-/9ð-c{S-'TO 4/24/01 ..~~'23'20Ql 10:47 FA! 9G2 63G 94GO TROIISEN.NYBECK "~";O"_~"_11 ~....__~~ft:" ~002 -, . . . - T~OMSE.~~~~EC{(. p.h.. IrO ¡va þJ LAW HOO EtinborolJg:, Way, $U1tll No. ~oo Mi....p.li. (¡¡din.). MN 5S4J5-!96l (~S2) 8:;5-7000 . FAX: :952) 835-9450 GOItCONY.JOIINSON ;OIIN I. BOUOUIn' IJA/U( 0. OHNSTAD OONALI) 1>. ~MI''U MAIISII J.11AUIIU<G WII.I.Wd Eo 3I01lOLlol THOMASa. (JIU.ßY JOUN ~ IWDII (Qg{fD. LOU\$ DAVlDJ.M"OIB UCNNJ.ilN. PA'nIICJC GRiTCIIEN S. SCIIILUIA. PA1WC1CO.J.I1.\QI .' OfoCOUI<UIA JACJ:W. CAIU.5ON TQDfII,IWl' RJrnI/BD, H8L.OIl TJ1UM.s1:J'I¡ GLI!NN C.I\"IeQ\ ¡.oM'~ VANVALJœIo,'Bl'l\G April 23. 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Cramer C. Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Driveway Easement Our File No. 01-3- Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hegeman: This office represents John Knoblauch, Mr. Knoblaueh has contacted us regarding tne comments of Ms. Hegeman in an e-mail message dated April 19. 2001. Based an the comments In this e-mail message, it is apparently Ms. Hegeman's view that the ownðn¡ of the properties at 1451 and 1459 Knob Hill Lane have COntrol overthe use of the portion of the easement parcel located on Lot 1, Block 2, Knob Hili Addition. This Is clearly incorrect, While the benefit ofthe easementls IImltad to the propartjljlp.1!t 1451 and 1459 Knob Hill Lane, this does nQt mean that the owner of the property·atœJ... Knob Hill Lane does not have use of this easement area. Rather, It means tIIat no other houses may be constructed that utilize this easement without the consent of all parties. As the owner of the fee interest In the underlying property, Joseph KnoblaUX:h has the COntinuing right to use the easement area In any way that he sees fit as long as such use does not interfere w~h the use ofthe easement area for driveway purposes by'the ownen¡ at 1451 and 1459 Knob Hili Lane. The reference by Ms. Hegeman in her e-mail that the easement area 'shall be restricted exclusl\lely for Ingress and egress driveway easement'ls a limitation on the use of the easement by 1451 and 1459 Knob Hill Lane. It is L!Q!,a restriction on the use of the aroa by the owner of the fee Interest In the parcel. You do not have the right nor the authority to restrict Mr. Knoblauch's use of his own property, except In so far as that use interferes with your use of the easement area for driveway purposes. Clearly, neither the KnobJauchs nor anyone else has used the easement area in such a manner. The deClaration creating this easement in September, 1996, did ustthat, it granied you an easement for Ingress and egress purposes. It did !1Q! transfer fee ownership of tho ·""~,'·~/200 10:47 FAX nz en 9480 ~.,- Mr. and Mrs. Cramer C. Hegeman . April 23, 2001 Page 2 THODlSEN. NYBECK ~003 underlying PlQperty to you. Joseph Knoblauch is the fee owner of the un~erlylng PlQperty and retains all rights associated therewIth, Including the right to use it~ permit others to use It. (Jr - Very truly yours, TRKlbb cc: Mr, John C. Knoblauch Thomas R. Kelley " Meeting of the Architectural Review Committee Of Knob Hill Addition May 16, 2001 At approximately 8:00p.m. on May 16, 2001, pursuant to notice, a meeting of the members of the Architectural Review Committee under the Amended and Restated Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Knob Hill Addition was called to order. The following members of the Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") were in attendance at the meeting: (i) Shawn McIntee; (ii) Debra Hegeman; (iii) John and Sharon Knoblauch (representing three Lots); (iv) Joe Knoblauch; (v) Steve and Mary Prosser; (vi) Tom and Sandy Ryan; (vii) Renee Henderer; (viii) Jeff and Barb Johnson. John Knoblauch served as chairman of the meeting and Shawn McIntee served as secretary. 1. List of covenant violations at 1459 Knob Hill Lane. a. Barricades and chain fence and posts on southern part of the property extending onto the driveway: After discussion, Deb Hegeman agreed that the foregoing mentioned barricades and chain fences would be removed. Shawn McIntee would send a letter to various delivery services requesting that they do not utilize Deb Hegeman's driveway to turn around; and Deb Hegeman and Shawn McIntee agreed to discuss a decorative fence or monument to extend on that portion of the private drive between the respective garages on the Hegeman property which proposal would be presented to the ARC for approval. Another option discussed to potentially be implemented in the future would be a sign placed before Hegeman's driveway which reads "Please do not turn around in driveway," which sign would be in conformity with the neighborhood signs and be approved by the ARC Based upon the foregoing agreement, there was no resolution of the ARC. b. Electrical devices in the front yard with flashing lights and sounds: Ms. Hegeman agreed that the motion detector for each of the two electrical devices would be pointed towards their home such that any traffic on the private drive or on adjoining properties would not activate the electrical devices. Furthermore, it was suggested that Ms. Hegeman utilize the devices using only the high frequency (human inaudible) sound and turn off the flashing lights and audible sounds. Based upon the foregoing agreement, there was no resolution of the ARC. c. Planting trees on border of west side of property: Deb Hegeman agreed to maintain these trees as a, hedge to ensure there's no encroachment on the adjoining property. Based upon the foregoing, there was no resolution of the ARC. 143999v1 > d. Placing string fences on southern and northern property: Deb Hegeman stated that she did not put a fence on the northem part of her property, and to the extent any such fence exists, any member of the ARC is authorized to remove the string fence. With respect to the string fence located on the southern portion of the Hegeman property, Deb Hegeman agreed to remove the fence within two weeks of the date of this meeting and to utilize individual plant barriers in the spring of each year to the extent necessary. 2, Painting of mail boxes: After discussion, it was agreed that individual neighbors will be responsible for clear coating mail box structures this summer. 3. House construction on Lot 2, Block I: John Knoblauch requested that a committee be appointed to approve all plans and other aspects of the house construction on Lot 2, Block I and that the committee consist of Jeff Johnson and Tom Ryan. The home to be built is for Kevin and Michelle Weber which will be a four bedroom, two story house with approximately 3,000 to 3,100 square feet. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously passed: RESOLVED, that the ARC hereby appoints a house construction committee of the ARC for Lot 2, Block I consisting of Jeff Johnson and Tom Ryan. RESOLVED FURTHER, that said committee shall have all power of the ARC with respect to the house construction on Lot 2, Block 1 as above described. · There being no other business before the ARC, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. , Shawn McIntee, Secretary of the Meeting · ~ · '. i. · 143999vi John and Sharon Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 June 16,2001 Fredrick R. Krietzman Attorney at Law 601 Second Avenue South, Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 And Hammargren, Meyer & Paulson, P.A. Attorneys at Law 360 One Corporate Center IV 7301 Ohms Lane Minneapolis, MN 55439 Dear Fred Krietzman and Dave Hammargren, I would like to thank Fred and Mrs. Hegeman for attending our first A.R.C. meeting on May 16th. Enclosed is a copy of the signed amended covenants for our development that you requested. Sorry this took so long but we are currently in our busy season of construction. Also enclosed is the letter that was sent in good faith in November requesting the removal of YOur client's barricades and addressing three other issues that a few of the neighbors had with your client. We were trying our best to reason with your clients at that time. I thought the letter was tastefully done considering your clients were the instigators in the lawsuit against the McIntees and myself, and also knowing what the neighbors had been through up until that point. To our disappointment, after receiving our neighborhood letter, that same night Mrs. Hegeman ran up my driveway shaking the letter in her hand and yelling at my wife, who was leaving with 5 small children in her car. The children were frightened enough to be brought to tears by Mrs. Hegeman's actions. Later your clients brought up their perceived problems of the past to a number of people by sending a 5 page negative letter (copy enclosed) to nine neighbors about the over and done with law suit. Fred Krietzman and Dave Hammargren Page 2 Since your client continues investigating their perceived driveway problem, which is evident by the new letter in May sent to you from Matt Saarn at the Chanhassen City Engineering department, I would like to mention a few facts relating to the McIntee driveway pad size since you were not involved in the lawsuit and may not have the insight from the builder's perspective. The McIntee's portion of the private drive does meet Chanhassen's private drive ordinance and has been built in accordance with the development plans as stated in the letter you got from Matt Saarn at Chanhassen City Engineering department. Chanhassen does not have a size requirement for a private drive after the driveway passes the last neighbors driveway entrance off of the private drive. Chanhassen does allow up to 4 homes to access a public street from a private drive. The essence of the ordinance is in order to save trees, save existing topographical and minimize impact to adjacent parcels. That's why the city wants private drives and that is why this drive was built the way it is today. The fire marshal also has given his approval for the drive for emergency vehicle access. , The Hegeman's are correct that the McIntee's driveway was not built to the exact lines on the certificate of survey that we submitted to build the McIntee home, but as with any survey that is submitted with a building pennit application, the driveways are sketched by a surveyor who has probably not visited the site. It has been my experience the surveyors field crew that shoots elevations and stakes the home generally do not spend a lot of time worrying about drive locations, as they are looking for setback problems for the structure and drainage issues. All the driveways I have built no matter what the site is, whether acreage or city sewer and water, do not have a separate drawing for the driveway and we don't use the survey for a reference. The driveways are formed up, we have the homeowners come to the site and review the forms (since visualizing the forms in my opinion is the best way for the homeowner to digest the size and area) and the concrete is poured shortly thereafter. · · · In any event, I am not aware of any cities (and I have built in approximately 20) that require an as built driveway plan or require a builder to build the driveway exactly like it is shown on a house survey. Many times the homeowner has input on the driveway and the forms are adjusted to their liking. Matter offact, Mrs. Hegeman actually did order a change to some forms on the left side of her own driveway. I had the McIntee's turn their car around twice in their driveway area and they were okay with it. Shawn McIntee met with the Hegeman's and discussed the drive setup and we built it shortly thereafter. The driveway job was all in good faith, by the McIntee's and myself, and was fme for the first 6 months it was in. I was not aware, until June of 1999, that the Hegeman's weren't happy with the size of McIntee's portion of the drive, which was shortly after Mrs, Hegeman had a conflict with Mrs. McIntee. iiI .,~ · Just for your information, when the Hegeman's first sued, my surveyor had looked at what if we changed the driveway to be just like the certificate of survey and the result was this: an increase of 250 sq. ft. of concrete. This would create I V. car parking spaces more than the McIntee's have now which they don't need or want. The McIntees would · · Fred Krietzman and Dave Hammargren Page 3 need a retaining wall, which would be a hazard for the neighbors to the south and a total loss of the tree buffer, which happens to benefit both the M~Intee's and Hegeman's lot for the wooded area look they both have now. The main complaint of the Hegeman's, being delivery trucks backing up in their driveway, would still not be resolved since the increase of the McIntee driveway size would still not be big enough for a UPS or other medium to large size truck to do a full turnaround like these trucks can do on a nonna! public street cul-de-sac. My suggestion all along has been work it out between the neighbors for deliveries, parties, etc. so they can live harmoniously together. That's what other private drive people do in the area, that's what these two homeowners should do too. In response to Dave Harnmargren's letter dated May II th that was sent to all the neighbors, I do apologize for not rescheduling the first A.R.C. meeting. I verbally had mentioned to Dave in our phone conversation on May 2nd where and when the meeting was going to be held and then with the written notice of the meeting you received on May 4th, I thought you would have enough time to make arrangements to be there. I didn't know until May 12th, when we received Dave's letter that Mr. Hegeman was going to be out of town, and would not be able to attend on the 16th. After talking to other neighbors about attendance issues and realizing that four other adults would not be in attendance also, we came to the conclusion that getting 18 adults together on anyone date in the future would be just as difficult as on May 16th. With only four days before the scheduled meeting and with other people adjusting their schedules to be there, we chose to leave it as it was. I hope you felt that it was a fair discussion without Mr. Hegeman present. Mr. McIntee should soon be sending the minutes with some record of the alleged violations that were discussed and hopeful solutions and also notes from the meeting. I'm sorry, Fred, that regarding our old issues you had to waste your valuable time on them, but some old conflicts that I refer to from here forward I felt would help you clarify our side of the story. Since our A.R.C. meeting, I have had some conversations in regards to some of the answers and comments Mrs. Hegeman made at our meeting. She said twice in our A.R.C. meeting that I told her it was OK to leave her driveway barricade up. Based on my signing of the November 30th neighborhood letter, this is ridiculous. Also, after hearing her say she knew nothing of strings around her rear property lines, two different neighbors who are adjoining the Hegemans and who were present at the meeting, have approached me to tell me they visually watched Mrs. Hegeman put these strings up, but in the A.R.C. meeting Mrs. Hegeman knew nothing about them. Also I talked to Mark Basintian, the neighbor to the south, about Mrs. Hegeman claiming that they were just fine with her deer alarms and he said to the contrary, that he had not talked to them in months prior to our A.R.C. meeting and as a matter of fact, they were not happy with the deer alarms going off when they go down their own private drive to get to their house. Fred Krietzman and Dave Hammargren Page 4 My wife also talked to Dave Potts, Carver County Sheriff. He called my wife, to let her know why he had not sent us a response to our neighborhood meeting yet. When my wife asked him about his, or his deputies, recommending Mrs. Hegeman put nailboards in her driveway he obviously denied that any deputies would do such a goofy thing. Mrs. Hegeman also said the deputy came back out and took them down soon thereafter. I have two pictures of the nailboards taken two weeks apart. They were in their driveway a good length of time in October, until one of the neighbors called the deputy on them and then the Hegeman's put up the barricades that were up all winter. ~ , Mrs. Hegeman's outburst in our A.R.C. meeting, complaining about us counter suing them is also outlandish. Any attorney and their client that sues someone heavily based on pictures of black tire marks on a driveway for their damages better be prepared to face some counter claims and the effects that they may have on their client. Since I spent nearly $15,000 defending myself on this frivolous lawsuit with your client, a suit that was dismissed before ever going to court, and I received $5,000 on a counterclaim settlement from their insurance company, it is obvious that all parties involved were losers. " I'm very confident that your firm would have had common sense to realize that driveways have cars, cars have tires and tires can leave marks on them at home, at work and on the ueeway. People in our community, as I've learned, live with these issues everyday but they overlook it as part of living on a private drive. Please note that after being involved in 350 homes, I have not had a complaint about tire marks on a concrete drive until the Hegeman's. Since the Hegemans had such an issue with tire marks, I now offer each of my customers a downgrade to lesser quality blacktop in uont of their garages. It is of no surprise to me that no one has taken me up on this option yet. , We don't recommend you waste any of your client's money or your time on trying to amend with arbitration our newly amended covenants. Our A.R.C. will not pay for it and no one that I have talked to wants it. I do not want you to have an impression uom the meeting that our neighborhood wants arbitration in our covenants. I spent $2,400.00 seeing how your client used mediation before in their lawsuit. · Regarding the easement issue, your client does not understand what their rights are with a driveway easement. In response to Mrs. Hegeman's opinionated fax dated 4/24/01, (which has numerous factual errors in regards to the law in it), my parents will use their land in the private drive area in any manner, except for hindering the egress and ingress of the two properties that benefit uom the easement. That means it's possible that neighbors will be crossing over this area to visit other neighbors, play games on it, or visit on that section of the private drive. We will, as we stated in our November letter, continue to respect the Hegeman's private property and stay off their private drive section only where they own the land underneath, except when visiting the McIntees' residence. · · · Fred Krietzman and Dave Hammargren Page 5 In regards to the trespassing issues that the Hegeman's have with pedestrians cutting through their driveway area, I can only say that all of the kiqs in the immediate area adjacent to the Hegeman's property are well aware they are not to cross over the private drive area that is owned by the Hegeman's. They have been told only to cross at my parent's property with their pennission. I would like to inform the Hegeman's that, in my opinion, it is going to be very difficult for them to control every pedestrian, stranger, or kid that comes around. I would recommend that the Hegeman's tolerance with the trespassing be more passive and to inform people nicely that they are on private property and they would appreciate them not crossing through their lot. Handling their possessiveness of the private drive with incidents like on April 25th, with Mrs. Hegeman yelling and swearing at adults and kids and sending us her fax on April 24th that she will continue to authorize Carver County Sheriffs to prosecute trespassers on the private drive, will only make their position in the neighborhood worse and in the long run ruin the community relationship we have. We have also been told at our Sheriffs meeting that children under 14 years of age will not be charged with trespassing in this area whether it is a stranger or not. With the McIntee's now having two kids of their own, I would hope that the Hegeman's would accept the fact that kids attract kids so if they plan to live where they are now for a long period of time, their tolerance of kids in the area better become more lenient and not let it get to them personally. I didn't enclose the seven different letters I've gotten from your client since they built their house. I presume you have copies of those. I'm not going to spend time on the nine different police visits they have had in the past 24 months. Sheriff's Deputy, Mr. Potts said he will address that in his future meeting with your clients. This letter will also put you on notice that we will not be responding to any future allegations or opinions of your clients this summer, and one of the only reasons I am sending you this letter is because our judicial system tends to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone no matter what their story is. We are happy that the Hegemans have not destroyed or stolen (again) the new private drive sign we put up. We truly think that this reduces traffic on the driveway and that benefits my parent's house too. We do not understand why the Hegemans stole a $300.00 sign in the first place, but as with the other negative problems of the past, we are willing to forget and move forward. As with some of the items listed above, it is obvious to me that out of situations that have arisen, Mrs. Hegeman's perspective on issues that were brought up at the A.R.C. meeting don't coincide with some of the things that have really gone on. Therefore, in my opinion, Mrs. Hegeman's lack of creditability is clear to me and it will help enormously if she can start to rebuild that trust breakdown over this summer in order for us to have a normal relationship as neighbors. . C· Office of County Sheriff Carver County Government Center :.. Justice Center 600 East Fourth Street _ Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2190 CARVER COUNTY Me. and Ms. Hegeman 1459 Knob Hill Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bud Olson, Sheriff Emergency: 911 Sheriff Admin: (612) 361-1212 Admin, Fax: (612) 361-1229 Dispatch: (612) 361-1231 (NonMEmergency) Me. and Ms. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 ~ Mr. and Ms. McIntee 1451 Knob Hill Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 6-19-01 To Concerned Residents of the Knob Hill Neighborhood, After meeting with various neighborhood residents it is clear that the parties to the ongoing disputes and calls from Knob Hill to the Sheriffs Office are at an emotionally charged, resentment stage. Complaints and counter-complaints to the Sheriffs Office, and the process of civil lawsuits have turned neighbors into combatants. :{1 As a supervisory officer assigned to Chanhassen, it is clear to me that the Sheriff's Office will not be able to resolve the majority of these disputes. The resolution lies with neighbors acting like and treating others in an calm and rational manner in the presence of strong disagreement, and approaching each issue from an objective perspective. Take a moment to think about the time, money, and emotional stress that has been spent on issues that seem far less important than many we face in life, Neighborhoods can be wonderful places where families share with one another: Your lawnmower breaks dovm...use mine. You're having a party...your guests can use my volleyball setup in my backyard. You have a family emergency.. .I'll watch your kids, your dog, your house, Everyone has different personal boundaries. Only through calm, open, honest communication will the neighborhood concerns be effectively resolved. rfthe parties choose to stay their current course, everyone will lose in the end. There is always a win- win solution if all sides come together. The Sheriff's Office involvement: . Law enforcement is called upon for many types of issues, concerns, or disputes. Weare a 24 hour public service, so we get the calls. Officers are put into hostile, messy, legally fuzzy situations where, at times, nobody is going to be happy with the outcome. 11 . Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity EmpLoyer Printed on 10% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper Neighbor confrontations have taken place, resulting in calls to the Sheriff's Office. The confrontations have been emotionally charged, over minor incidents or simple misunderstandings. I encourage everyone to STOP and THINK before acting or speaking. These types of confrontations can and do lead to fights, charges and/or arrests, but do nothing to improve the situation or solve the underlying problems. If you are the type of person who cannot calmly and tactfully speak to a neighbor about a concern or offense you feel has been committed, then another member of your family should take the lead in addressing the issue. Often times, when officers are called to disputes where one side is alleging a criminal violation, both or neither party is charged. Officers are called to deal with these types of disputes, but they really don't belong in the criminal justice system. Officers try their best to help work things out, but they are not trained counselors. Demands are sometimes made for officers to enforce a technical part of the law, when officers are actually responsible to enforce the spirit of the law. Officers have discretionary authority in the handling of complaints and pursuit of charges. Both sides must review each action they have taken in the past, and renew efforts to deal with issues in a civil manner. The Sheriff's Office does respond to reports of criminal violations during neighborhood disputes, but often the parties are not satisfied with the outcome. There is a better way. I strongly urge all interested parties to take a step back to reflect upon their concerns. If issues can't be addressed neighbor to neighbor, the parties should do the next best thing and become involved in the Carver County Dispute Resolution Program, sponsored by the County Attorney's Office, Enclosed with this letter is a brochure regarding the program. This letter is not meant to address the whole variety of concerns I have heard about. If I can be of further assistance, please call. S incerel y, ~~~~ Sgt. David Potts Chanhassen Supervisor 952-937-I900,ext. 122 o J , _. ". ~ - . ,.. d._" .. ,__ . _ ~.. , . In this case I have looked at the calls the Sheriffs Office has responded to. Since October, 1999, the Sheriffs Office has responded to about 18 complaints regarding disputes, alleged assaults, trespassing, vandalism, etc. None of the complaints have resulted in someone being charged with a crime. The complaints do not indicate a crime problem, they indicate the unfortunate presence of hostilities among neighbors. One concern seems to be regarding privacy. The location in dispute is a neighborhood setting, involving a shared driveway, within a few feet of another shared driveway. That does not lend itself well to a high level of privacy. However, I believe the concerned neighbors should be able to work out an acceptable means for children and other people to pass through the area. I would encourage a new tact that would welcome neighborhood residents in the area. There was a point in time when the Hegemans installed a pathway between the two shared driveways. That was a very nice thought and effort toward neighborliness, and I would encourage they consider using that approach once again. In the absence of a stalker concern, I have to believe there are better alternatives to the use of barriers, motion activated sound devices, and cameras. The Sheriff s Office will not take enforcement action on complaints of trespass when a child or other passer-by innocently happens onto private property or the shared dri veway. ;$ " ~ , A concern of residents is the use of the shared driveway. The Sheriff s Office will generally not act on disputes of who may use a shared driveway, The two residences served by the drive each have very limited parking and turn-around space. I believe they need to work together in earnest, and really consider other perspectives. The Sheriffs Office will not take enforcement action on complaints of trespass or vandalism when a driver in the area is attempting to turn around and inadvertently drives onto a lawn or planted area, or backs onto a driveway pad. Any resulting damage that may occur is typically minor and unintentional. However, repeated incidents can be quite aggravating. Cooperative agreements can be reached if the parties can put the past hard feelings and resentment aside. . , , Some neighbors have complained of fast driving in the neighborhood. Another complaint was of people playing basketball in the city street. The street is an isolated cul-de-sac. While it seems safe to allow children to ride various vehicles on the street or play games on the street, it is truly not safe. The street is for travel of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians following proper safety rules, There is adequate city and private areas for recreation activity. At the same time, motor vehicle drivers must take into account the likely scenario of children in the roadway in a neighborhood area. Through the Project LeadFoot program we promote that neighbors drive 20 mph, even though the limit is 30 mph. The difference in travel time is only seconds, while the difference it can make in avoiding an accident is huge. Neighbor relations and traffic safety can be greatly enhanced simply by passing through the area slowly and cautiously. Statistics have shown that a large number of accidents happen close to home. We all get so used to driving the same route in and out of the neighborhood, and we all seem to be in a hurry to get where we are going. , ~ 2 ~ February 7, 2002 J Iksidents of Knob Hill Lane, A public notice was published on Feb. 7, 2002, No. 4640 in the local Chanhassen paper. A meeting will be held on Feb 19,2002 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall; 7700 Market Blvd. This public hearing is to 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 1Ì'om 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. The approval of this request will result in significant traffic on our quiet cul-d-sac, Your children and their mends will not be safe riding their bikes in 1Ì'ont of your homes. We urge everyone to attend this meetmg and to voice their disapproval of this request, If Metro Properties (John, Sharon, Joseph Knoblauch) wants to build nine more homes, let them use Lilac Lane for access, not Knob Hill Lane. If there was ever a more important reason to abolish the covenants. this is it. Protect YOur privacy and the safety of the lots you purchased. We did not buy our lot to become part a large development. Please feel1Ì'ee to contact us to support this proposal. Sincerely, I{~¿¿)â.- f f/,-ð-l11J. l_ Debra & Cramer Hegeman 942-474-4188 email debhegeman@visi.com 110 0111 iii ØIlA,. S''Mll T Slo/C4 AIAZlllr 'II~ Sf CON~ ADA . "tSlr P#tJ.1IM/MAI -r: I _ I' A_'_ ,_ _.' ¡}¡;,,'.cI}lâ1C.- .,..J Metro Area Properties Inc. 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Office: 952-474-5662 Fax: 952-474-0313 February 12,2002 it' ;¡;; Mr. Matt 8aam Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 '~ iF' '3 Dear Matt: After receiving your letter dated 1I28/02 I think you have clarified a few of my questions as to why you are sending me these letters but not all my questions. Wanting me to address an engineers report that was not completed by your department, not endorsed or requested by your department, and does not carry a city inspection requirement seems unusual in my estimation. , It seems according to your letter that this is a private property issue, since your departments 1ì.lll approval of the public section of Knob Hill Lane was already granted over 3 years ago. It also seems, according to your letter, that you have no responsibility regarding this private drive construction, no recommended maintenance, no life expectancy requirements, and no authority to demand a response to an independent report on a private driveway, 6 years after it was installed. It you are the authoritative figure to demand a correction, and if a correction is needed, then in your next letter I expect to get from you is an answer to question 9 on my first letter being specific about the issues from the testing engineer that the homeowner has hired, a map of what areas are an issue, how big they are, and the results of your department's visual inspection. , I gather from your letter that this is a private property issue and should not take anymore of your department's valuable time or our tax payers money. 80,1 will not respond to any more of your letters in regards to private property issues, unless you respond to question #9 of my first letter. I respect the City of Chanhassen staff immensely and I'm confident you will direct me on the correct path if you are the enforcer of this issue. · Feel free to pass this letter along to the homeowner (if you are not the enforcing body). I'm sure they can hire an attorney to contact me if they wish, and I can deal with them directly. · Yours truly, L!:.Ob:~ · ",,,;