Loading...
1985 05 20 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 20, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the Agenda as presented with the addition of Chanhassen City History under Administrative Presentations. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Final Plat Approval, Maple Ridge. b. 4th of July Fireworks Permit Request, Minnewashta Fireworks, Bill Naegele. c. Amendment to Ordinance 9-B, Excludes Raguet Wildlife Management Area, Final Reading d. Appointment to South Shore Senior Citizen Adviosry Board. e. Approval of Fire Department's Annual Softball Tournament. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW TRI PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVING RANGE ~ THE NORTHWEST CORNER QI lli 1 AND fR ~ CONTINUATION QI PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Bill Monk: The Council called a public hearing in January and tabled action on the item at that point after talking with the applicant. There was a field review just recently where the Council members all had a chance to review the site. It was put back on the agenda in trying to come up with some final action to try and get the item off and rolling. There being no comment from the public, Councilman Geving moved to close the Public Hearing. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -2- TRI PROPERTIES f U P FOR DRIVING RANGE: Mayor Hamilton: The Council did go out and review the property and we do have the recommendations from the City Engineer. When the Council went out and reviewed this property, it was rather disgusting to see what had taken place on the property. I felt that the Council had been more than fair with John Pryzmus and TRI Properties in allowing him to begin this project without submitting to us a detailed plan and spe- cifications for exactly what he was going to do, which at the time, he told us was not going to be very significant; a small amount of grading, planting of grass and building of golf tees. There has been considerable construction and destruction of the land at this point. Consequently, I am going to recommend the following: That no work be done until the following have been completed: 1. The temporary shelter be made completely safe as deemed by the City Inspector and secure so that no transient or other outsider can use the shelter within the building; or the building be completely removed. 2. That all miscellaneous debris be cleaned up and properly disposed of. 3. That any and all stumps, branches, brush, dirt or other material not previously found in or within 25 feet of the creek be removed and the land be restored to its previous state. 4. Any and all chemicals must be removed from the site and none are to be used in the future without the City staff consent. 5. Contour maps and detailed site plans must be approved by the City Council. 6. A $500 fine for violation of the permit. This must be p~id, but can be refunded when compliance with items 1-5 have been met. 7. A $5,000 bond be posted so if the work is not completed by August 30, 1985, the City will use the bond proceeds to restore the ground to the state that existed prior to the now questioned improvements. Councilman Geving: I would like to see a target date for the completion for the entire project. That is one thing that we have not had in the past, and this keeps going on and on and gets worse. I would also like to assign a member of our staff, namely, Bill Monk, to act as the person tracking this project to see that it gets done. I would also like to make one other point. When we approved this project, we approved it with no electrical hook-ups. There is electricity running allover that place out there. There is also exposed wires from the main hut all the way down to the driving tees. Councilwoman Swenson: Under Section 27. Violations and Penalties, 27.01 ..... shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $300.00 or by imprisonment for not to exceed 90 days. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. On what day is this violation beginning? Bill Monk: That raises a question, and I would like to direct it to Roger Knutson, City Attorney. On the $500 fine, would the City have to move to revoke the permit or could it cite a violation and institute the $300 fine. Roqer Knutson: No you wouldn't have to. violating the permit. As an alternative do one or the other. Fines and criminal You could cite them criminally for you could also revoke. You wouldn't have to sentences, of course, go back to the courts. Bill Monk: That is just for a violation, even if we do not revoke it. Roger Knutson: That is correct. Councilwoman Swenson: Then the violation begins the day of the court judgment? I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 - 3- Roger Knutson: No. For example, the court finds this applicant was in violation on July 1, 2, 3 and 4, or whatever, for each day the court would have the discretion to impose upon. If they were found to be guilty today, it wouldn't be that they would fine them today until it gets cleaned up. It would go backwards and say what days were you in violation of the permit and those would be the days that they could be fined. Mayor Hamilton: My intent was not to fine them on a daily basis, but just to make a fine for the period that could refunded once all the conditions have been met. Hopefully, that would give him some incentive to get it done and get the place cleaned up. Councilwoman Watson: Would October 30th be a good target date, giving him the entire summer to get it completed. Mayor Hamilton: I thought August 30th was pretty generous, because none of my con- ditions are to complete the project. My conditions are to clean it up. As far as a completion date, he is going to have to come back here and get his plans approved. Once he does that, then the clock starts running as far as the completion of the project i's concerned. Councilwoman Swenson: I object to the clean up time being that long. There is an unsafe building out there and debris out in the yard, the residents in that area have to be continuously exposed to it all summer. I don't think that the people in the City should have to drive by all of that mess and I don't think the children of the City should have be subjected to the danger of a collapsible building. I think that something should be done immediately. Councilman Gevinq: I think that the chemicals should be pulled immediately. Bill Monk: I did check the chemicals out. I pulled the top on it and it was filled with just water and was used to support the pump that was watering the tee area. Councilwoman Swenson: What are we permited to do to protect our citizens of this City from an old appliance lying out there and the building out there, which is a very unsafe structure. Roqer Knutson: There are a lot of procedures available. You could direct them to remove it immediately and fine him on a daily basis if he doesn't. You could also immediately sue for criminal prosecution. There are a lot statutory procedures for abating nuisances. Mayor Hamilton: We have to proceed with this formally, otherwise, he will not abide with our instructions. Bill Monk: One option, if the Council were to comply, would be to make a specific interpretation of the fine. Say the $300 would be for every 30 days if this con- tinues. Then with the site plan, tell him that he has until August 30 to get back with a revised site plan on what he is going to do with the debris, clean-up and safe shelter and so on and to set that at a 30 day limit and to impose the penalty. Don Ashworth: One other possibility, with the August date in there, he can simply ignore this during this whole time period. I might suggest that he be given a IS-day Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -4- period to make the building secure and respond to each of the points that were raised. Failure to do that would be an automatic revocation of the permit and action by the attorney's office then to start to sue. If he does respond within the 15-day period and he makes the shelter safe, he would be given until August 30th to get it completed. Councilwoman Watson: If there is a letter to be sent, I would suggest that it be sent by certified mail insuring that he did receive the letter. I Don Ashworth: If you would go with my suggestion, I would have the City Attorney draft it in the form of a notice of revocation and give him a 15-day period of time to get that notice withdrawn, and at the end of the 15-day period, Roger Knutson would start prosecution. Mayor Hamilton moved that the applicant has a 15-day period to respond to the following: 1. The temporary shelter be made completely safe as deemed by the City Inspector and secure so that no transient or other outsider can use the shelter within the building or the building be completely removed. 2. That all miscellaneous debris be cleaned up and properly disposed of. 3. That any and all stumps, branches, brush, dirt or other material not previously found in or within 25 feet of the creek be removed and the land be restored to its previous state. 4. Any and all chemicals must be removed from the site and none are to be used in the future without the City staff consent. 5. Contour maps and detailed site plans must be approved by the City Council. 6. The old appliance on the property must be removed immediately. I 7. A $500 fine for violation of the permit. This must be paid, but can be refunded when compliance with items 1-6 have been met. 8. A $5,000 bond be posted so if the work is not completed by August 30, 1985, the City will use the bond proceeds to restore the ground to the state that existed prior to the now questioned improvements. 9. Present a time table regarding this project. further, the applicant has until August 30, 1985 to complete or comply with the following: 1. The temporary shelter be made completely safe as deemed by the City Inspector and secure so that no transient or other outsider can use the shelter within the building or the building be completely removed. 2. That all miscellaneous debris be cleaned up and properly disposed of. 3. That any and all stumps, branches, brush, dirt or other material not previously found in or within 25 feet of the creek be removed and the land be restored to its previous state. 4. Any and all chemicals must be removed from the site and none are to be used in the future without the City staff consent. 5. Contour maps and detailed site plans must be approved by the City Council. 6. The old appliance on the property must be removed immediately. 7. A $500 fine for violation of the permit. This must be paid, but can be refunded when compliance with items 1-6 have been met. 8. A $5,000 bond be posted so if the work is not completed by August 30, 1985, the City will use the bond proceeds to restore the ground to the state that I existed prior to the now questioned improvements. 9. Present a time table regarding this project. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -5- MINUTES: Amend the Council minutes dated May 6, 1985 by changing the following: The second sentance under METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A PLATTED LOT, 2961 WASHTA BAY ROAD, DAVID MENEFEE, Councilman Horn, page 6: Councilman Horn: 1) it looks like an existing street, it is very obvious that it is not an approved City street and 2) the other case is in the developments where we have to put certain restrictions on the developer so the people don't come in with buyer beware situations. Under GENERAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY VALUATIONS, CARVER COUNTY ASSESSOR, Mayor Hamilton, page 10: Mayor Hamilton: What I am trying to get at is the percent of market value we are trying to reach or satisfy. Under GENERAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY VALUATIONS, CARVER COUNTY ASSESSOR, Mayor Hamilton, page 10: Mayor Hamilton: Who establishes this 90 percent? The first sentence under GENERAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY VALUATIONS, CARVER COUNTY ASSESSOR, Councilman Horn, page 10: Councilman Horn: Is that 90 percent an average county wide or for each type of pro- perty? The first sentence under WHITETAIL RIDGE, PUD OF EIGHT TOWNHOUSES AT THE NE CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, PAUL PALMER, Councilman Geving's motion, page 16: Councilman Geving moved to deny this item pending the City Attorney's preparation of written Findings and Facts for the Whitetail Ridge Final Plan Amendment Request 884-3 and bring that information back to the next City Council meeting so the Council can vote on the Findings and Facts. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the City Council minutes dated May 6, 1985 as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated April 9, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ADOPTION OF PREPARED FINDINGS AND FACT AND DECISION, WHITETAIL RIDGE, PAUL PALMER: The following items on the Findings of Fact and Decision for Whitetail Ridge, Paul Palmer, were amended as follows: 2. Location of townhomes at the subject property would be inconsistent with the character of the area and adjacent land use patterns. 4. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan because of the higher density. 5. Item five was deleted. Councilwoman Watson moved to adopt the prepared Findings of Fact and Decision of Whitetail Ridge as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton opposed. Motion carried. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -6- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPLICATION, REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, STEVEN BURKE: Don Ashworth: Mr. Burke contacted the City asking that their application for a beach lot be withdrawn. He noted that the DNR had stated that they would have the right to put in a dock. I requested that the City Attorney prepare an opinion in regards to that comment. In other words, can you put in a dock as a primary use of the proper- ty? Is that use not associated with single family residency? The City Attorney responded stating that you could not have a dock as the principle use for the pro- perty. The principle use is a single family home and an accessory use would be a dock for that single family home. I believe the dock was out there as of last week. I don't know if it is still there as of today or not. Steve Burke: Yes, it is today. Don Ashworth: The question before the City Council is, you may listen to Mr. Burke and hear his comments, otherwise, the course of action is to follow the attorney's recommendations to have that dock removed. Steve Burke: This goes back to the application for the conditional use permit. What we are trying to do is that the Sunnyslope Homeowner's Association, in its original planned development did not include the subject property on the lake. That was acquired after approval of the development and some improvements going in. We put a dock out last year thinking that we had the right. We were informed that we didn't, but we needed a permit application to do so. At that time we made the application, which at that time looked like it was going to be totally denied on all grounds except the canoe rack. It became apparent to us that the property is not a recreational beach lot. That is the ordinance, under which we were informed, that we had to remove the dock. In checking with the regulations, Lake Riley doesn't fall under the surface usage ordinance and having checked with the DNR, they have no regulation against it. That is why we reinstalled the dock there this spring. We started to store one boat over night and when we received the letter, that boat came off. Looking at an R-l piece of property that is down there, we feel that we are being discriminated against, since the homeowner's Association happens to own it. We feel that the law is being enforced on our lot when it is not being enforced throughout the City. If we have an R-l piece of property and if we were to construct a home down there, would we then have the right to put on a dock or are you going to deem that to be a recreational beach lot? We want access to the lake and right now you are saying the only thing that we can do is go down there and look at the lake and if we attempt to make any improvements to the property, and if we haven't constructed a structure, you are saying that we can't have a dock. I think that the City should look at how it's enforcing that particular regulation on all the surfaced water that it has within the City before it comes to us and says, because we know of you we are going to enforce it. It doesn't appear that the regulation has been enforced in the four years that I have lived out there. If we were to put up a structure, would we then have the right to install a dock and use the dock or are we going to get into some other legal problems? I am wondering if you are being arbitrary in your enforcement of this particular ordinance to get us to take the dock out. What bothers me is that I look over at Mr. Siebenaler's land and he rents that property out and they get to go down there and launch their boats, store them over night, camp on the property, bring people from outside and they can do anything they want down there, as long as it is in the ordinance. We as homeowner's in the com- munity have a piece of property across the street and we are told that we can't go across the street and utilize that property to have one dock. As I drive by I see people on Mr. Siebenaler's land with tents, trailers, RV's, boats and they can get away with it. Councilwoman Swenson: This has been brought to the City's attention. I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -7- Steve Burke: I asked the DNR, if the Sunnyslope Homeowner's Association were to buy a piece of property on some lake in northern Minnesota, could we put up a dock. They said yes, and it wouldn't have to be owned by us. As long as it isn't a marina, we could put out a dock. Since we happened to purchase a piece of property that is on a lake within the City, that happens to be across the street, we are told that we can't put out a dock. I don't think that is right. Don Ashworth: put up a house I think the City Attorney should respond to whether or not they can on the property. Steve Burke: The other question that I have is, why is the regulation that you are citing being enforced and sent to us when there are other properties that are in the City where this regulation has not been enforced for the last four years. Why are you now singling us out and not going around and enforcing it on the other pieces of property. Mayor Hamilton: You are not being singled out at all. If you know someone other than Mr. Siebenaler's instance, I would like to know. Roger Knutson: In that situation that you cited, there is a single family home there that is being rented out, but there is someone living there. Steve Burke: an undeveloped they have done and store over The other one that I am referring to, which I did not get the name, is piece of R-l property and for the last four years the only thing that down there, other than have picnics and parties, is to install a dock night boats on that dock. Roger Knutson: Sometimes there is a problem with the City because they do not have enough inspectors and policemen to go out and find all of these violations. If they are brought to our attention, we will take care of them. If you will, at sometime, give Mr. Ashworth that information, it will be taken care of. We can't prosecute someone if we do not know that it exists. Councilman beach lot, per home. Geving: and the This is I think the issue here is really this; you have a homeowners size of that beach lot is less than the required number of feet really a zoning problem. Steve Burke: We have the reguired number of feet per home. We don't have the required number of shoreline footage. I believe it is 100 feet and we have 50 feet. It is four feet per homeowner, there are 12 homes, we need 48 feet. We have that 48 feet. That is for a beach lot. We are being assessed as an R-l home. Roger Knutson: I understand that you would need a variance to build a home. Steve Burke: I suspect that we would have no problem gaining the variance, since the property immediate adjacent is exactly the same size and they received all the variances. Barb Dacy: The lot area is 5,500 square feet, so they would have to get a lot area variance and I would imagine some type of a set back variance, with the given dimen- sions on the lot. Councilwoman Swenson: It has to be a principle residence. Steve Burke: I believe it has to be a single family home, whether we use it as a rental income generating home or not. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -8- Councilwoman Swenson: Is that considered a principle residence? Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me that they want the property to be rezoned. I Roqer Knutson: Yes, whether it is rented or owner occupied. It has to be used accessory to that principle use. Steve Burke: We are not asking to have it rezoned. The question arose when we came forward last year and asked for permission to install a dock and store four bosts over night. As I look at it right now, that piece of property has inherent in the piece of property the right as a secondary use, the ability to put one dock and store four boats over night if it has the structure of it. What we did is come forward to the Council last year and said that what we would like is for you to change it to a recreational beach lot, but keep that right that is there right now, which is one dock and four boats. We were told at that point that we would not get the boats and thst we may get the dock, which was never decided. What we want is access to the lake, since we have owned that piece of property. Another question that comes to mind is if that piece of property has inherent one dock and four boats over night storage in that property, if we were to take the conditional use permit and applica- tion and ask that you approve those two things, which that piece of property has the right at this point, and if we were to agree to let you change the zoning to a recreational beachlot, would that be an alternative that we could do. I don't think the City would want us to build a structure, which would be a rental structure, just so we could get access to the lake when the inherent rights to get on the lake are existing today. If we were willing to change the zoning of that from an R-I to a recreational beach lot and fall into those ordinances, would you allow us to install that dock and let us store four boats? Mayor Hamilton: I guess the disagreement comes where you can have the inherent right to get to the lake. I Steve Burke: should we put boats. If we lot. I think the disagreement is that right now as an R-I piece of property, a structure with the rights to put the dock out and store the four don't have that right, should it be changed to a recreational beach Mayor Hamilton: If it is changed to a recreational beach lot, you will follow the recreational beach lot ordinance. Steve Burke: If we were to get a variance to allow the installation of the dock and the four boats. Councilman Horn: You quoted the DNR on the use of a dock. Have you checked the shoreline management act under their requirements for a developable lot on shoreline. Do you know what their minimum lot size requirement is? Steve Burke: No. I didn't go that far and check. Councilman Horn: I would be very surprised if you could get a permit to build a single family structure on a 5,000 square foot lot. I would certainly never agree to that on a lake. I think that you are making an assumption based on an assumed use I that is not reasonable. You are assuming that you could put up a single family structure and therefore, should have the rights of a single family owner on that lot. That is a substandard lot for a single family structure. I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -9- Steve Burke: What I am looking at is that if on this lake the DNR ordinance would allow the installation of a dock. Councilman Horn: That is where you are excluded by the uses of the two ordinances. It would not allow you to have a home on that size of a lot. It is a recreational development lake with a 20,000 square foot lot. Therefore, they wouldn't let you put a structure on it. We, on the other hand, say that the primary use would have to be a single family home, which you couldn't get based on the shoreline management act. I think that you are making an assumption based on a use that you really don't have. Councilman Gevinq: I doubt that this Council would give you a permit to build that kind of a house, on a 5,000 square foot lot on a lake side. Alan Dirks: I live on Deerfoot Trail. It seems like a precedence has already been set because the neighboring lot next to us has already received the variances a year ago to build that. Councilman Horn: What was the size of that lot? Steve Burke: It is exactly the same size. Councilman Horn: We were told that it was a 6,500 square foot lot. Councilman Gevinq: I think the difference there was that there was an existing home on that lot, and that is the reason why that particular structure is there today. We built on an existing structure. We did not build on a vacant piece of land. There is a difference between these two situations. Your situation would be looked at very seriously by this Council and would most likely be denied. Steve Burke: The question that I look at is that there used to be a structure on that piece of property years ago. That is something that we would look, but I think that the Council would have a hard time turning us down because of the next door neighbor who can put a structure. Don Ashworth: This item appeared on the agenda to allow the property owners in Sunny slope an opportunity to present their position as to why they have installed a dock on their beachlot. The City Attorney has stated that the use being carried out by the homeowners does not conform with City ordinances. As the property owners remain firm in their position that they do not wish to make application for a beach lot and the Council has taken no position to sanction the illegal activies of the homeowners association, the Council is in essence instructing the City Attorney's office to proceed with prosecution of the illegal use occuring at the said beachlot. Again, no other action is necesary other than both the homeowners and Council being aware of the fact that prosecution will commence following tonight's meeting. APPROVAL QI ACCOUNTS: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills as presented: checks 0022474 through 022559 in the amount of $400,679.54 and checks 0025014 through 0025129 in the amount of $163,370.85. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 1348-1352, CARVER BEACH, HARLAN KOEHNEN: Willard Johnson: The vote was two for denial and one for approval. We encouraged Mr. Koehnen to acquire the two lots next door. He could build without a variance as it Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -10- stands according to the City ordinance. He would like to put a garage off the front and that is the reason for the request of the variance. He could turn the house a different direction. Barb Dacy: The parcel is located at the southwest corner of Carver Beach Road and Nez Perce. The lot area is 8,000 square feet. The setbacks in the R-l district require that there be a 30 foot front yard area, a 30 foot rear yard area, and a 10 foot side yard setback. The 30 feet of front yard setback must be maintained from both streets. Because of the proposed layout, the applicant is requesting a 17 foot variance into the 30 foot required rear yard. I believe what the Board of Adjustments Chairman is saying is that if the garage was not attached, the house could be placed within the buildable area of the lot and meet the setbacks. Councilwoman Watson: He is not planning to build a garage at this point. That lot would not be of any use to anyone else but the applicant or perhaps the person on the other side. He has attempted to acquire the lot before and has had difficulty acquiring it. I can't understand why Carver County has been difficult to deal with on the purchase of this lot. The land is about to be put up for auction for taxes. We felt that since that he has no intentions of building a garage at this time, we would wait and see if he acquired that and at that time he would be in need of a variance. He needs no variance to build a house. Harlan Koehnen: That corner lot requires me to have 30 feet on three different sides rather than just one side, like other lots. That is why I run short of space on the rear setback. Mayor Hamilton: You could build a home on the lot right now with no variances if you don't put the garage on. Harlan Koehnen: Right. I drew the garage in as a proposed garage for future plans. I wanted to get the house in the proper place so the garage would fit on. Mayor Hamilton: If you went ahead and built the house where you can fit it in and then you were able to acquire the lots, you would be just fine anyway. Harlan Koehnen: I won't ever get the 30 feet, but it will be close. Mayor Hamilton: It would be a lot better than what you have now. I I Councilman Geving: I felt that in this case, what we have attempted to do in Carver Beach for about 10 years is to consolidate all of the loose parcels that exist so that we can have very large, nice home sites in that area. For those people who are not familiar with Carver Beach, it is created with a series of 20 by 100 foot lots. The whole area is made up of these small lots. So you would have to accumulate at least four or five of these 20 foot lots so that you have enough area for them to be built upon. Mr. Koehnen has four of those lots, which consists of 8,000 square feet. East of Nez Perce Drive, in the Carver Beach area, we have allowed some of the homes to be built at 10,000 square feet. It is very difficult for property owners to con- solidate an actual lot here and there, so you will see them up for tax sales quite often. Many of these were pieces of property that existed back in the early 20's and the landowners can't even be found for tax sales. There happens to be two lots west of Mr. Koehnen's property that if he were to acquire them, he would have over 12,000 I feet, which would be a very nice piece of property. What we are attempting to do with Mr. Koehnen is to have him acquire the two lots at the tax sale. He would then have the choice of moving the front of the home onto Nez Perce Drive where we would have a I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -11- lot that would have a 100 foot frontage and approximately 120 feet deep. That would be a nice lot. If, on the other hand, Mr. Koehnen decides to build his home now, which he can do because he owned this property prior to 1972, he could build a home there without any garage and he has decided to go ahead and do that anyway. We can't stop him from doing that and we have no intent to. We want him to try to buy those lots so that he can build a nice garage on that lot and not have to come back to us again for any variances. That is what we are trying to encourage Mr. Koehnen to do. That is the reason why the majority voted for denial on this variance request so that we could push along the acquisition of the other two 20 foot lots and you would then have a fairly nice piece of property. Councilman Geving moved to deny the request by Mr. Harlan Koehnen for a 17 foot variance to the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7725 FRONTIER TRAIL, ROBERT SCHOLER: This item was passed unanimously at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting prior to the Council meeting this evening. Therefore, no action is required. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF WOOD TIMBERS INSTEAD OF - --- -- CONCRETE CURBING FOR THE CHANHASSEN INN MOTEL, LARRY ZAMOR: The Council discussed this item and felt that concrete curbing should be put in to keep things uniform with the City and it was also felt that because everyone else is required to have concrete curbing, this should not be an exception. The applicant stated that the request, therefore, be withdrawn. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT lQ ALLOW CONSTRUCTION Qf AN ~ ~ BOATHOUSE ~ PROPERTY ZONED ~ 469 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, TODD ADAMS: Barb Dacy: The property is located on the north side of Lotus Lake at 469 Pleasant View Road. The applicant is proposing an 8'x 8' boathouse, approximately 22 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. The DNR regulations and our shore- line management ordinance requires that boathouses within the 75 foot setback be pro- cessed as a conditional use permit. The DNR staff sent a letter and the DNR representative went to the site and inspected the grounds. The proposed site plans proposes to integrate the boathouse into the slope of the property and is proposing some additional vegetation around it to minimize the visual impact. The staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following: 1. That the boathouse con forms to the site plan dated May 1, 1985. 2. That the boathouse con forms to the landscaping and erosion control plan. 3 . That the boathouse will not be used for habitation and will not contain sanitary facili ties. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the conditional use permit for the construction of an 8' x 8' boathouse, 22 feet from Lotus Lake shoreline at 469 Pleasant View Road, also complying with the following conditions: 1. That the boathouse conforms to the site plan dated May 1, 1985. 2. That the boathouse conforms to the landscaping and erosion control plan. 3. That the boathouse will not be used for habitation and will not contain sanitary facilities. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -12- Councilman ~ It is nice to have these brought before us before they are done. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ TOWNHOUSES Qli PROPERTY ZONED R-I AND LOCATED ~ 3900 RED I CEDAR POINT, PLOCHER AND GESKE: Barb Dacy: The property is located at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and Minnewashta Parkway, known as the old Leach property. The property is now zoned R-I and the request before you tonight is a sketch plan review, which is intended for the developer and the Council to discuss potential issues of concern regarding the appli- cation. The applicant is proposing 18 townhomes, primarily around the south property lines immediately at the vicinity of the intersection. The gross density of the pro- ject is 2.59 units per acre and the net is 2.88 units per acre. The comprehensive plan recommends a range of denisty between 1 and 3.4 units per acre for low density residential. The plan is now proposing access from Red Cedar Point Rd. and it has been suggested by neighboring property owners that an alternative access be con- sidered in the Minnewashta Parkway area. However, locating an access from Minnewashta Parkway would require more land alteration, so the staff would prefer to see the location of the access from Red Cedar Point Road. However, because of the clustering of the units away from the lake and maintaining a fairly large setback from the shoreline, it does bring the units close to the single family homes. We would, therefore, make additional recommendations for fairly intense screening along these lot lines. The staff finds that the clustering concept is beneficial in that it clusters the units to one area of the site and preserves a large portion of the site. A part of the applicant's request for discussion tonight is a proposal for dockage on the site. On the site plan he has indicated four docks, however, I think what the applicant has indicated to staff as being important is the allowance of at least 18 slips, one slip per unit. The recreational beachlot ordinance would be triggered in this instance. The beachlot would certainly meet the frontage require- ments and the amount of units it serves, but as you know, it does not allow over I night storage of boats. This is a major point of discussion that the developers want to engage with you tonight. Councilman Horn: How long is the lakeshore? Barb Dacy: It is approximately 575 feet. Mayor Hamilton: That is being proposed as a beachlot? Barb Dacy: The distance back from the lake shore is 100 feet, so they would go back 100 feet and create a beach lot of this size to meet the intent of the ordinance. There is an old building on the lot and the applicant indicated that they wanted to reuse that old facility for a boathouse. The staff has severe reservation because we may think that this is a nonconforming structure as is and it may even be in the Minnewashta Parkway right of way. We would, therefore, recommend removal of that structure. The Planning Commission considered this at their last meeting. They felt that overall site plan proposing the 18 townhomes was sensitive to the site, however, they felt that they could not support a beach lot proposal of four docks and 18 slips. Mayor Hamilton: We have three issues: The land use for the townhomes, the existing old building, and the dock issue. Bert Haglund: I am an architect on behalf of the owners, who are also here. We do I have a sketch of the alternate access to the site, and that would be to come off of Minnewashta Parkway. The original proposal was not to do so, but is represented. The owners have been open to consider this or the other alternate scheme, but the Planning Staff seems to think that the original proposal is the better. To reiterate I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -13- a couple of points that were covered, the concept was to provide a cluster develop- ment of homes, to use the natural topography of the site as much as possible and in doing so creating a generous setback from 150 to 240 feet as opposed to the required 75 foot setback. The access drive coming in is a private drive and will be main- tained as such. The drive width and the cul-de-sac and so forth would be done to the engineering standards that would be required. In creating this kind of citing, we tried to maintain a very generous open space, common area to work with the natural vegetation that is on the site, some of which is significant. We worked to try and preserve as much of that as possible. The site is more narrow on the rear and widens out as it gets up to the lake front. There is 650 feet of frontage on the lake. As far as things would progress in terms of the drainage, the technical issues, the grading, the watershed concerns and so forth, those would be addressed as needed as the process would continue. In terms of the general appearance of the project, we would be using quality materials and trying to do a quality type of project using hip roofs, trying to keep the buildings, as much as possible, into the site, blending them into the landscaping. from the entrance side; creating at each entrance a very private entry into each unit so that each homeowner would have their own identifiable and private entrance. The side that would be visible from the neighboring property owners is a very low key kind of appearance and has not been found objectionable by any of the neighborhood that have been contacted. Mayor Hamilton: There is a pretty good size hill by the townhomes that are proposed to be closest to Red Cedar Point Road. Are you going to alter that hill at all? Bert Haglund: The grading would be kept to a minimum here because some the vegeta- tion is going to be saved. You can't do too much without endangering that. There will have to be a certain extent of grading in order to make the drive to work pro- perly for drainage and the vehicluar access. Also, as an expensive item, grading is something that you like to keep at a minimum for a project like this. Mayor Hamilton: As you are going. over the hill, are those townhomes going to be par- tially in the hill? Bert Haglund: Yes, those townhomes will be walkouts. I call them walkouts because you would enter at the front on the upper level and it would have a lower level which would be the walkout level. Councilwoman Swenson: Where is the creek between St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta, where does that go through? Bert Haglund: There is a drainage outlet on the site that spills out and drains down into the lake. Again, the grading and the concerns for the run-off on the site is an engineering issue and will be addressed in full. Councilwoman Swenson: We sure wouldn't want that interferred with. Bert Haglund: No. We recognize that this drainage is here and we have to address that fully in our plans. Councilman Geving: Have you considered a secondary access from Minnewashta Parkway as well as Red Cedar Point? Bert Haglund: No, we have not discussed that. Councilman Geving: What do you intend to do with the existing building on the north end of the property? Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -14- ~ Haglund: It has been mentioned, at one point, that it is going to be used as storage. Councilman Geving: If the recommendation was to destroy it, what would your objec- I tion be? Bert Haglund: I would like to refer that to the developers. Fred Plocher: We would go along with that. We like the idea of trying to tear down the part that encroaches on the property line, preserving the new part and remodeling it to look like the rest of the townhomes and to have a locker type arrangement down there for each family so they don't have to carry things back and forth. We would like to see it, but it isn't a major issue to us. Councilman Geving: The reason for my first question, regarding a secondary access, was a potential safety situation. I can see where there is going to be a lot of traffic onto Minnewashta Parkway. I don't know what kind of traffic this type of townhome will generate, but with 18 units and the people that are in there now it could be considerable. Have you done any traffic studies for the area in your propo- sals? Fred Plocher: Our engineer, who could not be here tonight, did some preliminary safety studies on the two accesses. Mr. Geske and I feel that, from a safety stand- point, maybe the access to Minnewashta Parkway would be better, but I think the text books say otherwise. They say you should go onto a secondary road before you go onto a primary road. In response to some of the area residents' concern, we studied the other access. Councilman Geving: Mr. Monk, do we have sewer and water in that area? I Bill Monk: Yes, we do. It is all along the lake shore. Councilwoman Watson: It looks to me, also, that the better access would be on Minnewashta Parkway, but I realize that it would be better, in their standpoint of going onto a secondary road and then onto a primary street. Councilman Horn: I agree with the access being at Red Cedar Point Rd. I think we've seen what happens when we start putting accesses onto a highway, which has happened on Highway 101. I really feel that we should minimize accesses onto the more major streets in the City. Mayor Hamilton: In regards to the old Leach resort building, I think that we may need some clarification on this before any decisions are made or even discuss it if you think it is in the right of way. Barb Dacy: The applicant's proposal is maybe redesigning it or maybe doing some other things to locate it to another part of the site. We can surely look at that as a part of the future application. The way it stands now in the right of way, I think Councilman Geving hit it on the head in that it could be a safety hazzard. Fred Plocher: It is a T-shaped building and the old structure, which is the "T" runs east and west. That not only encroaches on the right of way, I think that it I also encroaches on the property to the north. It has a lot of problems. The other leg of the "T" is the part that we are talking about reserving. Even that, I am sure, would require variances. I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -15- Mayor Hamilton: It would be a shame to tear the building down if you could move it, without going through a lot of expense, and painting it something other than white so it blends into the area. Fred Plocher: We would change the roof to blend in with the townhouses and the siding and so forth. Barb Dacy: What we would do then is process a conditional use permit, if they were going to use it specifically for a boathouse. Bert Haglund: In regards to the dock issue, what has been indicated on the plan as the proposed dockage are four docks. The way they are illustrated is, as the dock fs dimensioned in the beachlot ordinance of being 50 feet, or to a water depth of four feet, and the cross-bar shall not exceed 25 feet in width. What we are proposing is to allow four docks on the site. I would like Mr. Plocher to address that a little bit further. Fred Plocher: We are real pleased with the land plan and feel that it is something that the neighborhood and community can be proud of. I know the Council should not concern themselves with economic issues, but in this case there is an economic issue along with a bundle of logic that I would like to explain to you. We bought the pro- perty with lakeshore values in mind and needless to say we have to get lakeshore values out of it. We didn't know that we were actually creating a beachlot. We thought we were creating common open space, but in the process, Barb Dacy and JoAnn Olsen told us we have created a beachlot by accident. By the ordinance that would severely limit the use of the lake with these townhomes. We would, therefore, not get the lakeshore value out of it. That would force us to go with a detached plan. On a detached plan, we would layout five or six lakeshore lots and by the lay of the land those homes would have to go down by the lake. The ironic thing is, because of the beachlot ordinance, you might force the second best use of this land. Mayor Hamilton: You said you would put five or six homes there, how many other homes would you proceed to put on that property if you went that route? Fred Plocher: We have only sketched that, but I think around 14 or 15. That would destroy that special open space that leads to the resort. Another thing to consider is that this property and the property directly adjacent to the north have experienced extremely heavy use in the past. According to Roy Leach, on a weekend, there would be as many as 300 - 400 people using that property. There would be as many as 30 - 40 boats launched there on a weekend day. Before the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Geske and I were out there on a mid-May evening and we counted 11 boat trailers parked that had used the access to the north. That will be closed. The lake use is drastically being reduced. We are asking for 18 slips and/or sailboat moorings. We have something like 30 - 32 feet per home on the lake- shore versus four feet required by the ordinance. Our homes are less than 500 feet away from the shoreline. We do not feel that this is an abuse of a small lakeshore lot created purposely to get lakeshore use. Our floor plans are designed for empty- nester type families; the kids are gone, the people have lived on a lake or near a lake in the past and they want to stay in a lake environment, they want something very nice and high quality, maybe a little smaller than the present home. There are not going to be families here. By price structure and by design, this is not very marketable to families, although we will sell to anybody. Overall, they will be empty-nester type families, which, in most cases, will not be heavy lake users. If we would have to go to a detached plan, the five homes that would be down by the lake, could each have five slips. That would be 25 slips. We only want 18 slips. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -16- Those five or six homes would most likely be heavy lake users. With the attached unit plan we can plan around the significant vegetation that is there. We have done a lot of changing around to accomplish that. We will be able to preserve the open space. The minimum distance from the lake is 150 feet. That is as close as we come. Some of them are as far as 240 feet away, versus 75 feet away on a detached plan. We have $11,000 budgeted for new plantings, as well as preserving the existing plan- tings. We are able to control the aesthetics of the structures. We would now be able to control the type and looks of docks, and we will have them clustered in one spot. We will be able to control outside storage through the association and we will have less road service than if we had a detached plan. We will generate fewer children for the schools. The roads will not be maintained by taxes. We will have a good housing alternative for the present Chanhassen residents to move to instead of moving away. I do not believe you are creating a dangerous precedent by approving dock use and launching. We feel that the cluster plan meets the low density guide- lines, in that it is not a wildlife habitat, it is bordered on two sides by public roads, and another side by a lake. There is no existing roadway between the homes and the lake. The target market is a low number per household. Mayor Hamilton: I think one point has to be clarified. You are suggesting 18 moorings and/or slips for boats. You would probably want to have a one for one trade off for residents who don't want a sailboat, but have a motorboat. They can have one or the other, but not both. You are looking for no more than that. Fred Plocher: That's right. Councilman Gevinq: I don't know how you can control that. Fred Plocher: I suppose it would have to be in the association documents. Councilman Gevinq: whether or not they The problem is that you don't know who these residents are and are going to have sailboats or motor boats at the same time. Fred Plocher: That's right, and it would change from year to year. Mayor Hamilton: It is going to be the same problem we have with any other home. There maybe someone in the group that doesn't even have a boat, but just want to look at the lake, therefore, somebody can have two in there. As long as it is not exceeded by 18, it shouldn't be a problem. Fred Plocher: It appears to me that there is wording in the ordinance that would certainly allow you to approve this. Ordinance 47, section 14, sub-section 14.5, paragragh 5.C. This is regarding a planned unit development; Approval of the final development plan shall not be granted by the Village Council unless it finds the following: Any exceptions to the zoning and subdivision ordinances are justified by the design of the development. It also defines common open space, which is what we thought we were creating. That is in section 21. Common open space with the com- bination of land and water may convene such complimentary structures and improvements as they are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment for the occupants. Mayor Hamilton: Why are you creating an outlot, or is that absolutely necessary? Is it possible for the homes to somehow own property down the lake shore so that there is not an outlot situation created. Barb Dacy: By definition, a recreational beach lot is any tract of land owned or operated by a homeowners association. If I get what you are saying, you would then I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -17- have to plat the lot lines down onto the lakeshore. In effect, you would then have to rearrange the lot lines so you have 18 lots. I don't think that would be appropriate either. Mayor Hamilton: I am just looking for someway to avoid having an outlot situation. Roger Knutson: It has a lot to do with with common ownership of the property. it doesn't make that possible. financing these, but you could have one lot Again, sometimes the way you want to finance Fred Plocher: By definition, the townhouse creates the common open space. Councilman Geving: When we have gotten into these situations before, and I am thinking of the County Assessor and how they would look at a piece of property like this, they tend to like to see a 32 foot strip all the way down to the lake so that they can take that property, which. I the structure and the lake frontage, and tie it all together into one tax package. I don't know how they will look at something like this. Have you talked to anybody about this? Fred Plocher: Yes, in fact I called the Assessor last week. He said, in a townhouse situation, the association is taxed for that common area and then you are taxed indi- vidually for your home. Then in turn, each homeowner is paying their share of the association fees, which covers that tax. The total evaluation is there, but they break it up. In this way it would be broken up into 19 statements. Councilman Geving: I would be very cautious about that because that is going to be a substantial tax bill for that homeowners association. It amounts to about $650 per foot. Fred Plocher: At the same time, the tax on their home would be a lot less, for they are, in effect, getting a lowland value. The Assessor said that the taxes generated are based on the evaluations of those homes and what they sold for and they will then break those apart. He also said that if you don't have full lake rights, it's not worth as much as if you did. So therefore, the taxes would be lower, which goes back to my first statement in that we can't do it that way. We don't get the values of the lakeshore. Mayor Hamilton: If you run the property lines right down to the lake so the homeowners would actually own the lake shore, is that going to affect the saleability of that property? Is it going to increase it too much? Fred Plocher: That is an interesting idea. I haven't thought that through. Mayor Hamilton: In that way you would eliminate that beach lot. You would have pri- vate ownership of the lakeshore and somehow within the association you would still cluster the docks and put them where they were proposed and everyone would have access to them, but you would then not have a beach lot. Fred Plocher: That's an idea, but I would think that it would get complicated. Councilwoman Watson: What about Roger Knutson's theory of everyone owning it. The minute when we say "beachlot", we have a very large problem on our hands. Roger Knutson: I think the Mayor has the best handle on solving the beach lot problem. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -18- Councilwoman Swenson: Why couldn't you put a strip 100 feet back from the water and go all the way across that strip of property and physically divide it into 18 strips, and deed it in right with their townhouses. Keep the clustering of the docks and have common access across the land and maintenance, but each property owner has, in fact, a dedicated strip of land. I Councilman Gevinq: I think you would be able to sell your land much easier that way. Councilwoman Swenson: I would also take care of the beachlot. Don Ashworth: With separate ownerships, potential owners could try to restrict each other from crossing their land. Mayor Hamilton: That should be something in the covenant that they all have to agree to and that would eliminate that problem. Don Ashworth: But the existing ordinance says that there will be one dock for a pro- perty and that the only boats on that dock will belong to that property. They want 18 slips. You would have to take four or five separate lots to allow that to occur under the current ordinance. Barb Dacy's review of this is a reasonable one. The only variance that is really needed is to allow the 1B slips. I realize the prece- dent that you may be fearful of, but I don't consider that as a precendent. There is no reason that anybody should throw this back at you in terms of creating a problem. The minute you turn it into separate ownerships, you are going to have problems with them being able to sell the property, record the property, and potential maintenance. The existing ordinance itself, you would have four different owners of boats on the dock, you would have a long dock, which wouldn't conform to the ordinance. Any way you look at it, it is going to create a problem for you under the existing I ordinances. Mayor Hamilton: Any way you look at it, the problem needs to be resolved. I think that Roger Knutson, City Attorney, should review this and find an alternative way to make this thing work easier. I don't have any problem with putting 18 docks in there with IB boats. I also agree with Don Ashworth, that this is not a precedent situation to do that. It is a completely unique separate parcel of property and it fits in there very well. It is totally different from anything that we have looked at in the past. Councilwoman Swenson: It may be totally different from what we have seen in the past, but it is still technically a beachlot, and as such, our ordinance very clearly restricts to the one lot. Councilman Gevinq: This, to me, is so different from the lotus lake problem or the lake Riley problem and the Fox Chase problems that we have had. Each one of these have to be looked at individually and I believe the ordinance gives us that provision for variances. We can make that decision ourselves, live with the current oriented ordinance and adjust it with variances as you need it. That is why we did it that way. Barb Dacy: The feeling is that it is a unique situation set apart from other issues that cross the City that a variance application could be processed along with their conditional use permit for beachlot improvements. If it is the number of docks that I is a issue, maybe two docks with nine slips, four sailboat moorings, 13 boat slips, something can be worked out pending other review by the City Attorney. I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -19- Mayor Hamilton: One thing that is very important, and I realize that this is just a sketch plan, is that I would like to see what you ultimately want to have there, so that next year at this time we are not sitting here and you are not saying that you would like to put in this and that. If you want a beach, you better say so right now; if you want to have some barbeque pits, say that now. Whatever you are con- sidering for the future, I would to see it all next time. Fred Plocher: The way ordinance as we could. we could work with the helpful. the docks are drawn now was an attempt to get as close to the We don't think that is the best way to have the docks, but if staff on that before we present the final plan, that would be Councilman Horn: As a member of the old lake use committee, several impressions were indelibly empressed on us as we viewed the lakes. One of the things, and again there are exceptions to everyone of these, the single family type situations and dock use were generally well kepted by the property owners. There were some exceptions, but the problem areas were the multiple use ownership type of facilities. I have a very strong feeling against multiple use ownership of anything. It smacks of socialism to me and it also smacks of little accountability for keeping things clean. Sunrise Hills is an obvious example of something that does not follow that. Outlot 12 is obviously the other way. We have areas along Minnewashta outlots that are terribly over used. The situation that we saw after touring the lakes many times and the general feeling is that I would rather see single family lots along the lake with riparian ownership and upkeep of their own docks. That tends to make things more well kept, and there are exceptions to those too. Generally, where there is a sense of ownership there is a sense of pride that goes with it and they take care of that. I think that the concept that you are talking about would ruin the lake or would not be as acceptable to the lake with five single family homes along there. We could allow at a maximum of 25 boats to be moored. If you look at the docks on the single family homes around the City, I would be very surprised if you would get an average of three. The whole purpose of this thing is the over intensification of lake pro- perty. The prime fact that we have was that this concept of buying a little chunk of property, and I agree that this doesn't fall into that, by putting 75 homes on it and using the lake just to make the market. From that concept, I generally agree with having single family ownership of the lots. That is the purpose and the history of why this ordinance was developed in the first place. I understand the marketability of having lake access, but again I think if the taxation situation were so difficult, you wouldn't find lake property being marketable. For those reasons, my preference is, and always will be, having individual lake shore owners. I would like to see us abolish the recreational beachlot and not even allowing it as a land use. Fred Plocher: I couldn't agree with you more that there are abuses. I think another difference here versus some of the existing beachlots where there is common ownership, is that lake lot is the only tie among all those residents, 1800 feet away, that have rights to that lot. In a townhouse situation, your dirveway, your sidewalk, your lawn, the painting of the exterior of the home, the reroofing of the home, the insurance on the building and many more things are what the association does. The type of people that are going to be living here and the price range of these places are not going to allow any schlock. It will be a very well maintained area and their common interest is not going to be the docks. It is the entire environment. Councilwoman Watson: What is your price range? Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -20 ~ Plocher: We don't know yet, but we are assuming that along the lake it will be around $150,000 and off the lake will be $125,000, that being one level finished. I feel we've planned a first class project. We don't plan to cut any corners and we are not going after a price market. Councilman Horn: I agree with that, but the problem with that is the enforcement for that is through private covenants. The City has no control over private covenants at all. In fact, that is something that we cannot even deal with. That is where the City loses control, not that I think the government should control it and I think they control way too much, but in this case where you are preserving our natural resources. That is the control the City loses because now it is not under their ordi- nance, it's under the private covenant situation. I have no doubts that what you do there would be good, but my only concern is not for this but for a precedent. It's the next guy who comes along who doesn't do it that way. Fred Plocher: I knew there would be a concern about a precedent. I cannot imagine another piece a property in the upper midwest that would meet all of those things, as far as a precedent situation. Mayor Hamilton: I would like Roger Knutson to give us an opinion as whether that is a precedent situation. Roger Knutson: You can figure this as being a very unique situation and it then becomes less precedential for anything else. I Councilman Horn: Does uniqueness need to be defined by ordinance? It appears that we always get into trouble when we say it's unique, but to really lock ourselves in we have to define to specification in an ordinance what constitutes unique. I am not I sure that we have that. That could be another thing you could look at. Councilwoman Swenson: I think this is a great plan and I ha~e no objection to it at all. Mr. Knutson, do you have a guess of what kind of revenue difference there would be with five riparian lots as opposed to the common outlot as this. In other words, obviOUSly these townhouses are not going to be paying lakeshore taxes. Would they by having riparian rights? Roger Knutson: What it really comes down to is how much tax are you going to get off it. What is the market value of all that property. If you divide it up into 19 segments or if you divide it up and leave it as a whole, it seems to me, in theory, unless you divide it up in some sort of crazy way to detract from its value, it will have the same value whether it's 18 parcels or 1. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the sketch plan review for 18 townhouses on property zoned R-l, located at 3900 Red Cedar Point Road, P.R.D. with a beachlot on Lake Minnewashta, with the understanding that the City Attorney's office will research the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance in order to investigate methods to accommodate the number of proposed slips. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn opposed. Motion carried. Fred Plocher: issue or not? I didn't quite hear all the motion. Does that address the dockage Mayor Hamilton: Yes, there will be more discussion on it, but we are agreeing with your sketch plan concept. I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -21- Councilwoman Swenson: I understand that Roger Knutson is going to come up with something on this. I wasn't agreeing with those 18 boat slips and the four docks. If we are not being specific, this in fine. Councilman Gevinq: The sketch plan does not show the four docks, so I think that we are o.k. Mayor Hamilton: My motion was to approve the sketch plan review for 18 townhomes, P.R.D. with a beachlot. The docks were discussed some and there is more discussion to be had, but we generally agree with your concept in your sketch plan. That does not make it final. Councilwoman Swenson: I want it on record that I have no means of approving that without giving more discussion. Fred Plocher: At what next stage does that happen? Our problem is that we have to spend a lot of money to get the final plans and final review. It will be hard to do that if we don't know what the dock situation is. Barb Dacy: As soon as we get the results from the City Attorney's office, we will make an appointment and set up the whole process. HIDDEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION, ~ CORNER QI HIGHWAY 2 AND ~ NEW AMERICAN HOMES: ~ Preliminary Plan Approval Including Rezoning ~ f=lL Planned Residential Development. ~ Wetland Alteration Permit. C. Land Use Plan Amendment from High and Low Density Residential ~ Commercial. ~ Rezoninq from R-la, Aqricultural Residence ~ ~ Commercial District. Barb Dacy: The property is now zoned R-la single family. To the east is Chanhassen Estates, which is zoned R-l. To the west is R-la zoning as well and is now vacant. To the south is R-l, which is the Rice Marsh Lake Subdivision. The present land use designation on the property; the southern area of the 81 acre site is designated as part of an open space, the mid portion is designated as low density residential and the upper portion, adjacent to Highway S, is designated as high density residental. The American Legion site is commerical and in the immediate vicinity of the intersec- tion, Chanhassen Estates is designated as low density residential and is designated as commercial to the north of Chanhassen Estates along Highway S. The subject pro- perty was zoned P-2. There have been three or four proposals ranging from over 600 apartment units to the most recent one in the late 70's to around 200 in combination with single family uses. It was rezoned to R-la in 1981 given that there was little activity on site. This proposal was originally before the Council during the sketch plan review approximately 1; months ago. It has since gone to the Planning Commission twice and it is now back with four items to review. You have the preliminary deve- lopment plan approval with rezoning, wetland alteration permit request, land use plan amendment, and rezoning in conjunction with that land use plan amendment. I will briefly summarize some of the changes that have occured since sketch plan review. The southern 23 acres of the property are unbuildable as it is designated as a class A wetland. The middle area is proposed as 109 single family detached lots. Original- ly, the developer proposed 132 single family detached lots. The average lot size has increased from 12,000 to 14,793 square feet. The DNR has a 1,000 foot area of shore- line management area. Because of the subdivision, the DNR has a formula for tiering the size of the lots as you move away from the wetland and the Rice Marsh Lake ordi- nary high water mark. The concept that you see here tonight has been approved by the DNR in that they state that the tiering that is being proposed is consistent with Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -22- their policies. The northern part of the sites, the applicant is creating three outlots. In the original sketch plan, Lake Drive East was further to the north adja- cent to the American Legion property. That road has been moved south and thus the creation of the two acre outlot. The applicant has also applied for redesignation of Outlot A from high density residential to commercial. Outlot B is being proposed as a church site. The rezoning action that is before you tonight is everything south of Lake Drive East including the church site being rezoned to P-l. Pending your deci- sion on the land use applications for these two outlots to commerical, the applicant is requesting rezoning to C-2. I mentioned that the average lot size has increased to 14,700. The exact middle of the 109 outlots averages 11,700 square feet. Thirty- one lots are below 10,000 square feet; 49 lots are between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet and 20 lots are above 15,000 square feet. The cul-de-sac widths of the lots are at minimum of 40 feet, however, the majority are 50 feet wide on the cul-de-sacs. The non-cul-de-sac lots are a majority of 70 feet wide. The lots adjacent to Chanhassen Estates have been widened to 90 feet. The applicant has proposed a five to six foot berm along the south side of Lake Drive East to screen the commercial and the function of the collector street from the single family area. Berms are also proposed adjacent to Chanhassen Estates. The developer is proposing one tree per lot with a caliper size of at least 3; to 4 inches. This would dictate a size tree of at least 15 feet tall. Staff also recommended that the size of the berms on Chanhassen Estates that at least two trees per lot would also be planted. The applicant is asking for a variation in setbacks than normally required. On non-cul-de-sac lots the applicant is requesting a 25 foot front setback. On cul-de-sac lots, a 30 foot front setback and a minimum building separation of 15 feet between each structure. With the variation of setbacks, what can be acheived is the elimination of that house to house effect and a creation of more open space between the livable areas of the house. Normally, the garage side would be located in front of the driveway and, therefore, in the non-living areas of the house. fifteen feet should still provide adequate building separation. The intent of this altering setback scheme would be to create the appearance of more open space between any two homes. It would also advan- tage in that it would cluster the driveways into one certain area. The applicant is also proposing deed restrictions. The lots that abut Chanhassen Estates, the deed restrictions are the same for those lots as they are in this subdivision. The deed restrictions also establish an architectural control committee, which will review each housing package for each lot as is developed. The deed restrictions require that no two of the same color package and house design can be located directly adja- cent to each other or across the street. The Planning Commission, at the April 24, 1985 meeting, recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions in the staff report in addition to four additional conditions. 1) basements are required on each home. 2) There be two car garages on each home, 3) that the average lot size be maintained throughout the phasing of the development, and 4) that proper con- sideration be taken for park land dedication. I would like to review some issues concerning those recommendations. first of all, as far as the two-car garages and the basements; in between the time that the Planning Commission has considered this to the Council tonight, the applicant has indicated to staff that he will comply with the requirement for a two-car garage on each building site. He has indicated that at least 37 percent of the proposed homes will, because of the sloping conditions on site, will contain a basement. He has also indicated that the lots adjacent to Chanhassen Estates will have low-grade living areas and a split foyer design. This would mean that up to approximately 50 percent of the homes would have basements. It has been the staff's understanding that these types of requirements have not been made as conditions of approval on previous subdivisions, however, should you feel that two- car garages and basements are required for every lot and if that is to be recommended as the commission of approval, specific findings should be made for this particular development. The other condition that the Commission had was the proposed phasing I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -23- plans. They were concerned that a lot of the small lots would be built first and the applicant would come back and request additional small lots. We reviewed and calcu- lated the average lot size of this area and that is approximately 12,122 square feet. There is a difference of approximately 2,000 square feet from the overall average. The other issue that was recommended to be strongly considered was the Park and Recreation issue. The Commission, on May 7, 1985, recommended that the City Council request the developer to dedicate one acre of land, which would support a tennis court and a tot lot. The Commission felt that 1) Rice Marsh Lake Park is not ade- quate in size and the amount of improvements that can be made are limited due to wet- ness. 2) The existing tot lot in Rice Marsh Lake Park is too far from the Hidden Valley development. 3) The accessibility of Rice Marsh Lake Park is not adequate for the population in the area and will require more facilities to be available. The street design and patterns are following the lay of the land. It is a very con- voluted site, in that there are a lot slope conditions. The staff's recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commission was that the fees be accepted in lieu of park land so that the tennis court lot could try and be improved on the site south of Lake Drive East on the north site of Chanhassen Estates. We also recommended that 25 feet of the utility easement be reserved for a trail easement and a possibility for a tot lot in the western part of the site. In summarizing this, you have a preliminary development plan request for rezoning to P-l south of Lake Drive East; you have a wetland alteration permit request because the sedimentation basins in the southeast part of the site are within 200 feet of a class A wetland; you have a land use plan amendment application from high denisty and low density residential to commercial and rezoning request for these two outlots from R-la to C-2. The American Legion site is now zoned as C-2 as well. Our recommendations based on the applicant's application is to approve the development plan with the P-l zoning south of Lake Drive East; approval of the reduced setbacks for reservation of the trail easement, a reservation of no easement in the south part of a 150 foot setback area; all the recommendations made by the City Engineer; the proposed planting plans as submitted; filing of the proposed deed restrictions; compliance and satisfactory outcome of the environmental assessment worksheet, which has been done; and acceptance of park dedication fees in lieu of park land. Councilwoman Watson: On the residential property, what are the minimum lot frontages on the cul-de-sacs? Barb Dacy: The majority of the cul-de-sac lots measure 50 feet in width and most of the non-cul-de-sac lots were at least 70 feet in width, and those abutting Chanhassen Estates are 90 feet. Councilman GevinQ: The last time you were here we sent you back home to do your replanning and you did a very good job at taking another shot at this. I think that some of the objections that I had were the small lot sizes. I still see 31 lots that are less than 10,000 square feet. I am very pleased to see the cul-de-sac sizes are larger and you are doing a fair job of separating the residential areas from the existing Chanhassen Estates, even though those are quite larger lots in size in the Chanhassen Estates area. My next point is the request from the Park and Recreation Commission for a one acre tot lot size area. Do you have any comments on that? Jerry Martin: I must have misunderstood, I thought that they would rather have us give a donation. Councilman GevinQ: They wanted both. They wanted a tot lot area, I understand. Barb Dacy: The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a one acre site be reserved for a tot lot and a tennis court. It was staff's recommendation to accept the park dedication fees and the reservation of a trail easement. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -24- Councilman Gevinq: If we get the park dedication fees of roughly $400 per unit, where are we going to invest that money to build a tot lot? Barb Dacy: An idea has been suggested that a tennis court could be placed at the site of the old sewage treatment plant on the north side of Chanhassen Estates. I Councilman Gevinq: Do we own that property? Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Gevinq: How big is it? Is the existing sewer area greater than one acre? Is it big enough for a tot lot and possibly a tennis court? Bill Monk: Yes. Councilman Geving: Would this be a public facility available to all of the residents of the community, or would it be for just the residents from just this area? Bill Monk: We would have to take a look at it. The parking and access would be a question that we would have to resolve because it is on Lake Drive East and it is large enough to fit, but it would take a significant amount of altering the site. Whether a tennis court should even go there is questionable. Councilman Geving: I am not so concerned about the tennis court as I am with the need for some place for these children to play. The area down in the southern part of the development was virtually the small park. We carved out a park and put a ball diamond down there and I suspect that if you build 109 units in here, there is going to be a lot of children looking for a place to play. They can't go across the I highway. I think that should be addressed, at least at the staff level, to see where we are going with that. Also, do you have a church in mind? Jerry Martin: Yes, we do. The Lutheran Church here in town. There is some of the constituents here this evening. Councilman Geving: Over what period of time do you feel that you can accomplish phase I and phase II? Jerry Martin: We would hope to be in and out within two years. So, we would hope that phase I would take us a year from the start and starting with phase II in the spring of next year. Councilman Horn: Barb, you said the average lot size was around 12,000 square feet. Did you do that based on taking all of the lots and dividing the number of lots into that? Barb Dacy: The 12,000 figure was the average lot size in the first phase. The whole 109 lots is 14,700 square feet. Councilman Horn: That is taking all of the lots and dividing by the number of lots, not including the green area, it's not a gross type of thing. Councilman Horn: There are some fairly small lots in here, and they are smaller than I would like see, but I can't argue with the average lot size. I Barb Dacy: Right. As a matter of fact, the gross of just the middle acreage is 2.3, the net, minus the streets, is 2.9 units per acre. I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -25- Councilwoman Swenson: On Drive A on the east side of the property, block 1, are those double frontage lots? Barb Oacy: Yes they are. Councilwoman Swenson: I believe we have some sort of a restriction on double fron- tage lots in that some berming is required. Barb Oacy: Right, and that is what the buffer easement is on the north side of those lots. That is intended for the five to six foot berm. Councilwoman Swenson: Is there some way we can be assured that the people purchasing property along that block are going to know the future planned use for outlots A and 0, or are we, at some future date, going to have people come in and saying, "hey, we don't want that here, this is a residential area." Barb Oacy: Part of your action tonight, if you decide to designate outlots A and 0 as commercial and rezone that to C-2, normally a property owner would come into the City Hall and ask what the area is like across the street. We would say that it is commerical, C-2. If there are any uses in that district that require a conditional use permit, a public hearing would be conducted. You are going to be acting on everything on that piece tonight, except maybe for the proposed church. Councilwoman Swenson: We will make certain that people purchasing property along that line are going to know that is a potential commerical area. I am assuming that the lots are going to exit onto the interior street. Barb Oacy: Yes Councilwoman Swenson: My main concern is the sedimentation into Rice Marsh Lake. I find this disturbing. We have a contour line of 877, which according to my figures, puts that into Rice Marsh Lake. I don't think we need any more drainage into Rice Marsh Lake and into the creek. It's missed in the environmental assessment worksheet to the effect that this is going to require some attention. I don't like to see that down that far. Is there an alternative to this? Bill Monk: In looking at the site and trying to come up with a drainage system, I first looked at the piping and then backed up to that into some type of a inter- mediate ponding area. The lower sedimentation pond, I think its configuration will be changed somewhat from shown on the actual plan and will be expanded in an east/west direction before the plan is actually finalized. Sedimentation basins will be totally above the ordinary high water mark. It will not actually go into what will be considered the wetland area or the lake area. Councilwoman Swenson: An 877 elevation? Bill Monk: It will be all above that elevation. That is a part of the requirement, that it be above that. Councilwoman Swenson: It is definitely an alteration. Bill Monk: It is, there is no question about it, but the options with the terrain are very minimal. The plan, as you see it, is about the best of the options that were viewed. Councilwoman Swenson: I just don't approve of this at all because we have sedimen- tation going to Rice Marsh Lake and we know that we have problems with this chain of lakes. I can't sanction contributing to those problems. Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -26- ~ Monk: One of the things that we have looked at is that we have extreme sedimen- tation occurring there now. When you walk down that ditch, some places it will be 8 feet deep. I think we have looked for a system that would control that sedimentation with the ponding arrangement and the step down that's being proposed and capture as much of it as you can before you actually get down there, so I believe there is some question in my mind that it will make the situation better. It will alter erosion, but it will also allow the subdivision to maximize and enhance the aesthetics of the site with a step down approach. Councilwoman Swenson: I am less concerned with the aesthetics of the site as I am with the quality of the water. Bill Monk: The erosion that exists there is going to have to be handled somehow and someday. This represents, I believe, a reasonable approach. I just don't see many options because there is not enought flat land there to make a sedimentation pond at any intermediate stage. Mayor Hamilton: Do you think that there will be any significant increase in the amount of flow into Rice Marsh Lake? Bill Monk: With the hard surfacing of the streets and the houses, there is no question that there will be an increase. Any subdivision will always increase it. What you try and do is control the rate. That is what we are doing here. We are controlling the rate as a trade off to the volume. There is no way that the volume will not increase. What we are doing here is trying to control that volume and release it at least the same level as it is being released now, just over a longer period of time, and to halt the erosion and come up with some maintainable system. This is about the best plan that we can come up with. Councilwoman Swenson: If we are going to increase the quantity of the flow that is going to go into Rice Marsh Lake, this is obviously going to influence the level of the lake and it is going to influence the level of the creek, it's going to influence the level of Lake Riley and right on down. The water is already so high now that in some cases it is getting a little perilous. I am very worried about this. Mayor Hamilton: I think I heard Bill Monk say that there maybe more volume, but it is going to be spread out over a longer period of time. It is all going to drain and it is going to keep going through the systems, so you are not going to see an increase of the level of the lake. Councilwoman Swenson: I disagree with that. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have the information that tells me that it is true or not true. Councilwoman Swenson: We know this from other instances. Councilman Horn: Are there outlets on these other bodies of water down stream from Rice Marsh Lake that would have them seek a lot more. Will this be a volumetric increase. Obviously, the last one on the chain will see that. Councilwoman Swenson: What is the Watershed's opinion on this? Have we received any report back from them on this? Barb Dacy: Yes. They sent an EAW. They will have to go through the normal per- mitting process, just like any other subdivision. I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -27- Councilwoman Swenson: This is something that I would like to know more of. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a possibility of putting in a sedimentation basin/baffle weir type of arrangement so that the flow could be controlled even more? Bill Monk: I guess the type of outlet structure that would be put in there is questionable. I think it would be better just to berm it up and actually let it overflow in order to outlet it to the point source. You can argue back and forth between the two. We will be recommending that the basin be enlarged east or west to make it store just as much as possible before it does overflow and handle a larger storm. The actual type of outflow, at this point, hasn't been determined. I am not sure whether one would be any different really than the other, except that one might allow for more central erosion. Councilwoman Swenson: Would it be of any advantage for that to be up without disturbing the wetland area? Bill Monk: Again, the moving of it as far north as the terrain allows, there will be no disturbance below the ordinary high water mark of Rice Marsh Lake. We are staying back from that as the DNR and the City always require. Mayor Hamilton: Will we see this when it comes back for final approval? Bill Monk: The Council would see plans that would be made for any drainage plan and would have like approval on those plans. There is a lot of work that needs to be done with the Watershed District, the DNR, myself and the developer to come up with a final plan, but it will be based on this proposal and I really don't see any option. Mayor Hamilton: We see that as a concern and that you would address that in your final plan. It would help me and I am sure it would help Councilwoman Swenson if we had somebody to estimate the volume of water that may be running off now, what volume can be stored and how fast that flows so we have some idea as to what increase there is going to be down stream all the way along. Barb Dacy: There was a detailed review and volume requirements, etc. that will be regulated by the City Engineer and the permitting process of Riley Creek. They are going to have meet another set of approval. Councilman Geving: I think there are too many lots. I would like to have the Council look at block 2, lots 36, 39 on cul-de-sac D. I find those two lots at 7,700. If we eliminated one lot on that street we could bring the average up to around 8,000. What is happening here is you are taking a corner lot, which is 100 by 120, immediately next to it you have a lot that is 70 by 110, so you have a large lot and a little lot and then right next to it again you have a 10,000 square foot lot and two lots over you have another 7,700 square feet. My recommendation would be to eliminate one lot along that street, cul-de-sac B. I would like to address that. Gene Ernst: You are correct. The width of the lots are the same. The only addi- tional thing is that there will be additional back yards on the larger lots. That is the reason we left those at that size. Councilman Geving: Those are my objections on that street. The street to the west of that on the same block, lots 33 and 31 on the cul-de-sac, are also very small lots. I don't intend that you eliminate a lot, just square off the sizes of some of those. Your corner lot is 8,500 square feet surrounded by these two 7,900 and 7,700 Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -28- square foot lots. You then have a huge lot, lot 30, in the middle of the cul-de-sac that could be pushed out a little bit. You could square those lots up and have some very decent looking lots. Mayor Hamilton: Is your intent to have every lot the same? Councilman Geving: I would like to have most of the lots over 8,000 square feet. That is my intent. Mayor Hamilton: A 7,700 square foot lot is very close to that. I think they have done what we have asked them to do. Councilman Gevinq: I think that in order to maintain the style of the homes that we put in there, I think that 8,000 square feet is pretty much of a minimum. Jerry Martin: Gene and I looked at that in that particular area. We were trying to do just what you are trying to do and we saw what you saw. Councilman Gevinq: I am not trying to eliminate a lot here and there. I am trying to make them look a little bit larger to the average homeowner. Jerry Martin: We looked at exactly the same thing and our comment was that also. Gene sat down and tried to pull those lots around. Gene: We did that and that is why these lots got larger. Before, these were the same size. We added the square footage to lots 38 & 39 to make those larger because they were the same size as the adjacent lots. Your comment in reference to lot 30; you are correct. That line could change to increase lot 33. The reason that was done is because the survey is simpler to lay it out. Councilman Gevinq: If we were to extend the lot line on lot 30, then you would have four decent home sites on 32, 31, 33 and 30. Those four could be very nice home sites, allover 8,000 square feet. Gene Ernst: That is no problem to change that line. adjustment. It is simply a matter of Councilman Horn: I had expressed some concern earlier over the 7,700 square foot lot and if we can negotiate to eliminate to get our average up to 15,000, I think that's great. But, what I am concerned about doing is making every lot look the same. I think it is better to mix a small one in with a big one than it is to cut the big one off and make two identical lots. Pretty soon it gets very monotonous. I like the concept of mixing them in with the larger lots. I would hate to have an area where we have all the small lots bunched together and all of the large lots bunched together. Councilwoman Watson: We do have all of the small lots that is Councilman Geving's and my point. If you mark you will find, as the Mayor says, we have a nice mix. under 10,000 square feet. bunched together. down these lots in We have a nice mix I think that corner of lots all Mayor Hamilton: I think our average lot size has increased significantly and I think that is what we were looking for. We are bound to have a few small lots. Councilman Horn: I tend to agree with the Mayor. sizes. That to me is what a PUD is all about. It size, and that allows you some variety. I am concerned about average lot says you look for the average lot I I I I I I Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -29- Tom McGuire: I live at 8026 Erie. My property, if I am interpretting this correctly, will abut up to the church property. I understand that they are going to put up a six foot berm up against all the northern lots. My question is, will that include the church as well? Barb Oacy: If there is to be a church located at that site and going through site plan review, staff would certainly make recommendations making that site plan with additional grading. Tom McGuire: Will they also have two trees per lot. Gene Ernst: The descision was the trees would be located on the lots that there is no berming. There is an area here, because of the topography, that the berming would be very difficult to place. Mayor Hamilton: While we are discussing that church lot, is there a real possibility that the church people are going to be able to purchase that lot from you? Jerry Martin: Yes, we are about 99.9 percent sure. Area Resident: One of the things that has been an issue for the people in Chanhassen Estates throughout this whole process, has been the question of the garages and the basements. We have been to the Planning Commission and talked with them and I think they made a recommendation that both double garages and basements should be part of this proposal. I was a little confused as to what Barb Oacy said in regards to the basement issue. Would you address what you think about that and what you might be recommending here. Jeremy Neiqhbor: I am a partner with the architectural coalition and we have been commissioned by New American Homes to provide the designs for Hidden Valley. I can state, unequivocably, that all the houses will have two car garages and they will all have basements, either partial or full. There is a situation with respect to the way the topography of the land, that given the way the land lays and putting a house on that site, the back side of the lot sloping off would require, by necessity, a walk- out basement if you wanted one or not. The others would be provided, because that is simply what the market wants. Mayor Hamilton: There are many homes in Chanhassen today that, you could say, do not have basements. Simply because the lay of the land you couldn't put a basement in some of these homes that were built near lakes. If they put a basement in, they would be under water. That is, consequently, the same situation that exists here. Some of those homes, you couldn't put a full basement in. Jeremy Neiqhbor: In some instances it will be split entrances, some instances full basements, and some instances partial basements. But in all cases there will be an area for storage and a two car garage. Councilman Gevinq: Perhaps you could show us your sketches. Jeremy Neighbor: I have a number of sketches to show. We presently have 6 which we are proposing for the 109 units to be developed. We are also constantly developing new plans and that is to say that we will not only have six plans. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of a homeowner coming in and purchasing a piece of land and using a plan of their own and would meet the criteria in terms of quality, could also be included. We have tried to set up a range of houses to make a wide variety of houses available to more than just a single notch make. Smaller houses available ranging from 1,100 square feet up to 1,400 square feet. All have two car garages Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -30- and all have basesments and all have a lot of other amenities that we are finding desirable in the market. I will show you plans that we will definitely be providing, but there are more to be developed. 1) Split level entry - This is a smaller house, I has a master bedroom, den, and another bedroom, a large living room, a deck on the mid-level entry, and in the half level there is a family room and basement. This is kind of split level entry that we will provide and the storage that you are talking about. This is a smaller house which has 1,200 square feet. It has a vaulted ceiling. The prices for the houses in general will range somewhere in the neigh- borhood of $65,000 to $75,000, depending on the basements, to about $85,000 to $95,000. There is a lot of variety here. It has to do with the size of the lot, and it has to do with the kind of options that a person might add. 2) Cottage type house - this has 1,200 square feet. The lower level has a vaulted ceiling. The second level has a large attic storage area, as well as the two car garage, off-side deck, two bedrooms up, large master bedroom below, large open kitchen-dining area. 3) Model C- This has 1,280 square feet. It has a two car garage and vaulted ceilings. 4) Model 0 - This is a 1,000 square foot, two story home with a vaulted ceiling in the living room and a large open area. A lot of windows to take care of which is a beautiful site, tremendous amenities with respect to the revene. 5) Model E - This is a large one-story plan with access down to the basement. This has 1,280 on one story. This is the widest home of the group and it is only 40 feet across and would fit easily fit on a 70 foot lot with 15 foot sideyard setback on either side. 6) Model r - This is a cottage type style home, 1,300 square feet with two bedrooms above with a loft, large living room, vaulted ceiling in the living room. This is just a start and we see this as just a minimum. We are developing house plans at the rate of one or two a day. Councilwoman Swenson: There was a comment made that the Planning Commission was con- cerned about the parking for the church and whether or not 3.2 acres was sufficient I to accommodate the parking for the church. Was there some agreement to make that larger? Barb Dacy: 2.59 acres. Lot 59 under plat has been added to outlot B, so the total area now is We have not seen a specific site plan. Dennis Loechler: I live in Chanhassen Estates. It is my understanding that the whole plan is really contingent on the church being developed on that outlot. Is that correct? Councilman Gevinq: No, where did you get that impression? Dennis Loechler: It was discussed at the Planning Meeting. If the church plan fell through, this whole plan would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Barb Dacy: If the church does not locate on outlot B, a new use would trigger another plan review process, but the entire site would not be reviewed, just the use for outlot B. Dennis Loechler: Will the developer be allowed to break ground without that outlot being decided? Mayor Hamilton: Yes he will be. I Jeff Papke: I live at 8010 Erie. The line of homes right along Erie from Dakota, the cul-de-sac has really become violent with the busy roads on both sides of it. These are suppose to become the two primary entrances and accesses to Hidden Valley. Is there some way to include some type of berming on that property? I I I , to \ Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -31- Bill Monk: We have never really talked about the traffic that much, and we should a little bit. I> a'm lJropo'sing as arequiremeiTt' of' the" City that this access drive be continued off the site and hook up with Dakota. So the Council is aware that is a part of City's municipal state aid system trying to get a frontage road that will come all the way through from 184th Street over to Audobon Road and hook up with the southern portion of the site. The duplexes, in this particular area, do end up with double frontages. The City will only be seeking to acquire 50 feet because of the existing Sinclair station. There is going to be very limited things that can be done in here. There, perhaps, can be some landscaping, but the question of a berm is going to be difficult. I haven't looked at the street grade to see what kind of separation there will be, but in essence, I think the City has always planned that someday this road would continue on through here and that is what is being proposed. As to the heavy uses on both sides, one of the reasons that we are not recommending that this 80th Street be pushed through is because of fear a certain area will be used as a short cut. The proposal is to plat across this and not run that road through. There will be some duplexes that will end up with a double load and the City will be looking at what it can do with grade differential and plantings through there. Bruce Frykman: I live at 8020 Erie. The issue of the park dedication, as far as dedicating money or dedicating land, I really think with the number of children this will bring in, that dedicating money to a fund that is going to put a tennis court up one-half mile away from those housing areas is a mistake. I think that there should be a dedicated tot lot land in that development and also I am concerned about the existing drainage problem, the berming and the parking lot. Rick Sathre: I am the engineer for the project. This same issue came up at the Planning Commission and I discussed it at that point. We show on the preliminary grading plan a low'erin'g of the land maSs in' the church site a little bit and there would be a berm that would start one lot north of you. The intent is that the water from the church property would flow southerly and southwesterly and be picked up by the storm sewer. So now, and in the future the high point should be along the pro- perty line. Bruce Frykman: There was the other issue, too, about the tot lot. One other concern I had was about the sedimentation basins, that they are not going to be stagnant mosquito breeding ponds. How are they going to be contained? Mayor Hamilton: As you heard, we are going to have to get more information back on the engineering from the developers about the sedimentation basins. As far as the tot lot, I think you heard that we are not interested in just building a tennis court, as you mentioned, we want someplace where children can play actively and we are going to have to find out some more information about that. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the Preliminary Plan including rezoning to P-l, planned residential development subject to the following conditions: 1. Rezoning of the property will be P-l south the Drive A and the remaining Outlots A and D be rezoned to a commercial designation subject to city approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment. A zoning ordinance amendment should be processed to allow churches in the P-l District. 2. A 25 foot front yard setback on non-cul-de-sac lots, a 30 foot front yard setback on cul-de-sac lots and a minimum separation between buildings of -, -" (:.~ ~j I: \:',"' -- -- Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -32- 15 feet with side yard setbacks of 10 feet on the sides. TI." tlppl.i."a"L o .t) IIi:I -11 ~ u D lIIi L i::I .. ~ L i:1 ~ ~ II Y ..,1 i:111" r u 1. co i::I L; I. D u.i. 1 d.i. II Y I-" t; L 1II.i L dlJ I-' 1 .i. I.,; CI L.i. U II ~ I. u n .i. II Y "uL, u....lqLd,e fJL.up.LIoed lu.L FUll Du.i.ldL..y .pIu,.fJu:'e.d .DuL al...u L1,e 6eLDa,,"o Lu tlJjtl"""L "LLU"LuL"". Amend item 12, June 17, 1985, page 1 and amended July 1, 1985, page 2. I 3. Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement along the south side of the existing utility easement. 4. Reservation of the area below the bluff as a no cut, no mow easement. 5. Recommendations in the City Engineers memorandum dated April 5, 1985, including the piping and grading modifications on Lot 1, Block 4, Lot 3, Block 3, and Lots 33 and 34, Block 4: a. Dedication of a sanitary sewer easement across Lot 8, Block 4 to service the existing residences to the north and west. b. Extension of the 8 inch watermain across Outlot A for connec- tion with the existing watermain at the northwest corner of said Outlot. c. All street sections shall meet city urban standards For width and section. d. Additional right-oF-way for Lake Drive shall be dedicated in the area the Legion property abuts said right-of-way to 'allow For access relocation in the future. e. All drainage conditions of the Watershed District, DNR, and City Engineer be adopted by reference to assure compliance with all applicable agency standards. n" .f,,,., Building permit issuance for Lots 8 and 9, Block 4 include 1.,cel'..tiF.i,ca:tiDn., by a profcessi,onal :engineer.,nifl terms of struc- ture and drainage. I 6. Installation of a five foot berm on Lot 35, Block 4 and Lots 1 - 13, Block 1. lI,,, tlppl.i."tI"L "I,tlll tll"u "uDIII.i.L tI d"LtI.i.l"d ltl"d""ap.i."y pltl" "11U".i.,,y tldd.i.L.i.u"tll v"y"LaL.i.u" tllu"y L1,,, Lup ur L1,,, D"LIII. Amended July 1, 1985, Page 2. 7. Installation of one tree per lot as indicated on the proposed planting plan, and two trees per lot along the Chanhassen Estates border. The applicant shall also submit a detailed planting and berming plan for Outlot B. 8. Filing of the proposed deed restrictions. 9. SatisFactory completion of Environmental Quality Board rules. 10. Basements required on the homes. 11. Two car garages required on the homes. 12. The average lot size be maintained throughout the phasing of the development. 13. lI,aL pLupeI "u"".i.delal.i.u" Dc lake" rUL palk la"d ded.i."al.i.ulo. Amended July 1, 1985, Page 2, to: Acceptance of park dedication Fees in lieu of parkland. 14. That the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed I District must be met. I I I [' , '/ Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -33- Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson.. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, C'ou'ri'cifw'omen 'Watson and Swen"son, Co~'uncilmen'Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the wetland alteration permit pending approval from the Environmental Quality Board, DNR, and Watershed District and also resolving the sedimentation problem. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. The following Councilmen Horn and C. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HIGH AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL: RESOLUTION 085-22. Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the Land Use Plan Amendment from high and low density residential to commerical, subject to Metropolitan Council approval and as designated as Outlots A and 0 as proposed on the plan dated April 1, 1985. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ REZONING FROM R-lA, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE LQ ~ COMMERICIAL DISTRICT: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the rezoning from R-la, Agricultural Residence to C-2, Commercial District on Outlots A and 0 as proposed on the plan dated April 1, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Barb Dacy: In the Preliminary Plan approval, you understand that one of the con- ditions was that the park dedication fees be paid for each lot. I just wanted to clarify that this was the intent of the Council. NO PARKING PETITION FROM KIOWA TRAIL RESIDENTS: --- RESOLUTION 085-23. Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the request for no parking from Kiowa Trail residents. Resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REVIEW REQUEST OF AERATION INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR SYSTEMS TEST ~ LAKE SUSAN: Bill Randall: The purpose of the testing is, we have been in business for about 11 years and we manufacture pollution control equipment for water pollution and also lake restoration. We have expanded our product line with the market, both domesti- cally and internationally. We have installations in 48 states and in approximately 33 foreign countries. We developed larger horse power sizes and to be able to market these effectively, we have to do some testing to determine the effectiveness of the equipment, the size of the area that can be aerated and mixed with any given unit size. The Army Corps of Engineers have done testing for us in the past and we are drafting some plans and specifications in asking them to supervise this test for us also. Councilwo~an Swenson: Why Lake Susan? Council Meeting, May 20, 1985 -34- Bill R a"hOd ~ 11 :' I tis c 1 0 set 0 0 u r drive access 'for t(;ur 'personnel ~ corporation headquarters, and it is within an easy . I .... . , ,~ f\ fl ... , .";' It. Mayor Hamilton: You are putting oxygen into the water, is that the whole effect? I Bill Randall: That is the whole effect and we distribute that oxygen through the mixing capability of the equipment. Councilwoman Swenson: Are you stirring up the bottom of the lake and the sedimen- tation in this process? Bill Randall: No, we will minimize that and that is another reason that we chose Lake Susan, to determine the area of influence of the equipment and if we do note that there is any problem with that, the tests would be discontinued. Don Ashworth: It should be noted that we have been working with Aeration Industries, Inc. over the last few years and sometime we may get them to locate over here. They have a good product. This type of equipment on any of our lakes would enhance all of the water, fishing, etc. Councilwoman Swenson: This is not necessarily true. Bill Randall: New Prague's Sportsman Club received a President's Award for restoring their lake using our equipment. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve aerator system tests on Lake Susan, Aeration Industries, Inc. with the following conditions: . <'". I 1. Approval of the proposal by the Watershed District and MnDNR. 2. That testing only take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that a representative of the firm be present during the test periods. 3. The City retain the right to revoke this approval on 24 hour notice. 4. Aeration Industries assumes all responsibility for its equipment and the operation thereof and for any problems that may occur. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 1985 SEALCOATING PROGRAM: Councilman Horn moved to approve the City Engineer's recommendation for the 1985 sealcoating program. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN CITY HISTORY: Don Ashworth: LaVonne Barac is the editor of the Chanhassen News Letter and she has I also been very instrumental in the Carver County Historical Society, which carries out the history of most of the sections of Carver County, not necessarily the cities. Ms. Barac would like to participate in preparation of the history of Chanhassen. I I I (.~~ ouncil Meeting, May 20, 1985 -35- There are grant monies available sement of her applying for those research an can go up to $3,000. for that job and she is seeking City Council endor- funds. They can only be used as a part of the I think this would be a very worth while project. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve authorization of a letter in support of the application for grant monies to be received allowing LaVonne Barac to particiate in the preparation of the history for Chanhassen. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager