Email from Roger Knutson to Bob Generous 9-7-05
Message
t"age 1 or L
Generous, Bob
From: Roger Knutson [RKnutson@ck-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07,20059:38 AM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: RE: Harvieux Subdivision - CC 9/26
I agree.
-----Original Message-----
From: Generous, Bob [mailto:bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07,20058:33 AM
To: Roger Knutson
Subject: FW: Harvieux Subdivision - CC 9/26
Roger:
Before I respond to Debbie, I wanted to run this by you.
My response would be that the existing driveway which serves the existing house and the neighboring
house, which meets the definition of a private street, is not created by the subdivision, so no variance is
necessary for the existing condition. It is the configuration of the lots with access via a neck that requires
the variance.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Lloyd [mailto:dlloyd@chestnutpartners.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06,20059:41 PM
To: Gerhardt, Todd; kaaneneson@ci.chanhassen.mn.com; Generous, Bob
Cc: City Council
Subject: Harvieux Subdivision - CC 9/26
Good evening,
Tonight I attended the Planning Commission meeting and I realized that a key point I intended to make
about the subject subdivision may have been missed.
The subdivision includes a variance for each of the two flag lots - Lot 2 and Lot 3. The existing home on
Lot 3 and another home adjacent to Lot 3 (but not within the subdivision) is served by an existing "shared
driveway".
Code does not permit a driveway within a flag lot to serve two homes. Therefore a variance for a private
street to serve the existing homes should be granted and be created as code provides. A variance
for a flag lot (LOT 3) should not be granted.
30' width is required for a flag lot or a private street. The width of the common portion of the driveway must
be 20' (safety issue) when serving two homes. When a subdivision is created it must comply with existing
code.
Best Regards,
Debbie Lloyd
917/2005