05-44 PC Minutes 1-3-06
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
c.#7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings,
d.#29-1992 regarding premise identification,
e.#34-1993 regarding water service installation,
f.#36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing,
g.#40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHRISTENSEN SUBDIVISION: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY
INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6710 GOLDEN COURT AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, APPLICANT
ROBERT CHIRSTENSEN, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-44.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Kurt?
Papke: The staff report, bottom of page 5 you state that the driveway to Lot 2 must be shifted so
that it is at least 10 feet from the property line. Could you point out where that short coming is?
I wasn’t quite able to make it out.
Fauske: Here’s your pipe for drainage and utility and the driveway is a couple feet from that
location. At this location and it’s a difficult plan to read. The dark brown line here shows the
actual property line, following my pen here. That’s the 5 foot drainage and utility. Here’s the
driveway. So our ordinance reads 10 feet from the property line. That’s where we’re getting
that from.
Papke: So if you shifted, what to the north, are you going to run into the same thing? Do you
have enough space?
Fauske: No. 10 feet right here so we can shift it over a few feet to meet ordinance.
Papke: You’re not going to have them narrow the driveway? There’s enough room to move it?
Sacchet: Any other questions? No other questions from staff? Thank you Sharmeen. With that
I’d like to ask if we have an applicant? If you want to come forward. If you have anything to
add, please do so. State your name and address for the record please, and if you can pull the
microphone towards you so we get the sound. Yep, there you go.
Robert Christensen: Robert Christensen, 6710 Golden Court. I think the question was, that
number 5, moving, it was Lot 2 which is where my house is located.
Sacchet: There it is.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Robert Christensen: …over in Lot 2 and I think this one had to be shifted, or not shifted. It’s
just got to be 10 feet away from the property line, but this is the actual shift here.
Sacchet: Oh, it’s that one that gets shifted. Is that accurate Alyson? Because that’s the existing
one, right?
Al-Jaff: Lot 2 would be existing.
Sacchet: Can we ask the existing one to be shifted?
Fauske: Well the existing one should be brought into conformance unless there’s a necessity to
bring it as a variance. We can look at, it looks like it might be pretty close there to shift it. I
mean they’re already getting some changes, some realignments with that existing driveway to
bring it into conformance so, it’s not a huge plan change. It was just more of a housekeeping
item to make sure that we had everything up to code.
Sacchet: Is that an issue for you Mr. Christensen?
Robert Christensen: No.
Sacchet: You don’t have an issue with it? Okay. So even if that driveway, the existing one
needs to be shifted, you don’t have a problem with it?
Robert Christensen: No.
Sacchet: Well then it’s not an issue. That’s very good. That’s easy.
Robert Christensen: I just thought I’d correct that.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you’d like to touch on?
Robert Christensen: No, I guess not.
Sacchet: Do we have questions for the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a
public hearing. Does anyone want to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing somebody
get up, yes there we go.
Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I’ve just got a question on the plan here.
Sacchet: Can we switch on the plan Nann please? Thanks.
Janet Paulsen: First of all, what is this driveway here?
Sacchet: Is that access to the Martinka property?
26
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Al-Jaff: That’s an access. These are existing situations. Our ordinance clearly states and State
Statute states that if these are existing situations, you don’t.
Sacchet: It’s pre-existing.
Al-Jaff: Yes, and this subdivision is not intensifying this use.
Sacchet: Okay. So in other words that driveway to the southern property would stay off of that
driveway for the time being? No, I see you shaking a head.
Robert Christensen: Mr. Martinka said he will abandon that driveway because he has another
new access out to Golden Court.
Sacchet: So he’s going to access directly for Golden Court and so that access driveway will be
closed apparently.
Al-Jaff: When Mr. Martinka subdivides his property, that is correct.
Sacchet: Not right away. Okay.
Janet Paulsen: So why not make it a private street?
Sacchet: Well we’re not really changing that are we?
Al-Jaff: No.
Sacchet: Can you address that Sharmeen?
Al-Jaff: Everything is remaining as is. The southern portion where the neck is, is remaining
undisturbed. Currently there is an outlet out there and the outlet is maintaining that setback that
you see from the edge of the driveway. The applicant applied for a neck lot and that’s what
they’re getting and that’s consistent with a previous recommendation.
Sacchet: Does that answer your question Janet? Sort of.
Janet Paulsen: Not really.
Sacchet: Not totally but a little bit.
Janet Paulsen: I would think that a certain safety issue with traffic going onto a public street, a
private street would probably serve it better.
Sacchet: Yeah, but this is not the issue in front of us. While we could argue it’s sort of in front
of us but what’s really in front of us is a neck lot above it.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Janet Paulsen: And then the next question was on Lot, on the upper lot. Where is the front
property line there?
Sacchet: How do we measure property line Sharmeen, can you point that out?
Al-Jaff: …property line right there.
Janet Paulsen: And that is because why?
Al-Jaff: In looking at the way the ordinance reads, it’s the closest property line to a public street,
and it is our interpretation that this is the closest property line.
Janet Paulsen: Well I would just like to say that that’s the convenient one because you have to
have a 30 foot front yard and a 30 foot back yard and that’s the way it sits.
Sacchet: How would you measure it Janet? I mean do you have an alternative way to look at it?
Janet Paulsen: I guess you can just choose because these are two lines, I mean.
Sacchet: Well you couldn’t measure the width of the flag.
Janet Paulsen: I just don’t think that the home that’s shown on there would have a 30 foot front
yard and then a 30 foot back yard if it had the east/west line be the front property line. I guess
it’s just choosing which line you want and which is convenient. That’s all I had.
Sacchet: Go ahead Mark.
Undestad: I think when you measure the lot thought, we do not include the flag portion in that
lot. Is that right?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Undestad: So you would use that, the flag portion wouldn’t be considered a lot line out on the
street there. Does that make sense?
Janet Paulsen: The front property line should be the line that’s closest to the public street.
Sacchet: Right, I think that’s.
Janet Paulsen: I guess that one is. That’s all I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Janet. Anybody else? Yes indeed.
Deb Lloyd: Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’m just questioning whether this is within 1,000
feet of Lake Lucy.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Is it within 1,000 feet of Lake Lucy? Can we answer that question?
Al-Jaff: Yes it is and.
Deb Lloyd: Because there’s no notice of the impervious surface requirement because it would
be considered shoreland and typically that would be noticed.
Al-Jaff: It will maintain all requirements of the ordinance as far as hard surface coverage, as
well as building height. These are things that we do look at.
Sacchet: And would there be a difference? And that would be looked at with the building
permit? Not necessarily at this time.
Generous: However they are the same, RSF in the shoreland districts have the same impervious
coverage for single family residential property. 25%.
Deb Lloyd: I’m just noting it because typically it would be included in the report. Also I, you
know I look at this and I know, you know we’re typically adverse to private streets but there is a
safety aspect here. Whether or not the existing driveway is there, you’re subdividing and you are
looking at a variance condition.
Sacchet: How do you see that we’re touching the existing situation.
Deb Lloyd: How are you touching it? You are approving variances for two flag lots. You
could, as a condition make that a private street if you so chose.
Sacchet: And what would be gained by doing that? I mean.
Deb Lloyd: You’d have one access which would be wider, 20 feet along a 60 foot here. Versus
two accesses on the 60 foot into.
Sacchet: Oh you mean it would be one access instead of two.
Deb Lloyd: I’m just.
Sacchet: Yeah, I just want to understand where you’re coming from. How would you then
reconcile that the third access is going to go away within the very foreseeable time.
Deb Lloyd: There’s no guarantees from prior reports which weren’t mentioned, this was all
brought up a year ago. Burlwood was the subdivision and Martinka said he had no intent on
selling. So everything is hearsay.
Sacchet: That’s true, okay. Well, do you want to address that from the staff viewpoint at all?
Al-Jaff: There are case studies and I have talked to the city attorney about what impact and what
type of conditions can you attach to a subdivision and had I know this was going to be the case I
29
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
would have attached the case study that they, he had emailed me. If you have an existing non-
conformity and if the subdivision is not intensifying this non-conformity, then you cannot require
it to be, you cannot require it to be eliminated or removed. As far as what’s in front of us today,
we have a request for a neck lot. This is a dead end cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: There’s not a lot of traffic.
Al-Jaff: No, there isn’t a lot of traffic. If this was an arterial or collector, then we would be the
first to say, limit the number of access points.
Sacchet: Isn’t it also that, I mean the concept that was chosen like 10 years ago was to make
those two kind of neck type lots. That’s why they were two outlots created in front of it, so by
all of a sudden putting in a private street and then adding the third lot which apparently doesn’t
want to be part of it in the long run anyhow, we would be deviating from that overall original
plan, wouldn’t we?
Al-Jaff: That’s absolutely true and the sketch that I brought in, that I showed earlier was from
1995.
Sacchet: Yeah, and I mean I don’t mean to brush to the side your comments Debbie and Janet
but we struggled with this when Burlwood came in and we found that it’s with this pre-existing
decisions and directions taken, unless there is really a clear way to go a different route that is
obviously bringing a lot of benefits, it’s best to build on what decisions that were made before.
So that’s, I think that’s something that needs to be looked at as well. Alright, the public hearing
is still open. Anybody else? Jerry, last option. Alright. I close the public hearing. I bring it
back to the commission for comments and discussion. I see a shaking head here. Another
almost shaking head. No? No comments. So if no comments, then how about a motion.
Larson: Recommendation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion. Approval of preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-44 for Christensen Subdivision for 2
lots with variances to allow flag lots as shown on the plans dated received December 2, 2005
subject to the following conditions, 1 through 9.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? Do we need to say allow two flag lots in the
description? Just to be specific.
Al-Jaff: We can definitely do that.
Sacchet: I would ask that as a friendly amendment. Is that acceptable Debbie?
Larson: Yes.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-44 for Christensen Subdivision for 2 lots with
variances to allow two flag lots as shown on the plans dated received December 2, 2005, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of one tree (2 ½” diameter) is required in the front yard of each lot.
2. All areas outside of the grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot and located
at the dripline or beyond whenever possible. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed
or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
3. Silt fence shall be installed along the grading limits along the east edge of the site from the north
property line to the rock construction entrance. Two silt fences shall be installed in “smiles”
perpendicular to the flow line upstream of the 18” CMP leaving the site to slow the water and
prevent discharge of sediment from the site.
4. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
5. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.05 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $1,680; the water quantity fees are approximately $3,045. At
this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $4,725.00.
6. Prior to City Council consideration of the preliminary plat, the following changes must be
incorporated into the plans:
a.All plans must be signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
b.The plans must show the proposed lowest floor elevation for Lot 1.
c.A separate utility plan must be submitted and must resolve the apparent conflict of the
existing 6” watermain over the existing sanitary sewer manhole on Lot 1.
d.The utility plan must show the lateral sanitary sewer within the east-west portion of
Golden Glow Court to the manhole within proposed Lot 1.
e.The utility plan must show the sanitary sewer service to the Martinka property.
f.A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement must be platted over the existing 6”
watermain on Lot 2. The easement shall be centered over the watermain.
g.Drainage and utility easements must be platted over the existing sanitary sewer and
watermain services to the house on Lot 2 and the Martinka property. The easements
shall be 15 feet wide and centered between the sanitary sewer and watermain services.
h.The utility plan must include notes where conflicts between services and/or culverts
appear.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
7. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the developer must comply with the
following:
a. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development
volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100-year rainfall events.
b. Hydraulic calculations verifying the design of the driveway culverts must also be
submitted.
c. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be
designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
d. Soil boring information must be submitted.
e. The driveway to Lot 2 must be at least 10 feet from the property line.
8. Building Official Conditions:
a.Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot.
9. Fire Marshal conditions:
a.Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premises Identification (Copy
Attached).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 6, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
32