Loading...
1984 04 16 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 16, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened with Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Geving Members Absent Councilwoman Swenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Bob Waibel Susan Albee, Planning Commission APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda sented. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. tive votes. Motion carried. as pre- in favor: No nega- CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve 1984 P-District Review. Delete Western Hills 1st and 2nd. b . L a k e Ann Par k E x pan s ion . ~c so I v+ i 0" H - /1 A- c. 1984/85 LAWCON Grant Applications. d. Vendor Agreement for Lake Ann Park, Mike Rosenwald. e. Fireman's Softball Tournament. f. Engineering Technician. RESOLUTION #84-20. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: A motion was made by Councilwoman Watson to note the March 14, 1984, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #021372 through #021444 in the amount of $329,780.06, checks #019914 through #020006 in the amount of $108,141.26, and checks to Data Dispatch, City of White Bear Lake, Port Prior, Albinson's, National Business Systems, George Donnelly, and Donald Ashworth in the amount of $10,453.73. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PHEASANT HILL PRO, TOMKAY BUILDERS: Tom and Kay Klingelhutz, Rick and Sally KlingeThutz, Mark Koegler, and George Steller were present. Mark Koegler - Some time ago we were before you with a sketch plan. Since that time we tried to implement some changes to that plan. Briefly, to highlight what has changed, the biggest change is the inclusion of the George Steller property which is about 3! acres. In addition to that we have done a number of lot shifts. The total unit count is now 82 where previously it was 92, the gross density is now 2.06 units per acre, pre- viOUSly is was 2.4. The average lot size gone up from about 13,700 to Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -2- 14,932 and we have increased the mlnlmum lot size from around 7,500 to just under 9,000. In doing that our design philosophy essentially has remained unchanged. We have stayed with larger lots to the north and getting smaller as you proceed down towards Lake Lucy Road in what ultimately would I be the more heavily traveled route. The open space shown on this serves really two purposes. One is functional, we are going to use that as a part of the drainage system for the property. There will be a pond on the site that will constantly have open water on it and additionally, we are using that as what we feel is an amenity, it is a major draw for the middle of the property itself. The preliminary plat is very much in keeping with the site plan. A couple of notations on that, you will notice that we have established four Outlots (A,B,C, and D), A, B, and C are for drainage pur- poses and open space purposes, Outlot D has been established due to an interest by the party that lives next door to purchase that tract from Mr. Klingelhutz. It's has been established then for transfer to that indivi- dual. There have been right-of-ways that have been stubbed at a point to the south, to the east and, based upon staffs recommendation another one to the north to provide future access either to the north, east or south on the property. A quick notation on phasing, we have shown the project in three phases. Phase I, hopefully commencing as soon as possible in Mayor June. Phase I being in the northerly portion. Phase II is the 1985/1986 which consists of 24 lots and in keeping with staffs original recommen- dation, we would also submit that this intersection should be a part of Phase II to connect I and II, and then the final phase, 'Phase III occuring in 1986/1987. That represents another 24 lots. The grading, we attempted throughout developing the plans to work with the watershed district and with Bill Monk. All of the street grades in essense are below 6!% grade. There is one instance on Raven Circle where we are 8%. The ponding area is I an integral part of the drainage system. The majority of the water flows to the center of the site. Some of the peripheral drainage falls away out- side the property boundaries just as it does presently. We would like to add three comments this evening with regard to the Planning Commission recommendation. The first item on our list is, there was discussion before the commission about a tot lot on the property. We would just like to com- ment that for the record when we discussed it with the Planning Commission we brought up some concerns that we thought were considerations with regard to safety with regard to maintenance and how much the facility would actually be used. In looking at the property itself we have got plenty of room to accommodate a tot lot if it is the City's desire within the open space area. We just wanted to highlight the fact that we think there is some concerns there, however the site can accommodate it if it is your desire. The second item, the Planning Commission made a recommendation that Phase III not be approved until such time as access over to Yosemite should be put in and to be quite candid, we view this as a little more serious obstacle. Phase III represents approximately 30% of the total pro- ject and in todays market if we are not reasonably certain at what point in time that can be developed it raises some question as to the viability of the project as a whole. Additionally, we think that there is a potential for an awkward position from the City. As you are aware from reading the packet we have petitioned that the project be put in as a public improve- ment project, including the streets, which would eventually put the City in the position of awarding the contract for that to go in. If, also, the I City puts a stipulation on that that could not happen until this connection is made it may be possible that the onus is somewhat put back on you to assume that that connection does happen. Either to acquire that or to con- demn it or whatever. Our position would be to let it sit there until deve- lopment happens. We think reasonably with an access point to the south, one to the north, and one to the east, something will occur and we are I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -3- unsure at what that time frame is and for that reason we have some concerns about tieing down Phase III until that happens. The final point that we would like to make with regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation, they added additionally that Wood Duck Lane in Phase II be put in in asso- ciation with the work we are doing in Phase I. We would request that you adhere to the original schedule that we had outlined where that would be a part of Phase II for a couple of reasons. First of all Phase I will have two access points, therefore, we don't view that as being an essential ele- ment. We would rather defer the cost on that until the second phase of the project. The other reason is we feel if that's put in initially it will put more traffic onto Lake Lucy Road and as you are aware this is the unimproved portion or the worst section of Lake Lucy Road. We are not saying that somehow by the time Phase II comes along that that will be improved but what we are saying is perhaps we can buy 12 to 14 months to see what does occur. For those reasons we would ask that the original phasing be adhered to. Councilman Horn - I was wondering if Mr. Palmer was here, the landowner to the west. Tom Klingelhutz - We met with Mr. Palmer. It seems he had some objection. He wrote a letter objecting to it but after we talked to him he never showed up at the public hearing or anything so we just assumed perhaps he doesn't have an objection now. Bill Monk - I did talk to Mr. Palmer this afternoon. He didn't say anyth~about the action before the Council with regards to this item. He seemed much more concerned about the petition for improvements which did involve his property. Whether he has dropped his objections or not I don't know but Mr. Klingelhutz is right in that he hasn't voiced any opposition to this layout in recent meetings with him and he said that he wasn't sure whether he could attend tonight because of prior commitments. Councilman Geving - In response first of all to your comments Mark, I don't believe the onus for the development of this be placed on the City to improve that Wood Duck Lane. I think this is your development, not ours. That is an awful long cul-de-sac that I see on the termination of Wood Duck Lane and who knows when we would eventually link that road up with Yosemite. It may be many years. My personal feeling is that if we ter- minate Wood Duck Lane the way I see it here that I would want to see a completed terminal with a cul-de-sac, just like any other cul-de-sac so that we would at least be able to run our plows down the road and turn them around and I would want that cul-de-sac completed just as if it would never be extended. We have had similar situations in the City where we have done something like this and they call it kind of temporary but they end up being extremely permanent. So that is a problem to me. The tot lot that you mentioned and the Planning Commission felt was desirable, am I to assume them that 2,000 square feet would be set aside for that by the deve- loper and, of course, it wouldn't be developed by the developer, it would be a piece of land that would be designated as a tot lot. I see in here in the recommendations from t'he Planning Commission, item #4, the inclusion of the intersection of Wood Duck Lane and Ring Neck Drive in Phase II, do you have any problem with that? Tom Klingelhutz - No. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -4- Councilman Geving - Over the weekend I drove out to the area and coming into the development off 117, it scares me to think what that access is going to be like. I suspect that we are going to have to do a lot of I brushing and clearing, do you have any ideas on that Tom, how that could be improved? Mark Koegler - I think we would be in concurrence with Bill's comments on that. That, that intersection does need some sight distance improvements, through clearing and grubbing. It is somewhat of a hazard as it sits right now. We share your concerns as it is a major access point for the project. Councilman Geving - Is there going to be some signs leading up to the intersection there so that people know there is a major intersection coming off Steller Circle? For example, what I see in Lotus Lake Estates and how they enter onto Highway 101 there. I like that. It's easy to get in and there is two lanes of traffic there. Something like that is what I had in mind as a possible entrance to this development. I assume now that all the roads will be 50 foot right-of-way as suggested by the Engineer. No question on the acquisition of that small piece of property on Steller Circle? Is that going to proceed? Bill Monk - It will have to. Approval should be conditioned upon acquisition. Councilman Geving - All the streets will be 28 feet in width. Tell us a little bit about the water looping and how it will eventually hook up to West 63rd Street. I Bill Monk - The existing watermain is in West 63rd Street and Cardinal. There-wTTl be a connection at this point to the existing system. Also, there will be a connection at this point which will help this dead end stub that now exists on Yosemite. That would be stubbed in. It will loop around and come in and connect to the existing system that presently comes back in through here and a connection will be made at this point with a stub to be put down for any future connection or line that would go in Lake Lucy Road. The only thing still to be looked at as a part of the plans and specifications would be whether a watermain need come up here but I see it's very good internal connection as far as watermain. There are three connection points and no dead end lines except for these short cul-de-sacs. So everything is looped. Councilman Geving - What is the size of those? Bill Monk - Most lines will be 6 inches. Councilman Geving - You said Mark, that you had a real major concern and problem with the Manager's comments on page 2. Mark Koegler - Our concerns were primarily twofold and they were from the Planning Commission recommendations. The first one had to do with the timing of Wood Duck Lane and when that would be extended. The second one had to do with this section of Wood Duck Lane. We felt, as it was proposed I originally, that that was more appropriate for Phase I than Phase II. It didn't serve much purpose for Phase II for the reasons that we outlined. So our concerns were from the Planning Commission recommendations, not from any of the Manager's reports or comments. I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -5- Don Ashworth - Can I assume, Mark, that the comments that I made are accep- table to you? All I am basically saying is to return before Phases II or III start to see if we can resolve those issues. Mark Koegler - Yes. As long as we have a general understanding about the timing of the roads, I don't see that that's a procedural problem. Councilwoman Watson - I guess I still see a lot of lots smaller than I wish they were. I guess I am having some difficulties getting use to those little lots. The average lot size is 14,932. That part is okay but I still see lots at 8,800/9,000 square feet. Councilman Geving - What would be the possibility of putting in zero 10t1i- nes on those lots to the west and possibly on the southwest part where you would leave a large side lot on one side? Mark Koegler - When we have gone through the citing for the individual building pads, we are assured that they will meet all of the R-1 setbacks. So there minimua11y will be 20 feet between units. Tom has come up with some floor plans and I think we had some representative samples in the packet of some units which will be somewhat smaller on those lots and to kind of tone down the scale. We indicated previously to you that our intent is diversity in price and I can assure you from what we know right now we don't reach that goal by putting a large house on that lot. Councilwoman Watson - Will you be building those houses on those lots? Tom K1inge1hutz - Not all of them. I am going to sell some lots. I am going to control the houses that go on those lots. These particular four or five lots here, we have this other problem, there is this remodeled chicken coup that's back here and I guess that kind of bothers me quite a bit. I didn't want to put my nicest lots back there. I think this is kind of a trade off in that respect. I didn't want to criticize anybody for having that building there but it does hurt my property a little bit. Councilwoman Watson - I am just concerned about with the small lot, what kind of a house can go on it. Councilman Horn - I disagree with one of Dale's cmments about the cu1-de- sac. Hard1y-anything is ever planned to be temporary. Besides that, the initial problem was snowp10wing the cul-de-sac. I think a "T" turn around makes a lot more sense. It doesn't give the look of permanence and it accomplishes the same thing. Mayor Hamilton - I agree with that. The last time this was reviewed there was a lot of discussion about the size of the lots and I think we need to adjust our thinking along with the times and when Mr. Waldrip was here looking for a development that was a different time and a different situation. We have asked Mr. K1inge1hutz to change the size of the lots, he has done that. Everybody in the world does not want to live on a 15,000 or 30,000 square foot lot. Affordable housing, that also means the piece of ground that they sit on. We have to adjust our thinking to that. I think it's a beautiful development. It would certainly be an asset to the community. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and certainly did their homework and made some very good recommendations. I think item 6, that Phase III not be approved until a suitable connection of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite is made, I don't agree with that. What is your position on that? Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -6- Mark Koegler - Our concern is that is that Phase III gets dragged out to four or five years, what will be happening at that point in time. It is in that regard that we have an objection to that comment. Councilwoman Watson - I understand responding to what is going on in the marketplace. Not very many years ago had we responded to what was being done in the marketplace at that time we would be a community of four-plexes and eight-plexes. They haven't proved to last all that long. There are still some going up but now we are seeing this so we still have to take care, even when we are responding to the market we have to be very careful that we are sure what that market is and whether it is going to last. Mayor Hamilton - What we are seeing is single family housing. Councilman Geving - The Planning Commission in their last comment mentioned suitable vegetation be provided along Lake Lucy Road, do you have any thoughts on that Tom? Tom Klingelhutz - We are planning on planting evergreens and trees quite heavily along Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Geving - Will there be any burming? Mark Koegler - The lots at that point are actually fairly well above the street grade. Councilman Geving - So you don't any problem with that recommendation? Tom Klingelhutz - No. Councilman Geving - The only reason that I made that comment, it appears now and for some time at least, the City is going to maintain that part of Lake Lucy Road as a gravel road. Councilman Horn - Your concern about the completion of Wood Duck Lane to Lake Lucy R~in Phase I is that the traffic will cut through the develop- ment and go on the gravel portion? Mark Koegler - It is not that so much. Probably the primary concern is that given the project itself, that first of all it's not needed in Phase I. There are two different ways out in Phase I and we feel that that stretch is most appropriately, the cost of that should be born with Phase II. Our comment on the traffic was that, that is the gravel stretch of Lake Lucy Road and Don mentioned in his report that there is a time frame of two to five years maybe, for Lake Lucy Road. Who knows really and our only other comment was that perhaps if we don't do that until Phase II it buys us 12 more months go see what happens with Lake Lucy Road before we put traffic on to it. Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyone here from the public that wants to make comment on this particular item? Will Johnson - What traffic will you put on West 63rd Street? Mark Koegler - We have not done a study. Basically we anticipate a con- venience factor basically for West 63rd Street. Probably, just ballpark, ten to 15 lots in that area which is probably going to be maybe 80 to 120 cars a day total. I I I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -7- Councilman Horn - Would completion of Wood Duck Lane prevent the traffic from going over on this street? Mark Koegler - I think it will to a point. I think still it's going to be somewhat of a convenience to the lots that are closest to West 63rd Street and Cardinal will probably continue to use West 63rd. As Lake Lucy is improved and it becomes more feasible for more traffic to generate to the south I would assume it would. Councilman Horn - I guess that would be the main argument that I would have to complete Wood Duck Lane down to Lake Lucy Road in Phase I which was the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Geving - If the City puts in the road, we put them all in at one time more than likely. If this becomes a public improvement project we would install all of the streets in one shot. ~ Monk - No. The proposal is to petition for improvements for only Phase I. Staff's thinking when we originally agreed with Phase I was that the two link ups would generate traffic on West 63rd and of course the County Road but that because it was limited in nature, how many lots are actually in Phase I? Mark Koegler - There is 36 all together, eight of which are Mr. Steller's. Bill Monk - That 36 lots would not throw the traffic balance off signifi- cantl~If Phases I and II, 50/60/70 lots were being put on those streets then we would be concerned, but with only that number of lots we thought that with the quick timing phase that's being talked about now that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan review for the Pheasant Hill PRD including the Planning Commission's recom- mendations: 1. Additional right-of-way and improvement plan as recommended by the City Engineer for Steller Circle and the Pheasant Drive connection to County Road 117. 2. Location of tot lot facilities. 3. Dedicated right-of-way to the property north of Lot 25, Block 2. 4. A revised location for the right-of-way line between Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 8, Block 3 as determined by soil conditions. 5. That suitable vegetation be provided along Lake Lucy Road. and including the City Engineer's recommendations in his memorandum dated March 22, 1984 and April 11, 1984. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving - I heard a minute ago that the petition was just for Phase I, but I don't see that in the petition. I see this as for the deve- lopment of Pheasant Hill PRD which is the entire thing. Bill Monk - The developer's request has been fine tuned and he is here to answer-QUestions, but it has been revised to Phase I only and that's included in the map. That question did come up. We probably should have the petition revised and made more explicit but it is just for Phase I. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -8- Councilman Geving - When we go to Chapter 429 Public Improvement Project, the city puts in these public improvements for the developer. We go out and get a bond and sell the bond. We do all the work. We do all the I administration of the project. We eventually assess the project back to benefitting property owners. We carry this on our books for years and years and years. Tonight we looked at some projects that I recognized are 12 or 13 years old or more and my question is, what does it cost the City to carry these kinds of projects over that period of time? Is there an administrative cost that we do not recover? Don Ashworth - The City does incur costs, yes. The charge ranges from 3% to 5%, it goes against the development. It is put into a special fund. That's the Administrative Trust Fund that the City allocates each year to literally pay for the costs the City has incurred over this 15-20 year period of time. Without question, it is a significant cost to the City. It is a burden each year to carry that out. We are carrying out normal accounting so it's not a matter of numerous days, a few hours each year count up. On the other side of the coin, projects such as this would put in an average of about $20,000. Councilman Geving - If you looked at 15 or 20 projects that we have on the books now, would you say that over the life of these projects the City does not incur any costs that we do not recover? Don Ashworth - Any costs asssociated with bonding, engineering, anything while the project is active is charged directly to the project. The 3% to 5% going into Administrative Trust is solely for future costs incurred by the City. This has provided a means by which the City can supplement the General Fund Budget each year. Councilman Geving - The reason that I am commenting on this is that we have in the past approved many of these public improvement projects and we do it, of course, to have an incentive to the developer to get a project like this moving. We like to see a nice project like this proceed and I see nothing wrong with that. There are times though that we have to look at the total picture and how much money we have got out there on these kinds of projects and just how it impacts the City in terms of its bond rating. I have watched our bond rating over the last eight years drop significantly and I would like to have you address this. Don Ashworth - The overall debt is approximately $20 million. That is relatively high for a community of our size. Our bond rating is Baa. Juran and Moody stated that that represented a least an average rating for a community of our size. Each time you sell an issue, the more debt you incur there is a potential of a reduction in the bond rating. The ability of the City to sell is not really questioned. The City has been able to sell and will continue to be able to sell. The bond market recognizes that these are special assessment bonds. They are going against individual par- cels and where the bonding people have been very favorable is where the City has a letter of credit equal to 100% of the cost of the improvement. That has been received very favorably by Moody's. In a case like this we would continue to look to that 100% letter of credit to make sure that the City did not reduce it's bond rating further. Nobody can guarantee where it will be because there is no exact science in the bond rating area. The drop in bond rating has really been more of a change in criteria used by Moody's more so than a percentage change that we have made. Our bond debt in comparison to total valuation is about the same as it was three, four years ago but Moody's has taken a different view. I I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -9- Councilman Geving - Are we going to handle both of these issues as one. The Waldrip thing is a secondary item to this issue. Mayor Hamilton - I want to be sure that should be approve this or whatever bonding that we would approve that the public realize that each issue would have to be looked at individually. Just because we approve one does not mean that we would approve all of them. Councilwoman Watson - It says that the atached petition is in $400,000 range and that is Phase I. Bill Monk - That is Phase I of the Klingelhutz proposal and all of the Waldr~ddition. Councilwoman Watson - What is the Klingelhutz proposal as a separate issue? Bill Monk - About $340,000. Councilwoman Watson - When you go on to Phase II and III what are you going to do about that? Bill Monk - They will have to petition. RESOLUTION #84-21: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution directing staff to prepare a feasibility study for Phase I, Fheasant Hill Addition, TomKay Builders, and a portion of Waldrip's Second Addition. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, 7705 WEST 78TH STREET, DONREED PROPERTIES: DonReed Propeties, in-r980:-spl~nd sold a portion of their property lying approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of West 78th Street and Dakota on the north side of Highway 5. This split was recorded in Hennepin County. The previous owner, Don Reed Properties, is requesting the City's consent authorizing Hennepin County to reassign the tax obligations to the present owner, Conform Building Systems, Inc. Councilman Geving moved to direct staff to send a letter to Hennepin County to split this property for tax purposes as suggested in the City Planner's memorandum dated March 22, 1984. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BEACHLOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CANOE RACKS, LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN. The Colonial Grove Homeowners Association is seeking-approval to construct two canoe racks on Outlot A, Colonial Grove. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Charles Hirt, President, was present. Mayor Hamilton - My only comment is that I think that before the request was even made by the Lotus Lake Betterment Association there should have been a transfer of property from Bloomberg to their association. We are approving something to be built on someone elses property that is not even requesting it and I am not should even deal with it. Charles Hirt - I talked with Bill McRostie and he stated that had been deeded over to the association about two weeks ago. We talked about that at the Planning Commission meeting. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -10- Councilman Geving moved to approve the conditional use permit request from the Lotus Lake Betterment Association to construct two canoe racks having a capacity of six canoes each on Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake on the condition that the property is, in fact, deeded over to the Betterment Association. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REPLAT REQUEST, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 5, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Opus Corporation-rs-requestTng to resubdivide to provide an additional 65 feet on the easterly side lotline of Lot 4, Block 5 for additional parking needs for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center located on Lots 4 and 5, Block 5 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The first phase of parking will produce approximately 65 additional spaces with the second phase poten- tially added onto the southwesterly portion of the building of approxima- tely 25 spaces. Dimensions of Lot 3, after subdivision, would be comparable or greater to that as found of Lots 6 and 7, immediately to the west. Staff recommended approval for a metes and bounds split for Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, with the condition that the applicant submit an indemnity agreement holding the City harmless for any costs associated with the restoration of parking and driving areas on the area lying over the utility between the existing Lots 3 and 4 and that the applicant install landscaping along the new easterly side lot line consistent with the origi- nally approved site plan Chanhassen Lakes Business Center. Robert Worthington - Opus Corporation. I am here to indicate that we con- cur with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilman Horn - This proposal apparently met the parking requirements initially. -OO-we have an adequate parking requirements for other proposals? Bob Waibel - This has been a question that has always come up ever since Chanhassen has experienced its first office/warehouse building. In conver- sation with other communities has indicated they have found no reasonable methods in which to assure that the proper number of parking spaces are allocated. The only sure method, I believe, is by maintaining the policy like we have in all the site plan approvals which is that all parking shall be maintained within the area so designated on the plan. It's a self- policing measure. The applicant should be advised that sufficient land should be set aside or proper tenancy should be maintained on the property to make sure that parking is maintained on premises. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the replat request for Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Opus Corporation, with the recommen- dations of staff and Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING BUSINESS, MINNETON~WEST: Jim Jones, Minnetonka School District, and Tom Wartman, Gardeneer, Inc. were present. Bob Waibel - Essentially it is a request to amend the conditional use per- mit and the Zoning Ordinance to allow for open storage for the adaptive reuse of Minnetonka West Junior High School. The applicant has submitted a plan showing open storage of plant material on the south side and southwest side of the existing school building and vehicle parking on the southeast I I I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -11- corner of the building. Staff has reviewed the site and finds that everything south and southwest of the building is totally screened from public view from surrounding properties. The only portion that is any part at all visible to surrounding properties is the area shown on the plan as vehicle parking area and that would only be visible from the properties approximately a quarter of a mile to the notheast. Staff is recommending approval of the attached proposed amended conditional use permit and Zoning Ordinance and also approval would be conditioned upon the applicant con- ducting the outside storage activities on the property as shown in staff recommended outside storage plan, attachment 3a. Essentially all that does is, displaces the vehicle parking area to the plant material storage area directly south of the building. That would have less of a visual impact in the fact that the plant material would be stored in the most visual area of the property. Councilman Geving - Gardeneer is proposing to build a temporary building, could you tell me what the construction of that building will be? Tom Wartman - The construction will be pretty much along the lines of a pole barn building only the exterior will be a masonite siding and it will have a pitched roof.~~at comes forward and it's basically in the vicinity of a westerly' backboard that was left from the old hockey rink. The site vision from all of the homes is totally s.c,re~nedl unless someone comes around to the front of the building. It has"a"inetal roof on it. Councilman Geving - On attachment 4, I would like to add a clause that would include temporary buildings and what we are going to do with those temporary buildings when they terminate. I would like to build into this conditional use permit a clause that says that that building will be either reused for another purpose or that it would be dismantled and carted away. Tom Wartman - In our basic agreement with the school district it would be dismantled and removed. Bob Waibel - The Planning Commission did recommend approval as per staff's recommendation with the addition that the permit be subject to review and reconsideration three years after the execution of an agreement with the City and Minnetonka School District and Gardeneer. Tom Wartman - I did go around and personally knock on almost every adjoining property owner that was adjacent to the general school area and had only favorable comments on the use and the fact that this was for all their intents and purposes screened. At the public hearing nobody showed with the exception of the two gentlemen that were across 41 and they were not at all opposed to the project they were just concerned as to why they had not been notified a year ago. Mayor Hamil~on mov~d to approve the Zoning Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit ameridm~nt r~~uests for landscaping, contracting business at Minnetonka West incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations, spe- cifically, that ~t the end of three years th~ pe~mit would be renegotiated also that the outside storage would be also be negotiated. Further con- ditioned that outside storage activities be conducted as shown in attach- ment 3A. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -12- SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, MCI CORPORATION: Bill Roberge and Jerry Bialecki were present seeking subdivision variance appro- val and conditional use permit approval to erect a 300 foot radio com- munication tower facility at the southwest corner of Audubon Road and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad crossing. Councilman Geving moved to approve a subdivision lot area variance and con- ditional use permit for the construction of a cellular radio communication facility and tower as presented in Planning Case 84-3 Subdivision and 84-1 Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. That a revised site plan be submitted showing the placement of the tower in a location more central to the proposed property line. 2. That the plans submitted for building permit approval be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 3. That an on-site soils investigation be conducted in accordance with the recommendation of the Soil Conservation Office. 4. That the tower be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. 5. That the applicant obtain all necessary local, state, and federal agency permits and approvals. 6. That the subdivision be recorded in the form of a plat. 7. That the fenced in area be screened using thick, dense landscape materia1s~ Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Counci1menHo~n'and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, FOX HOLLOW PRD, B-T LAND COMPANY: Rick Murray and Rick Sather were present. Bob Waibel - This is a final plan revision. The Council, in 1982, approved a-p1an showing 140 four-p1ex and eight-p1ex units on the property. The applicant now is requesting to divide the same portion of area into 95 single family detached lots. The plan here is similar to the plan which was approved in 1982 in that it shows the wetland area on the property to be virtually undeveloped. The proposal shows 25 foot front yard setbacks with five foot side yard setbacks on side lot lines which would have a garage constructed on it. A blanket construction easement is proposed to be granted over to the City along the edge of the wetlands for trai1way purposes. Such is also consistent with previous approvals. The plan reflects the provision of access to surrounding properties with the excep- tion of the Hulett property in the northwest corner of the project area. At this point in time Staff finds that access to this property is most likely to be located in the vicinity of Lot 21, however, the applicant has indicated to us that they would like to leave this portion of the plat in an outlot fashion until we find out more about what kind of streets this is going to be to the west, taking into account the park plan as well the property the City is talking with Bloomberg about. As it stands today it appears that some sort of access would come to the west and curve to Pleasant View Road and then some form of access should be dedicated tin the vicinity of Lot 21 to' reach the Hulett property. The Department of Transportation has given us a letter since the writing of this report indi- cating that the applicant should be constructing right in access lanes and by-pass lanes along Highway 101. The City Engineer has recommended that all non-cu1-de-sac rights-of-way be 50 feet in width. This has been discussed at length by Staff since the Planning Commission meeting and we find that 50 foot rights-of-way should be consistently maintained I I I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -13- throughout the development area. For administrative purposes it would also be required in the straight lengths of the cul-de-sac. The standard that Staff is recommending at this point in time is 50 foot rights-of-way on all streets, street sections, the only difference being the bubbles and allowance for 25 foot front yard setback. Staff recommends that if the Council approves the final development plan amendment for Fox Hollow PRO that a condition be that the applicant submit a revised final plan showing the proposed street names consistent with the theme for this portion of the City, increased rights-of-way at 50 feet, right turn lanes off Trunk Highway 101 and by-pass lanes as recommended by MnDOT and the access to the Richard Kartak property being dedicated as a right-of-way. The second con- dition is that the final plat show the area in the northwesterly portion of the property as an outlot until more information is available concerning the transportation system to the park land to the west. The Planning Commission did adopt these same recommentations with the exception that the final plat area shown in the northwesterly portion of the property to be put in outlot include Lots 17-23, Block 1. I assume that that's also included in the Staff recommended area of Lots 26-28 also down in this area. Incidentally, the applicant has submitted a petition and inadver- tently it was not copied for the Council but he can elaborate on that during his presentation as far as the consent of the number of adjoining homeowners that they had obtained prior to the public hearing. Councilwoman Watson - The problem with access, the one street that ends up in the park and the one that goes to 101, the one that goes to the park really goes nowhere. Rick Murray - That's correct. That really doesn't go any there yet. The City is working on a plan with Mr. Bloomberg that this would continue and be connected. That was part of the discussion that I had with Bill and Dawn Hulett that without knowing where that road was and without showing that right-of-way, it was just as reasonable to think their access could be some place to the west as it was to think that their access could come through our property. Right now, there is no proposal on where that road is going to be aligned. Mayor Hamilton - Richard Kartak has an access onto Highway 101, how far is that from where you are proposing your street access onto 101? Rick Murray - Approximately 270 feet from where his driveway is right now. Mayor Hamilton - Next to Outlot A in the northeast corner, you have got an easement. Rick Murray - That's a 50 foot road easement. The City has requested that that be a 50 foot road right-of-way to provide access to Kartak property is he would subdivide in the future. Mayor Hamilton - Have to talked to Mr. Kartak? Rick Murray - He wasn't home the evening that I circulated the petition. I talked to Mr. Kartak and I think he signed the previous petition which also showed this access at that point. Councilman Horn - Doesn't the right turn lane start right in the middle of his drivewa~ Rick Murray - I suppose it will intersect his driveway at some point. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -14- Councilman Geving - Let's talk about the conservation easement and how this is going to affect, it said in here construction easement and I am not so sure that that's correct. On the Staff report on page 3 down at the bottom, I "A blanket construction easment is proposed to be granted to the City of Chanhassen along the edge of the wetlands for trailway purposes," are we talking about a blanket conservation easement? Rick Murray - Right now we have a development contract with the City that spells out the kind of easement and the restrictions that go on this. I guess our petition does not ask to change that at all. All we are asking for is a land use change. Councilman Geving - As long as it doesn't affect the contract with the City. I think there is an awful lot of traffic that is going to be generated on a one access egress from a development like this. It just seems like we just keep piling traffic onto 101. When you construct that entrance to your development, will it be an entrance like you have now for Lotus Lake Estates? Rick Murray - With the exception of the center island. The planting and landscaping wi.llbe around the pond at the entrance. Councilman Geving - Let's go all the way over to the west then. How are you going to terminate that road? Rick Murray - It will be a temporary cul-de-sac for the time being. Councilman Geving - Earlier we had a discussion between Clark and I on a I cul-de-sac versus a "T". I suspect that will come up again. Clark is an advocate of "T's" and I like the cul-de-sac. In either event it will be a temporary one. Rick Murray - We are looking at it being temporary. At one time the Staff indicated that they may have some definitive ideas of what's going on here. Councilman Geving - In this case you may have to put the cul-de-sac in there because if you look at some of the other cul-de-sacs you will see that they are 45 and 40 feet, if you look at some of these other cul-de- sacs that's exactly what you have got, 45 foot entrance to your property. Rick Murray - This portion right here is what we are talking about creating an-Dutlot out of at this time and I think probably the most reasonable solution would be to run this bubble to the north for the time being until that access is resolved. Hopefully, by that time the City will have planned or have some ideas for a plan on what's going on to the west. Bob Waibel - Another point about that particular question is that access is designed to perhaps angling in a manner to allow for creating distance bet- ween this point Rick Murray - To anticipate a question if this was put in, Bob was saying he wanted to anticipate that this cul-de-sac wasn't locked in unless there I was a reasonable lot arrangement that could be worked out there. Now I am not sure that this is exactly where the thing would go but as you can see it does work out so that a reasonable lot layout. What we had originally proposed was that Lots 20-23 would be left as an outlot and that we would be able to plat that cul-de-sac. What the Planning Commission had recom- mended was that we could plat half the cul-de-sac. It would be a very high I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -15- cost road until something happens out here to the west. We had a sketch done to show how we could provide access to the north and if this is all we ever had that's what we would end up with. We would end up with a lot con- figuration like this. We wouldn't have to change the road. Councilman Geving - I think that the long range aspect of what's going to happen to the west is very unpredictable. There are just too many things that have to happen to put that together. Mayor Hamilton - The J. E. Nichols property to the north of your property, that appears to be landlocked. Bob Waibel - That's correct. His property is on a private access easement. There is a home on that property. Two years ago, Mr. Murphy, who lived next to the Nichols property, wanted to find out about subdividing his pro- perty but the Council did not approve a variance to subdivide because there was no public street access coming in here. It is landlocked in the essense that he only has a private access easement to get to Pleasant View Road. Rick Murray - Is that peculiar to his property alone or are there several properties? Bob Waibel - There are several properties. Mayor Hamilton - What is the overall density? Bob Waibel - 2.00 units per acre gross. Councilwoman Watson - I understand the market but for someone who is not real crazy about small lots I am getting on big dose of small lots tonight. Sixty-five foot frontages, 851s, Lot 23 is about big enough for a cul-de- sac. Some of these lots are really small and when you figure the gross density and take the wetland out of it the 2.0 looks good but you realize the average lot is 12,000 square feet. I am gradually adjusting to the small lot but these are really small lots. Councilman Horn - Just to help you out, would you rather have 140 four-plex units on the-5ame piece of ground? Councilwoman Watson - I am not going to compare the two issues. I understand what you are saying but that really doesn't make me more comfor- table. Councilman Horn - Just the number of living units is what I was comparing not the type of construction. You are going from 140 living units to 95 living units. Councilwoman Watson - That's not making the lot bigger. It sounds terrific, 140 down to 95, it sounds like there should be lots of land but the lots are very small. Mayor Hamilton - Tax wise, the City is much more benefitted with single family detached homes than 140 four-plexes. Councilwoman Watson - I like the single family homes much better. just getting an awfully big dose of 8,000 square foot lots and we all our small lot business in a very short time. We don't really lot to compare it to. I am have got have a Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -16- Councilman Geving - I think the true density on this is about 3.0. Rick Murray - It's 3.95. Councilman Geving - You have got 60 acres, at least, in outlots. That's pretty hefty. I Rick Murray - It's within your low density. Councilman Geving - I know. I sat on this Council for a long time and if this plat had been presented several years ago it wouldn't have flown at all. Of course the time has changed. The market has changed. Mayor Hamilton - Rick, can you give me some idea on a typical 8,500 square foot lot, the type of home that you would propose to put on there and where you may position it so we can get a better flavor for how that lot is going to look. Rick Murray - That plan shows a 25 foot setback. We were basing that around a 40 foot street width. The Planning Commission had approved a 50 foot street width but had suggested a 20 foot setback. There are other cities right now with that as an ordinance. Be that as it may, it's not here yet. Our proposal with the reduced setback in the front yard was, instead of, on a small lot you have to have a very controlled situation. If you do control the situation you can end up with a very nice house. We put samples of the housing styles in the back of our brochure. We have three contractors for sure and possibly a fourth contractor which are designing homes for these lots. Each contractor has to come in with his set of blueprints. Those blueprints are what he can build in this subdivision. If he wants to change those after we initially approve them as a group, there will be five of us on the architectual review committee, he has to get a majority of the group which means he has to convince two of his peers or myself that it's best for the subdivision to allow him to change his approved design. That is there to protect everyones investment. Our idea in having a reduced setback was, on a small lot it is very easy to come up with two small unusable areas, front yard and back yard. We thought that by positioning the house forward on the lot you do a couple of things, reduce the cost to the homeowner and cost effective housing is one of the things that these lots were designed around. That extra five feet in the setback depth is about $1,800 to the homeowner in the cost of the lot. That's sewer and water connection, sod, landscaping, and driveways. Besides that, if you analyze the lot like you would a house you would say that this area right here would be the front yard is more or less the living room for the lot. The backyard is where you put the swing sets, the sand box, that's where the kids play, that's where you barbecue. We have designed it so the house is pulled forward so there would be more space in the backyard. Hopefully, more usable space back there. Mayor Hamilton - What is the side yard? I Rick Murray - Five feet on the garage side and ten feet on the living space STde. We are not certain right now if we would allow them to put garages I together. Fire protection is generally the reason why you don't want ten feet. You only have ten feet possibly on one side. You can still get a fire truck down the other side. I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -17- Councilman Geving - What's the square footage of the homes that would be on the smaller lots? Rick Murray - The smallest plan that I have seen so far is 928 square feet. Councilman Geving - What is the price of that kind of home? Rick Murray - That was not the least expensive. $81,900 was the least that we have had. Councilman Geving - You are going to offer a range of homes based upon the lot styles, would that be your lowest range then? Rick Murray - I would say $80,000 to $115,000. Mayor Hamilton - If you want the people to live here that are going to be employed here then you have to be able to have homes that they can afford. Councilman Geving - I agree with that. Rick Murray - I would like to make one comment on the department of transportation which Bill and I talked about. I called for Mr. Green and I talked his secretary and we are arranging a meeting next week. Originally when this was proposed there were no turn lanes or acceleration lanes. I could build this project right now with 140 condominiums without any of that and I was a little put back to find out that now not only do I have to improve turn lanes which I find attractive and an amenity to my property so I don't mind doing that but I have to go to the other side of the road and improve a state highway which I am sure they have got a lot more money than I do. What really irritates me is if you will look at your sketch, the gentleman who is doing this piece right here on Highway 101 doesn't have to do anything across the highway. The Eden Prairie developer just puts one slow down lane down and that's it. I have a discussion planned for Mr. Green. We would like to have that lifted as a requirement for access. Councilman Geving - How about that holding pond there, how much water will be in there at anyone time? The one in the middle of the development. Rick Sather - What we have shown is we would dig it out five feet below the elevation that we would let the water run out at. The pipe elevation, we would go another five feet. Both of those southerly ponds would be very close to the elevation of the marsh and I think the permanent ground water level is about at that same elevation. I can't imagine where we would have less than four feet of water in there which is enough to keep the weed growth out of the center. We would intent that the slopes into the pond would be three to one, a pretty gentle slope so that you would have to wade out about ten feet to a child's height. We are not going to build a drop- off. Councilman Horn moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan for Fox Hollow PRO, B-T Land Company conditioned that Mr. Murray work with Mr. Kartak to make certain the right turn lane will not interfere with his driveway and with the following Planning Commission conditions: 1. That the applicant submit a revised final plan showing proposed street names consistent with the theme for this portion of the City, increased rights-of-way of 50 feet for all non cul-de-sac streets, right turn Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -18- lane off of Highway 101 as recommended by MnDOT and the access to the Richard Kartak property being dedicated as a right-of-way. 2. That the final plat show the area in the northwesterly most portion of the property (Lots 17-23, Block 1) as an outlot until more information is available concerning the transportation system for the park land to the west. Further conditioned on the Engineer's comments in his memorandum dated March 22, 1984. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. I Scott Martin - The Planning Commission is recommending that the rights-of- way be at 50 feet. As far as I know this plan does have some at 40. Your typical lot shows a 25 foot setback. Neither of those, given in light of the Planning Commission recommendation which is now in this motion are con- sistent with what I think your desires are. As I understand it you are willing to accept a 50 foot right of way but then you would like to have the setback reduced another five foot to 20 foot. Bob Waibel - I believe it was 20 foot for the 50 foot right-of-way sections and 25 foot for 40 foot sections. Scott Martin - Just so the Council is aware of that. You are making a rather substantial change in policy for setbacks. Councilman Geving - I never heard before this came up that this would move the setbacks back another five feet. Scott Martin - On our typical street section, a 28 foot street, 50 foot right-of-way, and you only require a 30 foot front yard, we have reduced I that in the case of Near Mountain to 25 foot and Mr. Murray is asking you go another five foot. It doesn't come out that clear. There has been a lot of conversation between staff and Rick and I think it might be clear to us but I don't think it is clear in the report. That is his intent. Rick Murray - Your difference between asphalt and front of house between what I was proposing with a 50 foot and 20 foot setback is identical to what Mr. Pflaum has with a 40 foot right-of-way and 25 foot setback. Councilman Geving - If I park my 19 foot car in my driveway in your deve- lopment. Rick Murray - You would be 11 feet behind the curb. Councilman Horn - The only difference is you would have the back end of your car closer to the center of the street. Rick Murray - But you would still be 11 feet behind the curb. Bob Waibel - In the Near Mountain project they have 36 units of quads approved here. They came in for a plan amendment last summer. It was approved for a 40 foot right-of-way with 25 foot front yard setback which is equivalent to the 50 foot, 20 foot front yard setback that we are talking about in this plan. The remainder of the Near Mountain project is I showing 50 foot rights-of-way with the same 25 foot front yard setback that was approved here. I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -19- Scott Martin - The distinction that we are drawing is a looped street that's going to carry more traffic versus the short cul-de-sacs and in my opinion, it's a matter of aesthetics. Rick is saying that those lots, as building sites, are going to be more marketable if it's the rear yard that you can turn your attention to. I only wanted to point that out because I want you to understand that it is different. You are reviewing single lots in this case, whether we should reduce the front yard setbacks at the same time, I don't know. Rick Murray - When we addressed this problem the first time, staff's con- cern was, well it's 40 foot streets, where are we going to store the snow and I said that's a legitimate concern so, what if we made it 50 feet and gave the public sector another five feet of green space. With respect to the curb line, that wasn't going to change. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF COUNTY ROADS 17 AND 18 INTERSECTION~LLSIDE OAKS:-- -- --- -- Bob Waibel - The City Council has seen this particular proposal in sketch Plan review. The Council had asked that the applicant go back and redraw the plans to attempt to maintain a minimum 2! acre lot size. The revised preliminary plat has achieved that minimum lot size by virtue of the fact that previous Lot 8 has been removed. They found some soil and water table problems so as a result they removed that lot and distributed it amongst the rest of the lots. The only other revision in the plan since you last saw it is the fact that they platted a 25 foot pedestrian easement to get to Lot 6 to allow for better pedestrian access to what might be park in this area. Staff finds that there is no problem with that particular design. The applicant has submitted soil percolation test data as required by ordinace. They do fall within the On Site Septic System Ordinanace standards and staff recommends approval. Councilman Geving - I guess I would be a little bit disturbed by those per- colation tests. It looks like a lot of standing water after 24 hours at various depths. Do you have any comment on that? ~ Klingelhutz - I think the water table is good for Carver County and Chanhassen. We have got some at 96 inches. To tell you the truth, the soil percolation tests and the soil borings where taken at probably what you could consider the absolute worst time of the year, right in the spring thaw after the big melt. The ground was saturated with water and the fellow that did the percolation tests said, any other time of the year you could look to a 20 to 40% better percolation than what these showed and yet these were good enough to pass city standards. Councilman Geving - Apparently our city standards are pretty low. If you look at Lots 4 and 3, I know those lots, they are very low. Where would you build a house on Lots 3 and 4? ~ Klingelhutz - You have got some high area in Lot 4. Councilman Geving - Where did they take the percolation tests? Al Klingelhutz - They took them down fairly low. In fact some of them I dldn't think where they took them that they were even going to pass but they did. They were that far down below the hill. Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -20- Councilman Geving - That's why I say, like in Lot 3 for example, that's quite low also. ~ Klingelhutz - You look at the contours and see how the elevation goes up there you get to the back part of the lot and you go up pretty high. I Councilman Geving - It just seemed like, based on those percolation tests, to me, they are kind of worthless. You did it and you paid for it and it told us that had they been taken at some other time you probably would have faired better. ~ Klingelhutz - We have a booklet for each lot and as the lots are sold each purchaser will get exactly what he is supposed to do on his lot to get a satisfactory septic tank and drainfield and even to put the tile in around his house. Councilwoman Watson - Have you got perspective buyers for any of these lots? ~ Klingelhutz - Three of the lots are actually sold contingent on final plat approval. On each purchase agreement it says that all parties have been informed about the possibility of the landfill site south of County Road 18. If we could possibly get the final plat approved you would pro- bably seem them in here for a building permit for two of the lots next week. Councilman Geving moved to approve the preliminary plat for Hillside Oaks, I located at the northeast and northwest corners of County Roads 17 and 18, for Brian and Neil Klingelhutz, Planning Case 84-2. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. GRADING PERMIT CONDITIONS, ROY TEICH: David Teich was present. Bill Monk - When this item was first brought up there were 11 conditions that were spelled out and agreed to. As a part of this one of the items remains unfinished. I am hopeful that the PCA will cooperate and will view the site and if they come back with positive findings I will be more than pleased to conclude this. Councilman Geving - So in effect what you are saying, Bill, is you want to finalize this thing once and for all even if there is work yet to be done. Bill Monk - Basically, his plan is complete and I am saying okay if it is complere-and we are using the PCA as justification to say it is complete, let's just get their final word that they are happy and that there are no violations to their codes out there right now and if that is the case, I am more than happy with the Council's approval to say that this item is complete and return the bond. Councilman Geving - How much money do we have? Bill Monk - There is about a $400 deposit that was put down at the beginning. Some of that money has been spent on water tests and a number of items. There also is a $10,000 or $15,000 bond that is still being held pending final resolution of this item. I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -21- David Teich - I am trying to buy that farm and move there. I was born and raised there. My secondary concern is to get that bond back. That bond was supposed to run concurrently with the permit that was approved in January. The bond ran until March 24th at which time the bonding company needed more money to carry the bond on because you people wouldn't release it. You people told us you would release it when a second bond was posted by Mr. Ingram which I believe was posted last November. It wasn1t. The first of the year we called. They said yes, within a week we would have it. We still haven1t got it. Mayor Hamilton - I think the requirement was that the bond would be released when the work was completed. David Teich - It has gotten very cloudy. We want to see it finalized also. We are more than happy to cooperate and have an expert or whoever you people decide is an expert to come out and review that ravine. I would also like to get a letter of intent from the staff to tell us that if we get the PCA or someone else that you people want to name to come out and review it and they okay it, that, that does finally resolve the conflict that we have. Bill Monk - The minutes of tonight's meeting will act as justification or clarification on the release. Minutes can be certified. The Council can approve in it's motion, basically approving the conclusion of this item so that whether staff writes them a letter saying it can be released, these minutes will act as a release. We will contact the PCA as quickly as possible. Councilwoman Watson moved to accept the City Engineer's report of April 13, 1984. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. LOT AREA AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 26, BLOCK ~ RED CEDAR POINT: Mayor-Hamilton moved to refer this item-rQ the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for consideration. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SKETCH PLAN, 7251 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DUANE BARTH: Bob Waibel - ~proposal is to divide the 6.27 acre parcel into 15 single family lots. The proposal also includes a provision of 550 foot cul-de-sac down the center of the property to provide access. There is an existing residence on the property that would have to be removed or relocated prior to development occurring. The proposed subdivision requires variances to the Shoreland Management Ordinance for minimum lot area, Recreational Beach Lot Ordinance for lot depth and dockage and the Subdivision Ordinance for street frontage and length of cul-de-sac. The Shoreland Management requirements states that the minimum lot size in the shoreland area shall be 15,000 square feet whereas the Subdivision Ordinance bases it upon an average of 15,000 square feet allowing for some slippage in the lot sizes depending upon the terrain of the property or the location of the lots themselves relative to the streets. The DNR has indicated that they could support an amendment to our Shoreland Management Regulations to allow for an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. They concur with the position that staff has suggested in this report that using an average could result in better designed lots depending upon the local terrain of where the lots Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -22- would plan to be. Using a minimum of 15,000 square feet may serve as a disincentive for the applicant to create properly designed lots. You would I achieve a somewhat lower density from a 2.9 to perhaps 2.8 units per acre but the lots, from an economic standpoint probably would come as close as they could to the minimum not taking into account design and locationa1 factors of those lots. The Planning Commission did not support that posi- tion and recommended that the plat come in with an average of 15,000 square feet. The Recreational Beach Lot Ordinance requires that each recreational beach lot have a width measured at both the ordinary high water mark and a point 100 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than four lineal feet per each dwelling unit which has rights to the beach lot. The minimum width that Mr. Barth would have to propose on this frontage of the 1akeshore would be 60 feet reflecting the 15 units which would have rights. However, to have a dock you would have to maintain a minimum of 100 foot depth and 200 foot width from the 1akeshore. Additionally, the Beach Lot Ordinance would only allow for one dock. Additionally, DNR regu- lations would concur with that, that only one dock would be permitted. Mr. Barth has been notified that also open area storage or mooring of boats would not be allowed on those docks as per our regulations. Staff does see some room for variance as far as the Beach Lot Ordinance is concerned in this particular plan. The Planning Commission has concurred with that and has encouraged Mr. Barth to redesign his plan to show slightly altered beach lot configuration. He does exceed the minimum width requirements for docks by approximately 100%. It's 190 feet where all you would have to have is the minimum. He is providing substantial area for active play. I would suggest that the Council entertain the concept that Mr. Barth rede- sign his plan to show some interior extension of the beach lot. Staff I finds that perhaps Mr. Barth should redesign his plan to redistribute the frontages along this area trying to get a somewhat larger frontage here. Lot 8 does have one of the better building sites. I think the trade off is not to extend the street and add impervious surface area any more than need be, yet allow for reasonable amount of frontage, variance, for Lot 8 to develop and be included in the plat. The City Engineer has indicated that the proposed road way can make minimum grade of 7%. There would have to be drainage and grading plan submitted at the time preliminary plat is sub- mitted to verify that fact. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the plan and has recommended that park dedication fees be paid at the time building permit applications are taken out on the individual lots. They see no consistency with the comprehensive plan for dedication of land from this particular plan. The Planning Commission did encourage Mr. Barth to proceed to preliminary plat review taking into account those comments concerning the beach lot area, the cul-de-sac, frontage on Lot 8 and also to approach the Council and receive their comments in addition to theirs before he proceeds to the preliminary plat. Councilman Horn - The entrance to the beach lot, is that between Lots 14 and 13? Duane Barth - That's correct. It would be a walking path. Councilwoman Watson - On Lots 8 and 9, that's quite high isn't it? Duane Barth - This elevation and the lake elevation is around 36 feet. I Councilwoman Watson - What kind of 1akeshore is it there? Duane Barth - It's sandy and it does have some grass. I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -23- Councilman Geving - What can we do with Lot 8 to make that cul-de-sac come around better. It just seems like that whole plan could be shifted somewhat. Duane Barth - There might be able to do some adjustment. Councilman Geving - I think if you started at the 110 you could make that adjustment pretty nicely so that at least we would have 40/45 feet on Lot 8. You recognize that something has to be done with Lot 8. Scott Martin - Typically on a cul-de-sac or pie shaped lot like that you try to shoot for a 40 foot minimum. Your building frontage is measured at the building setback line. Councilman Geving - It is always amazing to me, on Lotus Lake, if a plan like this were presented tonight this room would be full. Lake Minnewashta we have got quite a bit of lake frontage there shown and there is nobody here to oppose it. Bob Waibel - There is 190 feet of frontage for the beach lot. He needs a minimum for a dock of 100 feet of frontage and 100 foot of depth. He has got 53 feet in depth. Councilman Geving - With those slopes, I can see right now there is not any room. Scott Martin - I think the reason, as I call because I was involved with Recreational Beach Lot Ordinance, this is really the first time that you have had a chance to apply it on a new subdivision. The reason that I think the Lake Study Committee was concerned about that is they didn't want postage stamp size beach lot serving huge subdivisions so they tried to put some minimum control factor. Here you have got a small beach lot and a small subdivision. Councilman Geving - Would you have a homeowners association connected with this to maintain the beach lot? Duane Barth - Yes. Another thing I was wondering about this ordinance, the 100 by 100 means 10,000 square feet and so it does set up a guideline for that. Actually my square footage would be almost double that. Bob Waibel - Going back to this cul-de-sac frontage on Lot 8, bear in mind the Planning Commission's recommendation not to amend the Shoreland Management Ordinance and stick with the 15,000 square foot requirement. Scott Martin - I think the real issue here beyond any problems that we may have with the beach lot is whether in a shoreland area we want to give a little on minimum lot size. Technically, when you read that the ordinance says you cannot have less than 15,000 square foot lots in 1,000 of this type of a lake but DNR is saying they typically go along with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. Unless I am wrong about this, this does meet the average test but it doesn't meet the minimum per see If this were 24 lots or more it would be thrown in the City's PUD Ordinance and then it's a moot issue. Duane Barth - I think the smallest lot is 11,800. Council Meeting, April 16, 1984 -24- Scott Martin - I think this gentlemen's surveyor went through our Subdivision Ordinance and it said minimum lot size 11,700 with an average density of 15,000 square feet. He did that appropriately except what he didn't take into consideration was the Shore1and Management Regulations. Bob Waibel - DNR has approved such amendments to other community's Shore1and Management Ordinance, however, they could not approve this plan until we have enacted an amendment of our own. I Councilman Horn - Our own Subdivision Ordinance requires 15,000 square feet. ---- Scott Martin - When you get into the shore1and area we have, in most cases, been more restrictive and that over rides it. Councilman Horn - Ours is an average in a non PUD? Bob Waibel - That's correct. Scott Martin - I think part of the reason is that you see few subdivisions this small. Technically, the minimum lot size is 11,700 square feet. Because there are no people here, I want you to understand that notices were not sent out because this is just being bounced off you to see if you like it or hate it or want to make some changes. Councilman Geving - What would our wetland ordinance have to say? - I Bob Waibel - There are no wetlands on this property according to the offi- cial map. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be reviewing the plan and may have some comments. The areas where Mr. Barth would need imput is con- cerning the possible variances to the shore1and for minimum lot size or action to amend the shore1and ordinance to allow for an average, the recreational beach lot, what Mr. Barth should do as far as proceeding with this design for variance or making changes, also for lot width, and the length of the cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Watson - I don't have any trouble with the configuration of the open space. I think it's the only way it can be and I think that's fine. I would like to see the lots in there at 15,000 square feet. I think if they made them a minimum of 15,000 square feet there would be frontage for Lot 8. If he could even get 40 feet in there so that that lot is more accessible. I realize it is probably one of the nicer lots but I would like to see all these lots at a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Councilman Geving - I would like to see us clean up Lot 8 with a larger frontage on the cul-de-sac and also some comments regarding those boat slips. I would like to know what is permissible under our ordinances. Bob Waibel - One dock to be not longer than 50 feet or what it takes to reach four feet in depth in the water. Councilman Horn - I agr~e with Dale's comments. Mayor Hamilton - I think that 15,000 square feet should be maintained. Lot 8 needs greater access on the cul-de-sac. I I I I Council Meeting April 16, 1984 -25- Bob Waibel - For the record, the Council is not amenable to amending our shoreland ordinance to enable Mr. Barth to proceed with the average of 15,000 square feet. Councilman Horn - I would rather see three lakeshore lots. Councilman Geving - I would buy that idea. Take the beach lot and make them lakeshore lots and forget about the access for the rest of the homeowners. Duane Barth - The numbers don't work out that way. We can't get that much for the lake lots. I would be in favor of this plan amended some how. Scott Martin - Since this is a deadlock, I will way this to Mr. Barth, we have a two/two deadlock and can probably guess what the missing member would say but you will need a 4/5th vote so I would say go back to 15,000 square foot lots. Mayor Hamilton - The missing member would go along with the 15,000 square foot lots. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager