The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 07 0628.] CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL JULY 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. ~he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Councilman Johnson. Mayor Hamilton was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda as amende~ with the followirg additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to add discussion about Park and Rec and discussion about building inspectio~ Don Ashworth had an update on the sprinkling baru Ail voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Gevirg stated that he did not see any formal letter asking for phasing of park dedication fees for Gary Brown's Mini- Storage ar~ in the future he would like to see these requests in letter so they become part of the packet. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the following consent agenda item,s pursuant to tf~ City Manager's recommendations: a. Conditional Use Permit for a Telephone Equipment Building, Lot 7, Block' 1, Chanhassen Hills, Northwestern Bell Telephone. b. Request to subdivide 12.5 acres into three single family lots, located on Galpin Blvd., 1/2 mile north of TH 5, David Stockdale. c. Final Plat Approval, Jeurissen Addition e. Planning Ccmnissien Minutes dated June 24, 1987 f. Approval of phasing park dedication fees, c~ry Brown Mini-Storage. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: R~UEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD~nrA DRIVE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Pieper Gary & Jane Kendrick 541 Indian Hill Road 558 Indian Hill Road 282 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Li _Dd__a Werdel Frances O'Brien Russ & Vickie Knowles Roj ina's Dan Hectorne Harriet O'Brian John & Kathleen Von Walter Alfonso Correa Ron & Lee Harrieux Alan W. Linhart Susan Conrad Don Snede Margie Karj alathi 550 Indian Hill Road 450 Indian Hill Road 501 Indian Hill Road 480 Indian Hill Road 490 Indian Hill Road 500 Pleasant View Road 510 Pleasant view Road 520 Pleasant View Boad 6605 Horseshoe Curve 6575 Pleasant View Way 6625 Horseshoe Curve 489 Pleasant View Road 7413 Frontier Trail (President, Lotus Lake Homeowners Association) Kirsten Pauly 480 Indian Hill Road Barbara Dacy: Tne parcel is located at the bend of the road along Pleasant View Road. This area was originally platted as a street right-of-way as a part of the original Pleasant View Addition platted in 1910. Pleasant View Road in here used to be known as Lake Street and Valhalla Avenue runs in this fashion, Indian Hill Road is up over here. There was a request in 1978 to vacate this portion. The Council at that time did not approve that vacation request. Tne City currently has a city sewer main located through this area. However, that can be maintained by obtainirg an easement over the area. One of the reasons that the original vacation request wasn't approved, and the past Minutes were included in your packet, is that the City was still in the process of looking at an overall public access plan for Lotus Lake. Cbviously since that time the City has opermd a new public boat access at the south end of Lotus Lake. This portion of the right-of-way is very steep. It is not part of the road right-of-way any longer. Last year three wooden fence posts were installed along here to prevent vehicular access down through this area. Because there is no public interest in maintaining this right-of-way as a street nor as a fire access to the lake, there is an existing hydrant in the area, Staff is recommending approval of vacating this. I think it should be made clear that State Law dictates that when municipalities vacate right-of- way that one half of the portion to be vacated bec~aes part of the lot immediatley adjacent to on the one side and the other side becomes part of the lot on the other side. That is State Law. There is no sale of the property involved. It's merely what's required by State Statute. Therefore, again Staff is recommending approval of the vacation request subject to retaining a utility easement so that we can maintain the sewer line. Kirsten Pauly: I guess some of my questions were answered but the City current owns the property now? Barbara Dacy: Yes maam. Kirsten Pauly: And they don't have to sell it at a fair price? Barbara Dacy: No, as I stated earlier, the State Statute dictates that it really becomes part of the adjacent land. City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 K/rsten Pauly: ~kay, and it's no longer felt that a fire lane is r-~c~ed there under the situation of this summer where there's ~ City bans on water usage because of the dangerously low reserves? Barbara Dacy: The City is in the process of constructir~ a water reservoir site along Powers Blvd. that will help alleviate that pressure. Kirsten Pauly: When will that be finished, constructio~ of that? Gary Warren: ~his time next year. Kirsten Pauly: Maybe this should be brought up this time next year? Don Ashworth: We would not use Lotus Lake for our source of water so it would not be used as a part of the municipal water syste~. Kirsten Pauly: No, I don't inte~] to bring that into play but if you have dangerously low reserves and there was a fire up on Indian Hill Boad ar~ that fire hydrant or whatever, may be used as a fire lane at this point in time is still pertinent. Acting Mayor Geving: We would keep that easement for the fire lane. We would retain that right. Kirsten Pauly: So it would strictly be, the ownership would transfer to the two neighboring and you would maintain utility easements? Acting Mayor ~eving: ~hat's correct. Dan ~ectorne: I live on India~ Hill Road and there are a nmuber of households on Indian Hill Road that granted, I understand the Citlfs position as far as if they did decide to vacate it would go to the two owr~rs on each side but I think the land could be better used by the locate residents inside the area that do not have lake property. What I'm suggesting is a small lake association of residents in the area who are not directly on the lake who could maintain the property. Easement would be no problem at all and I think what we would like to do is set up our own restrictions such that it would be easy like no boat dockage or anything like that but to set it up so that we could have a swimming area for the children in the area ar~ possibly trim the trees. There's a big dead tree in the area that we would like to cut dowr~ Cut it back, trim it ar~ set it up as a small-park for the people in the area. I think that would be the best use of the land in the area and then if people did want to approach or launch their boats on the other side of the lake t~ could do so and then dock there but not as an overnight location. Acting Mayor (]eving: Have you considered the extent of the homeowners association Dan? Who would be included in your proposal? Dan Hectorne: We haven't met. This was kin~ of a quick deal for quite a few of us. We haven't had a chance to meet. We realize this was the first meeting so basically this was a preliminary discussion. ~ope nothing will be settled tonight. Possibly at a later date we could present something to the City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Council. Basically what we want to do is have something that's nice in the area. Dress it up but not make it that there is boat dockage. So the people could just walk down there and use the facilities but not maintain any boats who do not have lake property. Acting Mayor Geving: Very good. It' s a use I hadn't thought of before. Don Snede: I live at 489 Pleasant View. the right of the area in question. I live on the lot which would be at Acting Mayor Gev ing: Okay so you're on Lot 23? Don Snede: Yes. Basically my viewpoint is that I don't think the community would be disserviced by vacating the property because there's a public access. There is a park presently being built up Pleasant View which is maybe 1,000 feet up the road. The corner is a dangerous corner. There are several accidents. We've had our yard run into. The house up the street has been run into by a vehicle ar~ a fence on another house has ~bc,.~n run into so the pattern of pedestrian traffic in that area I don't think is very good because of the way the road is. So I don't think the neighborhood would be disadvantaged. I don't think the community would be disadvantaged and I think in terms of considering a lake association is sort of contrary to if the City vacates the property. I don't know what the laws are but in any result I think it would be best served by vacating it. Acting Mayor Geving: How long have you lived in that home there Don? I think you're a new owner aren't you? Don Snede: Yes I am. I've lived there since February of 1986. Acting Mayor Geving: I know that you weren't the applicant that came in earlier and requested the vacation approximately 7 or 8 years ago. Don Snede: Yes, that was Mr. Borne. It was my understanding that the property was taken for a fire lane and the City wanted city sewer put in place, they had made the same motion so that it would be vacated and my concern as a public access the lake but I believe the public access for the comnunity and the parks will be serviced by another route. Acting Mayor Geving: You lived in that area last year. Did you see a lot of public use by people during tt~ wintertime with people who might want to bring a snowmobile or fish house down that ravine? Don Snede: I don't remember seeing anybody taking a fish house down there but before the three posts were put up, there was traffic that would go through there to access the lake which I don't know if the public access is open in the winter. Again, I think my concern is the traffic. Tne traffic and the way the streets... Acting Mayor Geving: So if this was vacated you would accept the adjacent proprty? 285' City (buncil Meeting - July 6, 1987 Don Snede: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: ~he reaso~ I ask that, I assume there are also taxes that would be paid as though it were'lakeshore lav~ that you would be acquiring and pay upon footage rate on. ~here's also a negative connected with this. Don Snede: What would happen is the parties that live there would restore it back to the original plat so it wouldn't be a split betwee~ houses. Margie Karhalahti: I'm here representing Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. I just have a guestio~u Is that lot large enough to have a beachlot on it? I don't believe that it is according to the ordinance. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to refer this to our Staff but lb sure that it isn't. Barbara Dacy: Right, our beachlot standards require 2~ feet. For installation of a dock it's 3~,00~ square feet of area. Linda Werdel: We would like to keep it the way it is. We've been there on an average of 18 years betw~-------n all seve~ houses up on Indian Hill Road. It's just been nice the way it is. We can have the City laws, quiet by 1~:~. The maintenance, everyone has to agree on the Hill to k~ maintenance up. Someone Da- it this month. Someone has it that month. We talked a little bit about it, a few of the neighbors. Acting Mayor Geving: You have talked among yourselves about the possibility of keeping it as a city area and maintaining it youselves? Li~da Werdel: Right, k~--ping it the way it is but the people on the Indian Hill Road will maintain it and abide by the rules. Mary Robinson: I grew up on Indian Hill Road and I've lived there for 25 years and I feel Lotus Lake is part of m~ We've gor~ down there swimming everyday all summer long. That's where I learned how to swim and now I walk my childre~ down there and I let them wade in ~ water am] I just hate to see the land being taken away fr~m us. Acting Mayor Geving: You use it quite a bit now even though... Mary Robinson: Sure, I've gone down there a lot this summer and we've always mowecL We rake the weeds out of the area. We pick up the glass ar~ cans down there that have washed up on shore. Acting Mayor Geving: Where do you live Mary? On this map over here. Mary Robinson: I live on 480 Indian Hill Road. ~hat's where I grew up. Alot of us feelt his way. Acting Mayor Geving: So as far as you're concerned, this is your access to Lotus Lake? 286 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Mary Robinson: It is. We've used it for years. Acting Mayor Geving: It's kind of a neighborhood type of area. John Vc~ Walter: I live two doors fr~m the fire lane and it would be half of Lot 22. Originally, in 1910, I guess that was taken, 20 feet from our lakeshore and 30 from the next door neighbors and then the balance from Lot 23 for a fire lane. I think now the City Planners and Council have provided for adequate park and beach and lake access on t~ lake. Even now, approximately 1,000 feet to the top of that is going to be a wonderful park with a beach ar~ access. The fire lane is not only being used by people on Indian Hill, it's people all over the cities. St. Paul, Minneapolis and unless it's returned or vacated to the two abutting properties, there's no way for the city to control it or the neighborhood to control it. You can't be down there asking everyday where do you live and what are you doing there. It's not big enough to put floats out for a swimming area. Taere are no restrocm facilities. There are changing and dressing facilities. There's no way to monitor that it's used 24 hours a day. It's on the absolute worst curve on one of the most perilous roads in Chanhassen. I saw a boy riding up on a bike from that lakeshore get hit by a car on top of the hill when he came out. There are just too many things that can't be controlled as an outlot, as a beachlot. The only way it can be controlled for the peace of the neighborhood is through ownership by the abutting owners. Acting Mayor Geving: Barbara, would Mr. Yon Walters be the other recipient of half of the lot? Barbara Dacy: No, I believe it's Harriet O'Brian. Acting Mayor Geving: And on your map is that Lot 20, 21 and 22? Are there three owners? Barbara Dacy: Mrs. O'Brian might be here tonight. She owns the east half of 22 and the easterly portion of 58. 58 does have three ownerships and I believe Mr. Von Walter, you also own a portion of LOt 58 but Mrs. O'Brian owns the most easterly port.ion of it. Acting Mayor Geving: She would be the one to receive the other half? John Von Walter: I guess I would like to say that the only viable solution is to return it to the abutting properties. Any other solution will continually come back to haunt the city and tie up it's resources and county resources. I have never called the Sheriff on anybody but I know the Sheriff has been over there plenty of times. Having ~ a police officer for 9 years I know those nuisance calls, a lot of times while you're answering one of those, somebody else that really needs help isn't getting it. I think the only solution is for vacation and return it to the tax rolls and make it a city asset rather than a city liability or a neighborhood liability. Jim O'Brian: I'm the homestead owner of LOt 22 and a portion of Lot 58 that is in question. I guess John said most of what I had to say and that is that Valhalla Avenue was dedicated years ago as a fire lane and it has not been 287 City Oouncil Meeting - July 6, 1987 used as that for many, many years now. ghere are three obvious options that the City can approach this witl~ Number o~e is status quo which would be to do nothing ar~ over the past 7 or 8 years this status quo position that the City has maintained on it has more or less invited the collectic~ of junk and debris on this property. It has invited unauthorized usage of the premises. People try to launch boats down there. People do park watercraft. There are parties where e~tertaining goes on on those premises. ~he second option of course would be to make it public. I suggest that making this area public, putting up swimming docks and this sort of thing, invites much the same sort of use. Continued partyirg would be hard for the City, really this is an isolated area, would be hard for the City to control that. If it's not hard for them to control it, why isn't it controlled now? The City, as John said, is providing adequate or is making for plans or is in the process of providing adequat~ access to the lake for people who do not own lakesho~ I do not feel that using a fire road for access by non-lakeshore owr~rs, either on, off or away from the lake, is something that the City r.c~ to concern itself with. My suggestion is the only viable solution is to return the property to tt~ property owners or to that section of property from whence it originated years ago and that would be to vacate that property. Russ Knowles: I~;e lived in tk~ area since 197~ When I moved out t~ in 1976 I thought that I bad public access to the lake which I fourr] out later I didn't so I called and t~]ked to the City C~missioner I think was in 1977 ar~ I was given permission to use that fire lane right-of-way and maintain it, cut brush down and since I've ~ there since 1976 the existing landowners adjoining this piece of property never once lifted their hand to do the maintaining. I kept a 12 foot aluminum boat down there. That was the only time I launched a boat and I hand carried that down there and tied it to a big old elm tree. Wild parties, if me ar~ my s(x~ goirg down there is having a wild party, he's only 6 years old. You can tell my lot line is not too far off the corner of that property. It's actually right on the corner of that S curve. Like I said, I've ~ there since 1976 and we've used it every year until this year is the first year I haven't mowed it because it just to be too much of a hassle. Kathleen Von Walter: JUst to make this short and sweet. I think the issue is one of legally and morally the city does not bave the right to give that land that they took from these lots in 191~ to a group of people who are not involved in it. There is plenty of access. There are going to be two beaches on the lake. ~here is lake access for boats. It can not be controlled there. Kevin Pieper: I bave a question about where this new park or where this new beach access will be located? Barbara Dacy: ~he South Lotus Lake boat access is opened and is located across from Chanhassen Meadovm Apartments. Kevin Pieper: Several people bave eluded to a new beach and a new psrk facility in ~ area. Barbara Dacy: North Lotus Lake Park will be located down as Pleasant View Road bends north, it's just off the map here, it's over in this area 288 City Counci 1 Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Pleasant View Road comes over and bends to the north from Fox Hollow to the east. Current park plans are just indicating a soccer field, a ballfield and tennis courts at this time. There will be trails down to the beach and so on but there is not to be a public access to launch boats. That's to be confined to the South Lotus Lake access. Acting Mayor Geving: Is there going to be a swimming beach there? Don Ashworth: I can not recall the plan. It's very shallow there. Barbara Dacy: In any case, there is Carver Beach Park on the west side. Tnat obviously has swimming access. Acting Mayor Geving: The reason I ask that question, I'm a little bit familiar with that area. It's very swampy up there on the north err] so it might be difficult. Kevin Pieper: You mentioned the Carver Beach facility. That's fine. There's a swimming area there but there's no plaoe for parking. To put in an area and say we're going to vacate this parcel but we're giving you this fine beach area somewhere else and effectively you may be starving us our anyway. You'll never be able to provide us access. You won't be able to walk there because we have small children and we won't be able to park there so where is our access to Lotus Lake? We pay property taxes in the area too. We've come to accept this as a part of living in the area. Just walking down to the lake and to see the lake from our homes and not be able to have any access whatsoever is a bit frustrating to all of us especially singe we've used it over and over the years. I have to agree that, I don't think there is any parties going on there. I haven't seen them. If someone having one ~ down there or launching a canoe, I don't think that's a problem. As far as traffic across that roadway, there are only seven families up there. I don't think you're talking a problem with traffic. Even if it did represent a problem, you should control that intersection anyway. There's lilacs around Lot 23 that are definitely a traffic hazard. You can't safely make a left turn off of Pleasant View Road eastbound onto Indian Hill. Harriet O'Brian: Mr. (YBrian and I own Lot 22. This summer there have been no wild parties. Last summer I cleaned up beer cans and glass. I specifically know who was at the party. ~ey were on our dock and our property and they lived on Indian Hill Road. After ~he party I cleaned up glass, beer cans and things like that. I went down and asked them to please get off of our dock and our property. This year there has ~ no problem. I think the pressure has been on. I don't know if that's the reason or not. What bothers me the most is there are small children in the area ar~ the use of alcohol down there has been a problem up until this year. Gary Kendrick: I've ~n curious, is there a problem there in that area or what is the Council meeting about? Acting Mayor Geving: I can only tell you that the City petitioned for this particular item. There are no petitioners that requested this item be vacated. It was brought to our attention that we've had a number of problems 289 City Cour~il Meeting - July 6, 1987 in the area on that lot with people parking on Pleasant View Road and using that lot. T~ narrowness of the road itself I think is the reason that it was brought to the city's attention but the homeowners, Mr. (FBrian ~ Mr. Snede, they did not petition for this vacatioD. The City brought this before the Council. ~ry Kendrick: I've lived there for quite a few years and I have never had any c~mplaints or knew of any c~mplaints on whether there's parties going on or not. I was under the understanding that we could use it all the t/me. Acting Mayor Geving: As long as it's ~ city property, nobody has given a lot of attention to it. It's grown up with weeds and like someone said, they've ~ maintaining it and I drive by there occasionally myself and look at it and feel that as long as it's city property, people can use it. It's public property. Gary Kendrick: ~hat's the way I've always felt. It's kind of very discret about it in usirg it, I've used it every year at least once or twice and haven't ~ any problems with it so I'm just kind of curious why some people were upset about it. John Von Walter: 510 Pleasant View Road ar~ I've lived there since 1976. I think a lot of the people, all of tt~ people on Indian Hill Road aren't there to ~_c what goes on. ~bey come, they use it, they go. Somebody else comes, uses it ar~] goes. S~nebody else comes, uses it and goes ar~] as neighbors on nearly abutting properties, it's constantly being used by somebody. Yearly, almost monthly you see people charging into swimsuits with a dressing ro~m. You see nude swimming. Going to the bathroom without restroom facilities. Public drinking ar~ int~xication, foul language. I've ~ use of drugs. Litter and debris that gets thrown in the lake and on the adjacent lakeshores. Kids come down there in the winter ar~ because t~ know it's public t/~y throw rocks and glass on the ice. It washes up to the adjacent lakeshore. This last weeker~ betwee~ us ar~ a neighbor further to th~ north, five children cut their feet in the lake, one of which had to be hospitalized. It's just you have to be there to see it ar~ feel it. I have'no quarrel with the people on Indian Hill Road. I don't even know who these people are that are using it. Dan Hectorne: I would just like to say that the road problems there aren't caused by the city land. The road problems are caused because of the situation of. the road. ~hat's been some of the comments that you brought up here. Like I said, I think whether you're on Lake Minnetcnka or Lotus Lake or Christmas Lake, you're going to have debris on certain areas of the lake no matter what. When you put in your public access on ~ south end of the lake, you anticipate those kinds of problems and you're going to anticipate those kinds of problems with your new access. Carver side or north er~ side ar~ basically it comes down to everybody b~- to police their own area and be good citizer~ and we would just like that opportunity. Acting Mayor Geving moved, Cour~ilman Horn secor~ed to close public hearing. All voted in favor anti motion carried. City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I personally feel that this is too dangerous of a corner to have a public beach at. It's just totally elongated. You shouldn't encourage children to be walking along that street. I've seen people driving in there awful crazy. I do not like the public beach. Our Public Safety Director, I take it there were quite a few public safety issues brought up, I don't know if he's _bad a chance to look at this or if his office. Acting Mayor Geving: We' 11 get to him in a mc~ent. Councilman Johnson: That's some input I would like to hear if you've got any. I'm personally for the vacation primarily because I do not think it's a beach for a beachlot. I would be willing to hear the Park and Rec's opinion on this though also. I think if we're thinking of making it a city beach, it can't be a recreational beachlot for these homeowners because it doesn't even come close to any kind of ordinance. I would have a hard time, Park and Rec would have to convince me that this is a good place for a public park. That's all my comments. Councilman Horn: I pretty much concur with what Jay had to say. As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have public beachlots. I think all the land around the lake should be under private ownership or public ownership so it can be maintained properly. We have some of thrum unfortunately and some are run well and some aren't but as a general rule I think they are the biggest problem we have on the lake today so I would be for vacating it. Councilman Bolt: I'm going to cast a little different direction in this. I think sort of following on something we heard at Grc~n-- wood Shores a month or so ago. I think people do pull together arour~t a neighborhood park. I think the community is moving towards trying to get more neighborhood parks established and I think almost by default this has become a neighborhood park. Then on the other hand, people raised a lot of issues that I've heard the last few months and again tonight about how do we control it? Jim Chaffee has, I think developed a pretty effective program here this summer to work more actively on controlling the public parks. I don't know that this has ever ~ officially considered a public park. It probably hasn't. I think the dilemma is that public property ~s protection. Private property has built in protection. You own it, you stick with it and you go out and maintain it. Since someone said 1910 this has been basically public property so on one hand we have a problem and we've had in many other parks previous to this summer with controlling people who are definitely small in number but certainly leave their impact when they come in and have a party at the wrong hour or leave things that someone else has to clean up so we have that problem. On the other hand we have a neighborhood group that is saying give us a chance to do something about that. I'm sure, I'm confident that the City can not give this property to a neighborhood associatioru PDwever, I think we could sort of established and adopt a park program here and have the neighborhood basically agree to take care of this park. It would still be a public park. It would be open to members of the public whether t. hey were from St. Paul or across the street but I would think that the neighborhood would say we can maintain that park and they are willing to do that recognizing that this park can not have a dock there. Could not do basically anything other than have a beach there but if that's what they want, I think they should have a chance to do that and I 10 291 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 think we should hold off on this until they have shown that they can't handle that responsibi 1 i ty. Acting Mayor ~eving: I would like to ask the Public Safety Director, Mr. Jim Chaffee for his input and I would like to have him res~ to specifically two items. Maybe three. C~e, tell us what problems you've experienced in this area? You must understand Mr. Chaffee has only ~ with the City a short time but he has been here since the boatir~g, docking, swilmning season has started so he's aware of what's happens there. Relate to us your experiences there Jim and secondly, relate to us, if we leave this in the form of a beachlot that others can use, how it might be controllecL Thirdly, give us your rec~m~meodation. Jim Chaffee: The first two are easy, the third I don't know. Oouncilman Geving I'll answer the first question is what problems have I faced since I've been on board here since April 9th. I have heard all the complaints but I think they stem from last year. To date I don't think we've had any complaints, at least to my knowledge, of any parties. At least wild parties. Any nude swimming. I think we pretty much nipped that in the bucL Maybe because of all the public attention that his particular lot has been receiving lately. I can speak for facts. I have ~ out there many, many times myself to view the area. There is a definite traffic problem in that area. I can also speak for the fact that we did impound two boats from that little portion of the lot right before Memorial Day so somebody was using it for boat launching. That's just since I've ~ here and then I've heard all the stories that we~t along with last year and the raucous that that was creating. There is no way that anyone can park in that arM_- Absolutely not. Sino~ the times that I've been out there, I've parked with my four way flashers on as far off the roadway as I possibly could and I've prayed that my car wouldn't have gotten hit just from the people going arourrl those corners. I have some solutions for that. I don't have any solutions per se for that particular lot. I can understand the concerns from the people on Indian Hill because I think the two boats we took were from those people up there but tt~ problems are there. I guess my experience has bccn directly toward the traffic area arr] not necessarily toward the loud parties and what have you on the use of that lot. Now you asked what we could do if it was left as public property. Proactively, not a lot. We're really cutting it thio. Reactively, we certainly can respond to any calls that we get from the neighbors if there are any kirks of cc~plaints of the boozing, the dru~s, the nude swimming, going to the bathro(m~ with facilities. I guess that's the best where I can leave it. Acting Mayor Geving: Could you guarantee that there would be adequate partrolling from time to time with an officer driving through the area to check on that kind of activity? So at least during the evening hours a patrolman sometime would make that swing along Pleasant View Road and look at the property? Jim Chaffee: I can guarantee that my officer will but he doesn't work full time. I can ask the deputies ~ For whatever guarantee that is worth, we 11 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: (]kay, then thirdly what is your recommendation? I have to put you o~ the spot on this because it's crucial to our vote. Barbara Dacy: Also, the City Attorney should evaluate the vacation. Acting Mayor (L=ving: I understand that and I already know what he's going to say so I would like to hear from Jim. Councilman Boyt: I think it's unfair to put Jim on the spbt with having listened to this we've all had the benefit of the background. Acting Mayor ~eving: Okay, that's fine. I'm going to make my own decision. I think that I was the one back in 1978 that disapproved and denied the vacation request ar~ I did so because at that time we didn't know that we were going to put in a boat facility at the south end of Lotus Lake. We r~ed to get to the lake for people in the wintertime. We heard from people who wanted to put their fish houses onto the lake. Some of them did it down through this area. We needed also to get access to the sewer area on the lake for our city crews and at that time I wasn't really happy with the person who owr~d Lot 23. I'm not speaking as a private individual now. I'm speaking as a councilman who I thought that he was more or less denying a lot of people the right to enjoy that lot. I've heard from a number of people tonight that use this area actively and daily and I really believe that there is an opportunity even though someone said that there's a problem, I believe that there is an opportunity here for some people to utilize an area that they might not be able to utilize otherwise. Ms. Robertson, Linda Werdel and others that commented about bringing their children there and they've been doing it for years. Obviously we can make one of three decisions. We could deny this application which we started by the way for the city. We could approve it. Vacate the property or we could leave it as is. We've heard from the council members and I can tell you that this issue will require a four-fifths vote. There are only four people here tonight. The vote will fail and I can tell you that I would vote for leaving it as a public beach under one condition. That it be left only as a swimming beach. There would be no docks on it. It's not an applicable beach as far as the Park and Rec people are concerned. It doesn't meet any of our requirements for a beach but after hearing the public tonight I guess I would like to see this left in it's present state for approximately one year until next spring. This gives us the entire boating season. The swimming season for this year. For the residents to prove themselves to us that the debris and the parties and the control that Jim Chaffee mentioned can be done and that we could leave this area as it is at least through this swimming season amd boating seaso~ There will be no docking of boats there. It's strictly a recreational area. Taat's how I feel about it. We could vote on this if you like but the vote will obviously fail. It can not pass so the status quo will be maintained. End of issue. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask as part of your condition Dale that the homeowners in fact get together a group that they note the appropriate people in the city as to who the president is going to be and that basically by doing that they are agreeing to trying to maintain this. It's a public area but I think that' s very important. Otherwise I think we' re wasting our time. 12 293 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: I'm looking to Dan Hectorne and the homeowners in that area. Linda, Mary, whoever else presented themselves before us tonight, to show to the Council that they can maintain this property and keep it under control for this year. We'll all be here next year so we'll determine one way or the other but for tonight's purposes I think we can give you the fair shot of leaving it the way it is for this season. Don Ashworth: There should be a vote on this item and potentially your suggestion to go through one year, you may want to handle that as a separate motion or combine it, whatever. Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to make the motion to deny the vacation request ar~ at the same time make this a continued a public beach for this season until approximately March of 1988 at which time the City Council will determine whether or not we will vacate this officially back to the o~ b~meowners o Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Councilman Horn: You say you will maintain this as a public beach. I didn't realize it was a public beach. Acting Mayor Geving: No, but maintain it as a public area. One that the citizens of tt~ community can us~ Whoever wants to use it, it's public. It's public to the people of our community. If they want to come down there with their childre~ ar~ swim that's fine. Cour~ilm~n Horn: Or other oammnities. Acting Mayor Geving: We have ~o control. They can co~e to any one of our parks. It's a public area so that's the extent of my motion. Councilman Johnson: I personally would prefer to, rather than de~y it at this point to table it and refer it to the Park and Bec Commission because they're the experts on park and recreational ar~ they should be the ones reviewing this issue and providing us with a recommendation now that new light has been shone up(~n this. This will effectively delay it several months by itself. The Park and Bec probably can't get it on until at least the August agenda. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's put it this way. No matter what we do, there will not be a four-fifths vote on this issue to deny or to accept the petition because it is obvious that there are two council members that will vote against it so I withdraw my motion a~d will table this and move it to the Park and Recreation for further consideration. Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to t~_hle the request to vacate a portion of Pleasant View Road/Valhalla Drive and refer it to the Park ar~ Recreation Commission for further consideration. Ail voted in favor of tabling the it~ and motion carried. 13 294 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: Now does everyone understand what we did. It's basically status quo as it currently is until we get input from the Park and Rec and if it should be brought back to the Council with their recommendation we' 11 probably have another meeting on it. Councilman Johnson: Status quo isn't for a public beach. Acting Mayor Geving: It's city property that's available for people to utilize. Councilman Johnson: But not docking boats. Don Snede: Does this mean then that this space can be utilized by anybody? Acting Mayor Geving: It belongs to the City of Chanhassen. Don Snede: But I'm saying, anyone can use this space? Acting Mayor Geving: If they use it in a manner that doesn't deface it or it's not illegal. They can walk down to the beach ar~ enjoy the area, yes. Don Snede: Are you saying that it can be used by anybody for just swimming or swiming and picnicking or swiming, picnicking and boating or what? Acting Mayor Geving: That's the thing. Tnere will be no boating I can tell you that. Don Snede: Okay, so there's no boating. Is there picnicking? Acting Mayor Geving: There is no provision for picnicking down there at the present time. Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest is that if you would get your neighborhood group together and go to the Park and Rec meeting. As Jay and Dale have pointed out, those are the people we have asked to look into these issues. I think if you have recommendations about bow you want to see this public piece of land used, you need to bring it to them but from an ordinance standpoint, you can't have a dock. That's one third3 we can rule out and say it just can not happen. You can't launch boats there if they require any sort of boat launching equil~nent. Public: Can you beach boats there? Acting Mayor Geving: No. Don Snede: So basically the City Council is saying right now that anybody can utilize it as a swimming beach solely? Acting Mayor Geving: Right now we're going to have to get some input from the Park and Rec people as to what they will recommend to us. I don't know when that is going to take place. Tney meet twice a month and probably will be mid-August before they meet again. 14 295 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Barbara Dacy: We will r~tify the public. ~here's a sign-up sP.~t by Nann that l~opefully t~ will have signed. Kirsten Pauly: Can I ask a question? In the interim between the Park meeting can w~ mow the area without getting into tro~le? Acting Mayor Geving: I don't have any problem with that. Clean it up. Susan Conrad: I have a problem with that. I don't think that the private sector has the right to clear cut. Acting Mayor Geving: 7hey're not clear cutting. ~hey're picking up bottles, Harriet O~Arian: ~hat's what they're doing. ~he~re clear cutting the land down there with lawn mowers. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know that it is. Susan Conrad: They are. It's just like in Carver Beach. Acting Mayor Geving: (kay, I'm going to close this issue and it remains as if it were yesterday. We will give some direction to Mr. Chaffee as to what we see is an appropriate activity down there. Councilman Horn: Should this item come back to us, would you research the area of ownership. It appears to me that there are three owners of Lot 58. Barbara Dacy: Yes. NORTH LOTUS LAKE FIRST ADDITION SENER, ~ATER AND STREET IMPIKTF~T~S. C~ry Warren: North Lotus Lake project involves a combination of private improvements and city park project all be do~e under a public improvement project. The Council authorized the taking of bids ar~ we received response from a number of very qualified contractors. Low bidder being Widmer Construction Co., St, Bonifacius, Minnesota wbo ba_- ~ ar~ is doing work within the City and is a reputable contractor. ~he low bid was $141,685.8~ versus the engir.~_r's estimate which was approximately $3,30~.~ above that so we feel very comfortable with Widmer (kx~struction and therefore are making the recommendation that they be awarded the North Lotus Lake First Addition improvement project 987-10. Resolution 987-66: Councilman Horn moved, Councilmen Johnson secor~ed that the North Lotus Lake First Addition Improvement Project 87-1~ be awarded to Widmer, Inc. of St. Bonifacius in the amount of $141,685.8~. All voted in favor and motion carried. 15 296 City Council M~eting - July 6, 1987 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST LOCATfD JUST EAST OF 1915 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY DUNGEY. Acting Mayor Geving: It was passed unanimously by the Board of ~djustments and Appeals ard the reason for it is that there is a topographical problem in the back of Mr. Dungey's property and that is the reason for the hardship in this case. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, CURRY FARMS, PHASE I. Barbara Dacy: In the report there is noted several changes. The applicants notified staff that they conducted additional soil tests in the area and found that they needed to adjust the street alignments and building pad locations to work with those poor soil conditions and alleviate some of the water table concerns as well. I won't go through each individual change. That's fairly spelled out. Acting Mayor Geving: ~hy don't you go over your analysis section. Barbara Dacy: Okay, tb~ major issues I think that are needed for clarification from the Council are regarding the 90 foot lot width at the setback line. Originally the Council did approve the subdivision as stated there in condition 1 that the 90 foot lot width could be met at a point beyond the 30 foot setback. Because of the change in the arrangement of the lots, noting that lots 2 through 5, 16 and 17 of Block 4, which is along the cul-de- sac along Arlington, are sc~e of the ones that are going to need a setback variance. They can meet them at the 35 to 40 feet back but not at 30 foot setback. The other ones that I've noted is Lot 1, Block 2 can be adjusted with minor lot line changes. Pending Council decision on that issue, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat subject to the execution of the development contract and submission of financial securities, suhuission of required conservation easements ar~ correcting the plat to show side lot line easements as five feet. So again, the major issue is the lot width. Acting Mayor Geving: Clark, would you care to comment on the issue of the 90 feet setback or any other c(mm~ents that you might have? Councilman Horn: I didn't have any problem with the Staff recommendations. Councilman Boyt: I think we have basically committed to a decision that a 90 foot width at the building site is going to be acceptable. We've done that. We've allowed that variance a couple of times and I'm comfortable with it in this situation and possible we could move to change the ordinance to reflect that. The question that I have, I guess I have a couple. (]ne is we granted and maybe this is too late, you can cut me off if it is, we granted apparently a variance that allowed lots that were less than 150 feet deep and we have two of those that are back to back and I'm concerned about that. That we approved it. They're on the last page where it has Block 4, Lots 3 and 16. They both come off of cul-de-sacs and if I read the Staff Report and map correctly, they are both lots that we gave variances to or we proposed to give variances to. My understanding that one of the reasons why we have a lot depth requirement 16 297 City Council M~eting - July 6, 1987 is because one of the most difficult things to find is distance from your neighbor. It's very expensive stuff to buy and o~e of th~ things that you buy when you get that is a little quiet. ~ I see two lots that are both short, backed up to each other, that tells me that there are two folks in there that didn't get their fair share of quiet and I think that should be corrected. Actir~ Mayor Geving: How could we correct it Bill? Is there a Staff rec~uner~]ation? Barbara EScy: ~he approximate distance, maybe the applicants can address that issue also, but it appears to be about 255 feet from the end of Wesley Court to the edge of the cul-de-sac o~ Arlingtoru Again, maybe the applicant should address that in relatio~ to what they were trying to do with the poor soils and the water table problems. Maybe they could relate some of the physical characteristics. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we could get back to that when they make their presentatioru I had another question, I saw in here some co~nents about park fees and whatever Park and Rec decided but since we didn't get their Minutes and I didn't find any recommendation from Park and Rec I have no idea what that is ar~ before we give final plat approval I have to know what Park and Rec is comnitted to. Barbara Dacy: I did go back and check the Council meeting that this was approved at. I don't think you were here the time of this issue but we will make sure that the Planning Cc~mission Minutes are attached. Councilman Boyt: No, I wasn't in atte~d~ Do you know what their reco~n~al~ation was? Barbara Dacy: Dedication of the park site that you have included here and that the develo~nent contract is going to address the issue of park dedicatio~ fees so those issues will be coming back to the Council. Councilman Boyt: So we are going to get another crack at tt~ parks and the park dedication fees and the trails and the trail fees? Barbara Dacy: Their specific recommendatiorm will be included in the development contract, yes. Councilman Boyt: If I ur~ers~ it correctly then I'll get a chance to vote on that at another datm. Then I have a question about Teton ~ It seems to me that I recall the discussion of the Planning Commission there were several residents that had questions about Teton Lane as well ar~ o~e of them was who's going to pay for it? Can you enlighten me a little bit on the Teton Lane situation? C~ry Warren: Bill E~gelhardt is currently preparing the feasibility study and that was the directive we had to resolve ~ issue was to cor~uct a feasibility study. F~'s in the process of that. F~ should have that completed here shortly and that would provide us the answers as far as who owns it, who should own it, who should maintain it and also whether an 17 298 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 alternate access to CR 17 should be provided from the northeast corner of the plat. Councilman Bolt: Then you're comfortable seeing us reach a final plat on this without those issues resolved? Gary Warren: My understanding of the phasing program that is being proposed here still allows those options to be loaned to us. Barbara Dacy: Right. That was part of the original motion that they could proceed with what is being called here as Phase I. Councilman Johnson: I have quite a few. My personal rememberance of our allowing 90 foot at the building setback, not where they build the building. The building setback in this case is 30 foot which is considered where the building setback is. There have ~_..n occasions when I guess we forestood the setback. I have a real problem with allowing, especially Lots 3 and 16 both to push their setbacks back when they're having variances in lot width plus we're pushing the houses back. Within this first phase, originally there were 52 lots, now there are 53 lots. The addition of the additional lot has ~ some of the problem here. This is the old one. Acting Mayor Geving: We don't have a current one is that correct? Gary Warren: Other than the foldout. Councilman Johnson: The one in our packet is the original? Barbara Dacy: I proposed that the first phase on that plat 1 could depict what the final plat is. Councilman Johnson: Within that area, as I count there are 52 lots on preliminary plat. The final plat we've got 5~ Within Block 1 there used to 21, now there's 22. An additional lot will have something to do with our lot widths and having to push the houses further back and closer together here. Lastly I would like to know whether we've still been able to maintain 15,000 on each of these lots. Getting beyond that issue, I think we need the developer to talk on the soil issues. Where the bad soil is and why the bad soil forced them to create one more lot within this block. I would like to see a lot summary. I also noticed some minor technical things on these drawings. There's no north arrows or scales which is kind of good to include on the drawings. ~hey're not signed by a registered surveyor. Whether they need to be signed by a surveyor I'm not sure. Most other plats I've seen have been. Tais is the only one I've seen so far that's not signed by a surveyor. Barbara Dacy: As a final plat we just request the applicant to submit blue line copies. They are required by State Law to have a certain scale. I thought they did have a 1 in 60 scale on that. Councilman Johnson: On page 3 they do. The rest of it they don't. 18 299 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Barbara Dacy: They are all 15,~0~ square feet to answer one of your questions. ~be other question I guess I went back also and reread through the Council Minutes ar~ interpretted your comments to be opposite of what you just said tonight. Councilman Johnson: I think the comment ! was talking specifically en the flag lots because if you look at what we said, we said that at the building setback for those flag lots, if we go back o~ that, the preliminary plat, Lot 13, Block 2, etc., etc., receive a variance to the 90 foot front with all minimum house setbacks at 9~ foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 9~ foot frontage so we said specifically rix)se flag lots don't have to meet the 9~ foot. Flag lots couldn't possibly meet at the 30 foot setback so that's ridiculous so that specific group of three flag lots that we approved, we said where the building is going to be built and the rest of them we said according to the ordinance and now with one more lot into this block, tt~y don' t fit anla~ore. Barbara Dacy: Ail I can tell you is, in the corres~ence to the applicant we notified them that our motion meant that they could locate the house pads at a distance greater than 3~ feet back. That was our interpretation from the Council action. Acting Mayor ~ving: As long as it met the 90 foot width. understanding of it Jay? Is that your Councilman Johnson: I'm just reading what we voted in for the preliminary plat. Item 1 on the front page says exactly what she said for three lots. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 9~ foot frontage requirements with all minimum house setbacks at 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall m~ct the 90 foot frontage requirement. Barbara Dacy: It's that all minimum house setbacks did in fact meet, all the lots within the subdivision. Councilman Johnson: It says all other shall meet. If you read the rest of the sentence it says that all other so specifically that's talking about three lots as far as I'm concerned. Barbara Dacy: 7hose that can meet it at greater can, those that can not have to mcct tt~ setback. .~ Acting Mayor Geving: ~hat' s really the key issue. Councilman Johnson: I persoD~]ly don't believe we gave ~ carte bl~ to play with the front lot setbacks and move them anywhere they have to. I don't know how far back Lot 3 has to be. Approximately 4~ feet. Acting Mayor Geving: ~hey said it would 35 to 4~ feet. Councilman Johnson: So it's 1~ foot on that or~. 16 probably doesn't even ~ that much just eyeballing it. I still have a problem there. It seems to me that they created the problem by taking out the given area space that was 19 300 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 approved for 21 lots and putting 22 lots on it. ghat created a width problem. We didn't have a width problem at preliminary plat. There's no reason for us to address it. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you feel Jay uncomfortable with the report from the engineer, the consulting engineer we haven't received yet, regarding the other access? Do you feel uncomfortable passing this tonight not knowing what that report might look like? Councilman Johnson: I don't believe the first phase, with the topography in the area that Teton Lane is going to terribly affect. That was purposely done that way. Barbara Dacy: Right and that was part of the original approval that they could proceed with the Phase 1. Councilman Johnson: First phase pretty much stands on it's own as far as I see. It's that whole top half that is in jeopardy with Teton Lane. We've got multiple accesses in this first phase. Things like that. On that issue I don't have a problem. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's hear from the developer Jay and maybe them can answer several questions that have been raised from Bill and you. Who's speaking for the developer? Councilman Johnson: Can I ask him one more question as long as he's going to answer our questions? Acting Mayor Geving: (~ ahead. Councilman Johnson: Also on Lot 16 and the corner of Lot 2, there's a great big jog in Lot 2. What is the purpose of that in Block 4, Lot 2 back at the corner of 16 and 177 It's a totally unusual lot. Seven sides plus there are directions and distance on that lot between Lot 2 and Lot 3 there? That's kind of strange. The preliminary plat had it going to the corner. Lot 16 going all the way to the corner. Is that required so Lot 2 has the full 15,0007 I don't have the calculations so I don't know. Kevin Clark: There's a sewer easement that goes through there also. Councilman Johnson: Why is Lot 2 has that little flag on the backend of it? Why don't we have the flat back er~ lot line on Lot 2? Kevin Clark: I don't have the calculations with me. Councilman Johnson: If that's what is being done I don't want that. Acting Mayor Geving: I would rather have it out of there. Councilman Johnson: If that lot is 14,900 now because of that extra 100 foot, that's playing games. I won't use the same terminology I used last week on this one. 2~ City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Kevin Clark: I can refer that to our engi~._~_r if that was a consideration in changir~ tke layout or if it was just an oversight in the multiple drafts we took o Councilman Johnson: ~he other oversight I want to point out is right on that lot line betw------n 2 and ~ Right there you've got a jog so you should have a distance and a bearing along there as far as your surveyors do that. Acting Mayor Geving: That's so~ethirg tk~ ergi_~ars can clear u~u Could you respond to the questions and give us you name? Kevin Clark: My nm~ is Ec:,vin Clark. I work with Centex H~mes. Acting Mayor G~ving: ~ty don't you start with the extra lot that was added. Kevin Clark: Tt~ fact is, ar~ not to point out an error on Barb's part but our original phasing included that entire cul-de-sac to the north. ~hat wasn't a straight jaunt across the top and that thus made the Phase 1 approximatley 55 or 56 total lots. I think it was 57 in original Phase 1. In essence what this alternate, or what we've modified here, we've actually lost a lot in looking at the total picture. What we're doing is a reduced Phase 1 and losing a lot. We've actually doing less lots in Phase 1 ar~ overall reduce the total density in the project by one. ~e it was 81 lots, it now is 80 so really we weren't trying to cram any more lots into a smaller area. In essence, really our consideration was the soils and that's been our major concern for the last couple of months. Acting Mayor Geving: One thing that was brought up earlier, it's kind of ni~e to ~ a summary listing of all the lot~ How big they are and a whole We've had that on every other plat except this one. Barbara Dacy: Again, that's ~ with the preliminary plat approval. Technically the final plat, as required by State Law, you can't, have any lot square footages on there. Staff is checking those to make sure that they meet those requirements. Outside of the lots that we have noted with substandard lot width, all of them meet the 15,000 square feet. They have more than adequate depth and width to meet that 15,000. Kevin Clark: The 90 at the 30, I guess we've ~ of the understanding since the preliminary plat approval that there was an understanding that it could be set at the building line had to be 90 feet ar~ we weren't trying to exter~ to accommodate more lots. We would have tried to look at that impact when the design th~ secor~ phase so that was not a consideration but we did take that into consideration when we were doing our calculations and trying to make the project feasible. In allowing ourselves a lot if it was very graphical to get exactly 9~ feet and we worked with Barb in trying to consistently keeping that understanding ar~ trying to k~ them to a minimum so I guess we were working urger that train of thought in trying to meet the ordinance in all cases at that's liveable and in cases where we couldn't we tried to minimize that reduction as much as possible. 21 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: Could you respond to Mr. Boyt's question on Lots 3 and 16 please? Kevin Clark: 3 and 16 are what really came because of the soils and we did approximately 37 testings with the backhoe out there and we also ~ a professional engineering firm do a total of 19 borings to determine the constitution of the soils. What we found in areas that weren't very identifiable to the eye were organic soils sometimes in excess of 30 feet or water tables very close to the surface. So in taking that into account ar~ trying to analyse the topography of the land we then, we keep getting additional information, we got as much soil information and define the boundaries as we thought we possibly could and that necessitated these modifications in the preliminary plat. Acting Mayor (~eving: Are you satisfied with that Bill? Councilman Boyt: Not without seeing a map of where your soils are. Do you have a soils map with you tonight? What you're telling me is a good portion of Lots 3 and 16 are not buildable, is that correct? Kevin Clark: 3 and 16, no. Councilman Boyt: But you told me you had an area smaller in depth. Kevin Clark: Where the street .is and the area where the street was coming in off of Powers reduced our distance there between the two lots. We removed the T to make that more curvalinear. Councilman Boyt: Let me approach this from a little different angle then. A~e you telling me that Arlington, which is your cul-de-sac, can not be further to the right? Further east? Kevin Clark: Not without encroaching on the 150 foot lot depth for Lot 1. Councilman Boyt: I had some difficulty in matching up your new drawing with the original first plat, preliminary plat. Would you point to me the quadrant on the first preliminary plat that we're looking at when I look at the last page in Block 4. What I'm looking for is translate for me if you would please that Block 4, tell me where that is on your preliminary plat. Acting Mayor Geving: We have to move along. Councilman Boyt: But this is important. He's telling me Dale that he doesn't have any room to move that road and what I'm looking for is Block 4 would be Block 1 in the preliminary plat. SO on your piece of property then, what you own, you have nothing to adjust with is what you're telling me? That's it. You're locked into that spot. Kevin Clark: We've done numerous calculations with this layout in trying to meet the 150 setback, the 90 foot at the 30, the 15,000 minimum lot square footage and jockeying with the orientation and some instances possibly, that's Chanhassen's lot there that was abandoned with Lot 2. That was to accommodate 22 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 some square footage requirements. This is a pretty tight configuration here of this lot so there is very little Councilman Boyt: How much short are these lots? The]fre suplx~ed to be 150 feet is it? Barbara Dacy: Measuring from Arlington to Wesley Court it is 255. Councilman Boyt: How d~ is 3 ar~ how d~ is 167 Did they split that in the middle? Barbara Dacy: Approx~-~tely. Kevin Clark: 130 ar~ about 127. Councilman Boyt: We lost 40 feet in there and we're 20 feet short apiece. There's a lot of things I like about your develol~ent but I don't like that. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know else you could that either unless you shorten up the cul-de-sacs. Would that help? Kevin Clark: Shortening up the cul-de-sacs would help the lot depth but it would actually make the setback width ar~ that was a consideration whe~ we were laying out the lots too. It was sort of the worse of two evils. Kevin Clark: If I shorte~ up the cul-de-sacs I can narrow the lots. Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you Kevin why you could not have drawn a line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 there? Straight north extendir~ the line from Lot 3 through to Lot 2. I guess someone else made the comment about all this area in here. Kevin Clark: ~hat area there am~ that large easement is primiarly to design- ability and realigning the store sewer. Acting Mayor (~ving: But who's going to own that proprty? Who will own that property? Kevin Clark: ~hat will be dedicated to t~ City as an easement as a part of lot. Acting Mayor Geviug: It's part of Lot 167 Kevin Clark: It will be part of LOt 16 ar~ 17 and 2 and 3 but' as a utility easement for that sanitary sewer. Councilman Johnson: I believe his question is why can't you get rid of that little flag in Lot 2. Kevin Clark: We can take care of that. I don't think will be a probl~. 23 4 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Don Ashworth: %he question that Jay had asked, there is a total of 81 lots. We verified that 81 are exactly as they are. When they suhnitted their original request they did show the 58 lots as a part of Phase 1. We showed 51 lots and that's what the Council had approved. In remeeting with the applicant and looking at their actual construction, we agreed that they could go to 52 lots but there is no increase in the overall lots. It's just what will be constructed in Phase 1 versus Phase 2. Councilman Johnson: Which direction has Devonshire been moved? Kevin Clark: It's been moved south and east. It was directed south. Councilman Johnson: So it made Block 4 smaller? Kevin Clark: Yes. It did reduce Block 4. It is more curvalinear now with the T shape. Councilman Johnson: So Block 4 is actually reduced from the preliminary plat but had one lot increased in the number of lots in there thus leaving a problem with lot widths. To me it's a simple solution of lot widths. Councilman Boyt: I bet if you took a lot out you wouldn't have a lot depth problem either. Councilman Johnson: Tnat may be a simple solution to the problem. Acting Mayor (~eving: Which one would that be Bill? One out of Arlington? Councilman Boyt: We have to, if they did something with that clump, 15, 16, 3, 2 ar~ they might want to juggle it around another way but they could get some depth in there I think. I'm not a planner. Acting Mayor Geving: I kind of agree with you in terms of looking at the cul- de-sac on Arlington. I think they could improve the whole plat by removing one lot from Arlington. Councilman Johnson: Or Wesley. Acting Mayor Geving: Wesley, those are pretty good size lots for the most part. Any Staff input on that? Barbara Dacy: At this point no. I guess we would have to go back and work with the applicant on that. Kevin Clark: I guess we feel that refined this area to try to make it as doable as possible by taking into account the soils and the topography and grade and off-site drainage and storm sewer so sanitary sewer could go through there. Again, I think first when we reduced it from what was a 100 lot project now down to 80 and it's not a lot but you can see that we're getting concerned with the number of lots that the project is going to incorporate so I guess we would like to work with the Council as much as possible to try to remain within this area. 24 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What can you offer to buy in distance? If we can't create distance between 3 and 16, what can we give those folks so they've got some room? Physcological and sound roum. Kevin Clark: I don't Mr. Boyt if you were at the preliminary meeting. Councilman Boyt: I wasn't. Keving Clark: I'd like to back up a little and build another amenity into this area that would provide the quiet or the aesthetics. In the center of Block 4 and it's not shown on the plat in the grading, there are a number of retention por~s on here that we built into the site to accommodate storm run- off, off-site drainage and also to improve the degregated wetlar~s that were o~ ~ site. So in that area ar~ it's pretty much th~ whole center easement that you see there, will be an improved pop,ding area. A natural, let's say a man made wetlar~] a~] we've gotten some guideline~ from ~ DNR an~ we are going to improve this area so that you are now providing that backyard kind of a quiet area and that will overlap into 3 o~ tb~ corner there, into 16 and 15 ar~ all the other lots so I think that, rather than seeing just a fence or we can say we can plant trees all along back there, I think the e~viro~ment that we are going to create here and the wetland environment will mitigate the reduction in the lot depths. Councilman Boyt: So you have five lots that are short and what lb saying to you is there are two of them that really concern me because t~ back up to each other. For me and it doesn't take long to pass or reject this thing but for me, if I was to vote for this I would want to --~-- a commitment to move those so there were not two short lots backing into each other or I would like to see something by way of lar~scaping or another reasonable plan that you might come in with that would provide those people some relief from each other. There's no ~ to debate this into the groutS, that's my position. Dick Putnam: We have the be~fit of sitting there and scratching away while Kevin is trying to figure out what to do up hez~u A couple things that I think could happeru O~e on Wesley Court. I think your suggestion about pulling this thing back, I think we could do that. In other words, that gives more depth to Lot lf~ Arlington gets a little tougb~ Maybe we could do that a few feet. I hear what you're saying. E~ery little bit helps to get to that 150. 0~e of our problems was that on Lot 20 and the back of Lot 19, this area was one of those areas where the soils were strange ar~ I think if you know the site, how the ground goes up ar~ down real quick~ ~.fortunately for us the grour~ undergrour~ does exactly ~ same thing ar~ hence tt~ number of holes and trenches that were dug. ~he ground will change from 20 feet of peat to 5 feet of peat within a matter of 12 feet o~ the grour~ which is really, nobody expected it including the soils report. ~hat's why a lot of this was dor~- Lots 20 and 19, by moving this too muc/~ that way creates a problem. Shortening the cul-de-sac probably doesn't but it will reduce the setback on t/~ street by doing that. Acting Mayor Geving: And how much are you going to give us there Dick? 25 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Dick Putnam: I don't know. I guess we need to look at it but I hear what you're saying there. The same thing with Arlington. One of our problems is where I'm scribbling right through here and where we got into that little notch is that there is an existing sewer and we have to tap into that at that point. ~nat sewer line goes all the way through the property like this and that's in place so that was part of the concern about getting building pads and that sort of thing and why the lots ended up like this. In terms of moving Arlington as an example further west, or moving Devonshire Drive further west, the problem we get into is the same thing with the soils. Just off of Devonshire Drive on those lots it starts to drop off like crazy. Acting Mayor Geving: (kay, we understand what you're saying and I think at this point though we have to look at the Staff ar~ we've asked for a few more feet Barbara. We're looking at final approval on this tonight. We don't know whether this lot is going to be 133 or 134, whatever the final lot 3 and 16 are going to look like but could we still approve it and put it back on the Consent Agenda so we can see it again ar~ know what those lots eventually come out to if we do go that route. Councilman Boyt: Would we approve this part of it on the consent agenda? Acting Mayor Geving: Block 4. Councilman Boyt: Block 4, the bigger lots which I don't think anybody has brought up any problems with. Acting Mayor ~eving: We haven't had any problem except Block 4. Councilman Boyt: Oould you bring Block 4 back to us? Councilman Johnson: Has the developer agreed that in Barbara's comments that we can get the property lot width on Block 1, Lot 6 and 14. You will be rearranging those to get 90 foot widths? Dick Putnam: They're at the building site. Acting Mayor Geving: The issue that we have to resolve is the setback. Could you tell us exactly what the Staff recommendation is? It's confusing in looking at the two different ways that it's written here on Page 1. Barbara Dacy: Okay, Staff in developing this report we had thought that Council action was to approve lots so they would have 90 feet at the location of the building site and not necessary at the setback. They were cul-de-sac lots and the 150 foot lot depth variances and then there were all other lots. Acting Mayor (~eving: That's the way I understood it. Does anyone disagree with that? That's exactly the way I understood our motion. Taat the 90 foot would be at the building pad. Okay, so let's resolve that for now and hopefully at some time in the future we'll even amend the ordinance to make that official. That will be a staff directive. Does anyone have any problem with approving this for final except for the last page of this which is Block 4? Okay, then let's go to the motion. I think we're all comfortable 26 7 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 with the reco~m~tions that have ~ provided ar~ move o~. Councilman Johnson: Does the developer have a problem? Acting Mayor (~=ving: I~ not worried about the developer. Let's worry about the Council. Can we make a motion on the recommeodations provided to us by Staff with the agreement that we just made on the lot widths. Does anyone want to make that motion? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn secor~ed to approve the final plat for Curry Farms, Phase 1 s~amped "Received June 16, 1987" subject to the following conditions: lo Execution of a develo~ent contract and sut~nission of financial securities. 2. Execution of the required conservation easements. o Identificatio~ o~ the plat to show that side lot line easements are five feet width. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Acting Mayor (~eving: The directive to the Staff is that we review, have Staff go back and take a look at the setback ar~ bring it back to us ar~ also bring back Block 4 on a potential Consent Ageoda. We don't ~ to see it again other than on the Consent Ager~]a. ~T TO SUBDMDE 105 ACRES INTO 37 SIN~.R FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SO~I%~a~ST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF TH 101 AND CR 14, DON HAt.fA. Acting Mayor (~eving: Let me say one thing to the Council and to the Staff before we move into this area. Tonight we are discussing a lot of subdivisions. ~hey are really crucial for what happens in these subdivisions are going to be the way the City looks for years to ccm~ I~ most concerned about a very important issue and that is where our trails are going to be connecting all of these subdivisiorm ar~ I want Staff to specifically understand my direction to you is in every subdivision make this provision for the trail connection. I know this goes to the Park and Rec people but insist upon giving us a recommer~%ation so that these will eventually all link look like some kind of a syste~u Not just jagged and irregular pieces. Okay, do we all unders~ that? That's really a crucial point to me. Moving on the~, let's go onto it~u 5, Mr. Halla's subdivision. Jo Ann Olsen: Tree property is located south of CR 14 and on the east and west side of TH 101. It's split into two parts. It's single family. Thsy all have at least 2 1/2 acres ar~ 90 feet of street frontage on the lots. The Planning ~ommission approved the subdivisi~ T~e first time it went in front of them it was ~hled because of the street issue where they had private drives rather than public streets for each lot. They then came in with this new proposal with a public street going to the center of the eastern half of 27 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 the subdivision. It avoids the easement issue which is on the southerly portion of the property but it does still provide frontage for all the lots that is proposed in the subdivision and the highway department has approved the location. All the lots had the septic sites approved by the City's consultants. With this new alignment of the road, they had to provide a new alternate site. The Planning Commission approved of the realignment of the road and the proposed subdivision with the condition that these new soil types be accepted by the Soil Consultant. Also, the first plan had an outlot located approximatley in this location on Lot 13 which is now Lot 13. The purpose of the outlot was to allow for the straightening of TH 101 should that ever be proposed in the future. What Staff is now recommending is approval of the subdivision that all lots shall have the area that was once outlot A to now be designated unbuildable area. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions set in the report. If you would like I could read through those. Acting Mayor Geving: No, it's not necessary. We all have your report. Planning Commission action as is noted is fairly straight forward. I think at this time I think we'll hear from the developer. However, I think it would encumbant upon the developer or Mr. Halla, is there a representative here? Are you speaking for yourself? Don Halla: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: Is there anything you would like to say? Tell us about your develo~ent. Don Halla: The purpose of course of our development coming in at this point is really to preserve the value of our property. It is not my desire but I feel forced into doing a subdivision at this point in time. I have been very straight forward about it. My ideas ar~ my concept is to drag my feet. Doing the least that I can so I can remain in the nursery business but rather than having the value of my property reduced by three-fourths, I felt that it was pertinent that we did this at this time. Still I'm not looking to really come back in here and do a complete development like we just saw a few minutes before. I would like the opportunity to drag my feet and stay in the nursery business and keep it more rural which, as I understand, is really what the Coucnil and the Planning Commission wishes it to be. That's all. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Councilman Horn: Really I only have one concern with this proposal. It looks like a nice layout. My concern though is that's a very bad corner on TH 101. Is there any plans to straighten that out and while we precluded a plan to straighten it out, what's beir~3 proposed? It looks to me like this proposed road that comes just around the corner has a very short sight distance. Gary Warren: There aren't any plans from the State as far as TH 101 is concerned but I think it's all tied in to the TH 212 and TH 101 has become obviously very important to us. We have reserved the corner there as part of our condition pursuant to the outlot now so ~hat we could take steps if necessary to improve that corner. 28 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman }{om: Is that enough? C~_ry Warren: I think short of having the feasibility done on it, I think this will give us enough to give us a reasonable sight dis~ curve instead of the sharp angle that w~ have at this point. Councilman }{om: This proposed road just to the north of the sharp ber~ is not going to interfere with any change in that area? Barbara Dacy: Gary, I don't kmow if you've gotte~ the revised plat in your packet. You've got the original Jo Ann Olsen: It should not impact that at all. It would still allow for that intersection to connect with TH 101. Councilman Horn: T~e lower cul-de-sac. Jo Ann Olsen: This would all become lar~ that would have to be extended. Councilman Horn: That's my only concern. Councilman Boyt: This is my both sides of TH 101 situatio~ Have you decided which side of TH 101 the trail is going to go down? Carol Watson: We already have sc~e trail easement along the west side of TH 101. However, after you cross CR 14 and you start up around that curve, the west side of TH 101 is not a nice place for a trail unless you're a gopher or something like that so then we had a consideration of having the trail then switch to the east side of TH iML It is however not a particularly nice place to have people walking and biking and crossing TH 101 either. So it kind of got left like that because we didn't know what plans there were to change TH 101. I think we were leaning more towards leaving the entire trail on the west side and having to come up with sc~e configuration where the trail could be done on the west side of TH 101. It may be steep in the base but crossing TH 101 did not seem like a very viable possibility. People walking pets and bicycles and children and all these things. As these developments add quite a few people to these trails, and ~ Prairie has such an extensive system not far from here at all. However, thel~re going to cross TH 101 to get to Eden Prairie section at the Pior.~_r Trail there you are going to cross. Councilman Boyt: You may have meant this in the recommendation but the way t/~ recommendation reads, it says off-street trails along TH 101 a~ my only thing I would suggest with this development is that we have that clearly stating both sides of TH 1WI until this gets resolve~h At that point then we would take one of those easements and release t/~ other one. Carol Watson: I think we were kind of leaning towards the west side simply because we already own a trail essment down TH 1~1 further on the west side of TH 101. We already have some easement. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Halla, would you be agreeable to giving us an easement on both sides until we can clear this matter up? 29 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Don Halla: I don't see that it should be any problem. Councilman Boyt: I would like to thank the Planning Commission representative, you guys did great work straightening out some of the issues here. Acting Mayor Geving: I tend to agree with your comments on the trail specifically at this time because we really don't know which is the best route. If the Hallas would agree to do that I think that would be a good move. Carol Watson: It's kind of a muddy issue because since you're going to cross TH 181 to connect to Eden Prairie because they come in on Pioneer Trail towards Chanhassen. We either cross at Pioneer Trail and TH 101andhave some kind of a controlled crossing or something like that where we can stay on the west side. Councilman Johnson: I've got one major issue and a couple quickies. Council recommendations item 5 and item 11 are no longer valid because they would be okay if we were using the June 1st addition of the blueprints but we're using the July 2nd. In one case the road has already ~ moved and in the other case there is no Lot 9 or 10 anymore because Lots 9 and 10 are now 4 and 5 and that condition has already ~.~n met basically. The other thing is (an what is now called Lot 13 and it's part of condition 3 that the Outlot A shall on the June 1st preliminary plat shall be deemed unbuidable. This is part of both Lot 5 and Lot 13. As such, the remainder of Lot 13 is less than 2 1/2 acres and as such all of Lot 13 would be deemed unbuildable. I have a solution though. If we move the road just slightly north and curved it, you've got a problem with that? Don Halla: MnDot has a problem with that. It has to go where it is. That's the spot that MnDot wants it. They feel that's the least problems for accidents. Councilman Johnson: You mean coming 60-70 feet up the road, they got a problem with that. Don Halla: They got a problem with that because it drops too quickly on the vertical sight distance problem. David Halla: Let me explain that to you because I was out there with MnDot. They go out there with a ruler and set that ruler at 37 or 38 inches and at a certain speed limit that's on that road in that designated area you have to have so many feet of clear view and it's done very scientifically. If you've ever seen them do it you can't argue with it because it's so practical and logical it comes right out. If they say that's where it has to be, that's where it has to be because you have to have so many feet of clearance at that mile per hour. Councilman Johnson: I have no problem with that. What I'm trying to do is make sure that Lot 13 is buildable. 30 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Barbara Dacy: I think what you could recommend is that the westerly 16~ feet of Lot 13, that's still leaves 625 feet for future resubdiviskn ar~ adequate area for the two septic system sites. We'll go back and double check that but the westerly 16~ feet of that was the origir~l area that we looked at as part of Outlot A. Oouncilman Johnson: But that leaves it well under 2 1/2 acres in Lot 13. be an easement until a decision for TH 1~1 is m~ ~o 13 b~mes buidable but they can't build out where they may realign TH 1~1, Acting Mayor G~ving: Gary do you have a comment on that? I would like to have your com~mt on that, the rec(~m~mdation. Gary Warren: If you just want to call it a roadway eas~nent instead of a unbuildable outlot? Councilman Johnson: It wasn't designated as an outlot, then all of 13 would be unbuildable. Barbara Dacy: ~he westerly 16~ feet. Gary Warren: The original intent was to put it as an outlot and reserve that portion of it. Councilman Johnson: ~hese plans don't show it as an outlot. Barbara Dacy: But because of the realigned road arrangement, in order to get the 2.5 acres and so on, the Planning Commission's recommendation was to reserve the westerly portion of that as unbuildable. You can describe it by easement or a ~ or some type of restriction as a part of the title for that lot. We can work out the legal means. Gary Warren: As long as we restrict it I've got no probl~n. Councilman Johnson: I don't want to take out a lot that's got 13 1/2 acres to it because at some time in the near distant galaxy or something we're going to actually change TH 1~1 there ar~ put a bridge across that crevice. Don Halla: Originally there was a discussion that they were going to do that for a year so give them time to see that there was ever going to be a need or anybody would ever agree to do that. ~hat was the original. Councilman Johnson: We're trying to get the State to look at TH i~L They don' t want it. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's come to some conclusion. Councilman Johnson: The last issue was well sites, I had some concern on the well sites being downgrading it, not from downgrading it topographically but hydrologically downgrade the groundwater where the septic systems are goirg. Primarily on Lots If through 13. I don't know what the ground water is there. My experience is it's probably heading down toward the creek ar~ the river 31 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 there so it's probably headed south unless they've got some really unusual drainage in there. Jo Ann Olsen: ghe soil consultant definitely looks at all the drainage patterns. Councilman Johnson: The drainage pattern on top of the earth does not match the drainage pattern under the earth and a slight movement like this. All I want to say is let's be careful on those well sites there. I think there may be a chance that we'll have septic systems contaminating your own wells. It depends upon how deep you put the wells of course. Don Halla: I think a lot of the difference here is between the original plan and this one, the street moved to the north. I would think the houses would move to the north and satisfy your problem. Councilman Johnson: That's exactly right. Youhad those houses a long ways back. A lot of driveway. I double anyone would actually go. Don Halla: That's because the roadway used to be on the south. Acting Mayor Geving: Any more problems, concerns? Councilman Johnson: No, I think we've made good progress. I agree with this. Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve Subdivision Request 986-31 as shown on the preliminary plat dated July 2, 1987 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant receive access permits from MnDOt and Carver County. . The final plat shall provide for a roadway easement dedication of 27 feet on either side of TH 101 and 17 feet on the south side of CR 14, east of TH 101. . What was shown as Outlot A on the June 1, 1987 preliminary plat shall be deemed as a roadway easement until the realignment of TH 101 is determined. 8 Provision of a 20 foot trail easment for off-street trails on both sides along TH 101 and CR 14. 5, All street improvements shall conform with City standards for rural construction. So Acquisition of a drainage easement through Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 coincident with the ravine and ponding area. . All slope areas in excess of 25% shall be restricted from any and all building and grading activities. 32 City Council ~ting - July 6, 1987 So Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary for placement of all utility improvements. o Approval of the final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan by the City, Watershed District and DNR ar~ compliance with all conditions. Approval of the preliminary plat is conditioned upon two soil treatment sites per lot where any sites have ~ changed due to the realignment of the street and readjustment of lot lines. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO SUBDMDE 8.5 ACRES I~O 15 SI~E FAMILY LOTS, L0CA~ AT 6239 CHASKA ROAD, ROBERT S(~R. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing 15 single family lots. ~he site is located betw~.-----n Chaska Road ar~ Murray Hill Road. It is zoned RSF, Single Family. All the lots have 90 feet of street frontage and at least square feet of lot are~ The Planning Commission approved the subdivisi~ They did table it once though for Staff to review with the applicant if a road could be developed off of Chaska Road rather than off of Murray Hill Road. The neighborhood objected to the Murray Hill Boad access because of the hill going to the north. They felt that the sight distance was poor ar~ that the increased traffic would be a hazard. ~he applicant did propose an alternate plan which I'll show in just a minute. It altered tl~ site almost completed because of the steep slope. Staff and the Planning Oommission both recommended that that not be approved. Another item that t/~y had concern about was with the outlots and the Planning Commission recommended approval that tk~ outlots be offered to the neighbors to the north and tt~ south and that if that isn't an option that they do become part of Lot 15 and 3 so the City would not be responsible for maintaining them. Ano~ issue is the Park and l%ecreation Commission, they had not reviewed it at the time of the Planning ~ission meeting. They have since bhen and they are requesting that a trail easement be provided along C~aska Road and also along the utility easement up to the cul-de-sac and then t~ are going to be working with the applicant and the property owners to the south to locate an area for an easement to go through to access the school sit~ Again another issue is the road access. ~be Engi~ and Staff visited the site to see if it does have adequate sight distance. To the north it b~- approximatley 30~ to 400 feet of sight distance. To the south it has approximatley 200 to 300 feet. ~5ere is adequate sight distance and Staff felt that the street proposed would be adequate. We also felt that the additional lots onto Murray Hill Road would not be a negtive impact. The obher issue was that the lots did not conform with the surrounding lots. ~ area, the lots in the surrounding neighborhood are larger from 30,00~ on ul~ Staff had to stress the point that. this subdivision is meeting the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and although they are not bhe approximate size as bhe existing lots, bhey are meeting the requirements of the ordinance and technically it can not be denied because of that. So those are the main issues that the Planning Commission had ar~ were addressed and again the Planning Oommission did recommend 33 14 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 approval. Staff is also recommending the conditions established in the report. Acting Mayor Geving: We have a Planning Commissioner here tonight. Maybe you could comment briefly on the Planning Commission action and how they felt about this particular development. Could you do that Mr. R~nings? Steve Emmings: I think Jo Ann summarized it pretty well. I think Ladd voted against this and I think he was expressing the major misgiving all of us had in that it does seem to be awfully dense. Nobody liked that but I think we felt that because it does meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance we didn't have any real grounds to reject it. Acting Mayor Geving: Would the developer like to make a comment at this time, either Mr. Sommers or his partner? Eric Canton: I'm in partnership with Robert Sommer. My address is 2495 Willow Drive in Hamel. We have worked together on one prior development called Covington Vine Ridge in the community of Shorewood. If you will indulge me for just a couple of minutes I would like to give you some background on the research that we went through to develop the program that we have here for what we call the Eight Acre Wood and I brought some slides along to give you some sense of what the neighborhood is like. What the complexion of the actual 8.5 acres are. We have named this the Eight Acre Woods. I suppose in some sense for the sentimental value that the environment provides. It is located on Chaska Road ar~ has one portion of the property on Murray Hill Road. To locate the site precisely you would be just west and south of the City of Excelsior exiting off of TH 7 down onto Chaska Road. I think you can see the arrow pointing to the shaded area at the very top center of the screen. This gives you a little bit closer view of the 8.5 acres. You will notice in the shaded area there is one area protruding to the right which is a part of the property that abuts Murray Hill. The legal description is a matter of record and is in front of you as in your documentation. We looked at a couple of ways to develop this. Actually we looked at several ways before we finally resolved it, before we had a practical solution in the proposal that we bring you tonight. This is the solution that we have recommended. We feel that it is most compatible with the nature of the terrain which is rather st~_~p and addresses some of the aesthetics that make the hill a unique property. In order to acommplish this since I'm not an engineer nor is Robert Sommer, the owner of the property, we engaged Mr. Wayne Tauer an engineer with Pioneer Engineering and he is present with us tonight to answer any technical questions that you may have. The Eight Acre Wood is named to take advantaged of the site itself. This is an example of what it looks like today. Robert Sommer has lived on the lar~ for many years and _ha~_ over the course of time thinned it and made it a healthy stand for young trees to grow and flourisb~ There is a mixture of very young trees as well as older trees. All of it in the general state of health and suitable for building sites as you can see in the slides. The data in front of you indicates that the total acreage is 8.5. We have proposed 15 lots. Tae smallest of them is a little over 15,000. It's 15,030 square feet. The largest is 37,500. The average size is 27,735 with a density of 1.76 lots per acre. Utilities are available. The existing zoning calls for single family residential. Our 34 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 proposed zoning does not deviate from that existing zoning in that we also recommend single family residential. In order to evaluate this property ar~ it's best use, we make a legitimate effort to consider a cul-de-sac that would come off of Chaska Road creatir~ an internalized approach to tt~ property. The grade however drops very significantly and becomes untendable in terms of development. The mechanics of development as well as ~_h~_ cost of development. Wayne if you could elaborate on that if you will on the elevations ar~ the reasons for that I would appreciate it. Wayne Tauer: I'll just make it very quick. As you know the City has an ordinance that states certain percentage of grades are allowed and in order to make the intersection at Chaska Road safe, we have to start off at a 2% or 3% grade for 1MM feet ~ we move up at 7% I believe is what the City ordinance states. As you can see we did that with the road and as it reaches the top it has an excavation so to speak. We have a pit of about 37 feet deep ar~ that's even without trying to use house sites so that was our attempt to work off of Chaska Road and as you can see it's not very successful. Eric Canton: The grade does drop some 6M feet from the highest to the lowest point and there is another issue~ By taking that approach it leaves this appendage going onto Murray Hill as rather a separate component of the development requiring that it be treated separately. You'll notice the' diagram to the far right of that rectangle. ~here is a small house that is in a state of disrepair and I believe it is amo~3 the oldest is r~t the oldest house in the area. ~his is a picture of it and it was our feeling that the most appropriate aesthetic contribution we could make would be to eliminate this house all together and to bring our roadway through this part of the property into the crest of the hill. I wanted to show you some of the adjacent properties as you would view them coming around the neighborhood. This is a residence that would be directly to t/~ south of the roadway we propose from Murray Hill. This is to the north of that roadway so you get a sense of what is contiguous to that entranc~ As you would proceed around Murray Hill and Chaska Road you would see these kinds of properties. Some of them including this one are more modest in size. This particular one is located on Chaska Boad and is 15,~ square feet in size. ~hese are immediately adjacent to that ar~ are setback some considerable dis~ and are a little larger. In our presentation to the Planning Commission we detailed the square footage of each of these properties that are a matter of public record and that documentation will be available to you if you would lik~ Adjacent to the property also is the Minnetonka Middle School ar~ you can see this property across from the roadway up on the upper side. This was the current driveway to Robert Sommers property that comes off of Chaska Roa~L Again, you get a sense of the foliage and the terrain. Robert intends to keep this property. He has a h~e that he lives in there and I think it's a testimonial to his interest in having this properly ar~ aesthetically developed that be plans to stay and be a resident in the neighborhoocL As you come along Chaska Road you see the kind of foliage I just showed you but as you continue on Murray Hill, the cul-de-sac that is at the end of Murray Hill - you see the kind of housing that is developing nearby. ~hese are definitely more expensive types of properties. Not all of these are in this immediate area but I wanted to show you these because they represent the character of the buildirg that we have in mir~ to fit on these various lots. They are 35 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 shown nicely protected by the trees. Some of them large. Some of them small and show the character also as in this slide of the terrain as it falls away from building sites. We will have some definite concern about the appropriate use of the sites for walkouts, for retaining walls in order to protect all of the land as we can on the development. This house is probably typical of what you'll end up seeing there because of the fact that it's heavily shaded by the existing foliage. Here is a terraced entrance to a house that is on a relatively steep grade and might represent what you see coming up off of Chaska Boad. Another example shown here on this slide. In summary we felt that we would do the least amount of damage to the environment. We would be able to come in and secure little building sites that would be cut in and around the existing trees and we would protect the character of the hill as it has been known to the neighborhood and could in fact become a continuing sense of pride for all of the people who live there now but also for those who will be neighbors of the current residents in the future. So that gives you a little insight into what we have tried to accomplished. I would be happy to answer any questions. Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you for your presentation. Councilman Boyt: I might as well start with the developer since we've just had his presentation. I see it's on Page 11 of the Planning Commission Minutes of the JUne 24 where they talk about tt~ square footage of the surrounding neighborhood and they also have that in a diagram, loosely in a diagram that's kind of in the middle of the pack on page 26. You see a diagram of surrounding properties. Some of them anyway. I recognize the dilemma that the Planning Commission pointed out in their Minutes about having a development that's coming in in which the lots meet the letter of the ordinance but when compared with surrounding lots don't meet the spirit of the ordinance. I think clearly this isn't a PUD nor is it an attempt at a PUD but I think if we look at the PUD ordinance we get something of the spirit of what we're trying to do with this zoning ordinance overall and that is an attempt to match or suggest at least a sensitivity to adjoining lots. With Lots 3 and 15 you are adjoining lots of 30,000, 60,000, 36,000 and 42,000 and you're adjoing those with lots of something less than half of that. I would like to see you, you may be somewhat limited by some of the restraints of your cul-de- sac but I would like to see you make Lot 3 about 2,000 square feet larger and I think you can do that by making it 20 feet deeper. With Lot 15, I don't know exactly how to propose to make that bigger so I might settle on a compromise of making Lot 3 larger. I don't profess that we can do this legally but I think from the standpoint of the intent of matching adjoinging neighborhoods. You're not putting this into a cornfield in which you're surrounded by vacate land. You have been somewhat sensitive to this but I would like to see you be a bit more sensitive to that. Maybe ~here is something we can work out here that would help you do that. Then I have an issue with trail fees. As I read what was summarized in the Park and Rec Minutes, I have a completely different understanding of the trail fee and I would like to have that discussed at a future Park and Rec meeting. My interpretation of the trail fee, not being involved in writing it, but my interpretation of it is that what we're doing there is establishing the ability to build a trail and that requires two things. Lar~ and also a surface of the trail. You've provided land but I don't think that that's 36 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 justification for the reduction of the ontire trail fee. I would like to either see you build a trail o~ that or commit to doing that at some point or see you turn over, whatever. ~he City is I guess getting a pretty good quote for building trails these days, whatever the appropriate amount would be which would be something less than your full trail fee but I don't see reducing the entire fee. That's it. Councilman Horn: My biggest concern also is the transition to the existing neighborhood. One of the proposals that we heard was to dedicate Outlots A and B to the existing neighbors. It appears to me that the neighbors on both sides of that would be the most affecte~ by this proposal. I was wondering if those neighbors are here this evening and if that proposal-is acceptable to thsm. Ed Gra~: Yes, we're on the north side. councilman Horn: You're on the 36,~0~ square foot lot. Barbara Dacy: This is Mr. and Mrs. Graupmarm and they're on the south side. councilman Horn: The 30,000 square foot lot. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have a memorandum or anything? They were in the Planning Oosmission Minutes. councilman Horn: So the only other option would be to make the adjacent lots larger. More in contect with the existing neighborhood if that opotion isn't agreeable. Otherwise I think the plan would work. ~hat's my only commm~t. Acting Mayor Geving: But how could you do that Clark? councilman Horn: Take those lines out. Acting Mayor Geving: Out of 4 and 3 ar~ 14 and 157 Councilman Horn: 4 and 2 are obviously large lots. Acting Mayor Geving: 31,000 ar~ approximately 35,00~-36,000. How big is the Grautamann lot? ~ ~aupmann: Almost two,res. Councilman Horn: It says 30,000 on ours. Eric Canton: The record that we have for the Graupmanns show 71,438 square feet and Mr. Johnson who is on the no~h side ~, 30,056 according to the records. Councilman Boyt: I think Mr. Johnson, you would accept Outlot A, is that correct? Mr. Johnson: Yes. 37 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Horn: So the only other option would be to go with one method of accepting Outlot A on the north side and matching 14 and 15 to the lot south of that. Barbara Dacy: Clarification, what do you mean bymatching lots 14 and 157 Combining them? Councilman Horn: Square footage. Councilman Boyt: Putting tbs~ together. Acting Mayor Geving: Ccmbining them to 36,000. Councilman Boyt: When you did the alternate route in from Chaska Road, how many lots did you have in the develo~ent? Jo Ann Olsen: 13. Councilman Boyt: So that was 13, so you lost two lots plus it was a lousy road layout from an environmental standpoint. It sounds to me like what Clark is proposing would be acceptable to me. Acting Mayor (~eving: Excuse me. I didn't get the answer to your question. Wayne Tauer: The number of lots? There were 13. Councilman Johnson: I personally believe that on the lot size issue, our hands are pretty well tied. ~nere is no thing in our ordinance allowing us to say you have to come in bigger than our ordinance. I can't see that. We have a street coming in here with two outlots on it that there's pretty good separation. It's all forested area. I don't believe that while these people back up I believe there is a large distance, 300 some feet in depth to their property. Are your homes up near Murray Hill or are they back deep in the property? Mr. Johnson: Mine is up near Murray Hill. Councilman Johnson: Are you near Murray Hill or back deep in the property? Mrs. Graupmann: We're about not quite half way back. Councilman Johnson: About 150 foot back or something? So you've got another 200 foot back until this next neighbor. You don't want that Outlot B as part of your property? Mr. Graupmann: It will raise our taxes. Mrs. Grau~nn: We don't want to maintain a roadway. Councilman Johnson: Yes, there would be a curb next to you but the road wouldn't be yours. The road would be a city road. The city would maintain the road, not you. 38 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Mr. Graupmann: Would I be assessed? One time we were going to do this wl~__re they were going to come put a road in the back of my property and it was goin~ to cost me $8, ~0~. 0~. Councilman Johnson: ~he developer is building this road at his cost. There will be no assessment. Barb, would there be a roadway assessment to ths~ if they took 0utlot B? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Johnson: It would be c~pletely paid by the developer? Eric Canton: Right. Councilman Johnson: Would this trigger Mr. Winger to come out and re-evaluate their h~e? Acting Mayor Geving: You bet. Councilman Johnson: Somehow I wish we could get rid of that trigger. What I'm saying there is this lar~ acquisition and the charge of property may make the County Assessor come out and reassess your property which I don't like havir~3 triggers like that. I personally just took out a building permit which means he's going to come look at my place. Wayne Tauer: There could be one of two solutions for that Outlot B. One we could slide the road south and abut their property line therefore starting the 6~ foot right-of-way or 5~ foot right-of-way, whatever it might be, along the south side. Now that would impact them a little bit more as far as closeness of the street but it would eliminate that proble~u T~e other source of the solution would be to give that property to Lot 15. That would make them, so to speak, maintain it. I think what we could offer is to lar~scape that area wherever the street may be in a fairly non-maintenance kind of planting. Evergreens, or s~mething of that nature that would generally maintain ~ area in it's forested situation and require very little mowing or anything like that because I think most of the driveways are quite wild as they do in a~ I assume that this is going to kind of maintain that theme. Councilman Johnson: Personally, if we move that roadway to the south, I would like to see instead of a straight roadway running straight in there to where when someb~ drives by they look right down and see tl~ose houses at the end, that some curvature is put to the roadway, bring it to the south and slide it up to the north to where Public Safety probably won't like that as much as being able to drive by and look straight down there but from an aesthetic point of view, a straight road is not as aesthetically pleasing as a road with a little curvature to it. ghe guy driving the snowplow ar~ the p~blic safety officers patrolling the area probably prefer straight streets. There's one thing that continues nagging, I continue barking at a lot is subdivisions that come in with preliminary plats that don't meet the letter of our Ordinance 33-D, Subdivision Ordinance, in that the basic data is not givan. We're supposed to have topography within 1~ feet of the property lines. We're supposed to have all the property lines of all the homes within 15~ feet of 39 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 the property line ar~ the names of the people owning that. Ail this information is supposed to be on there and I won't even continue on the list like I have in the past going through naming all the little nit-picky items I guess that are a part of it but it helps us if we can see this 30,000 square foot. It's in our ordinance that it's supposed to be on these drawings but it's not on these drawings. Wayne Tauer: Let me explain a little bit from our standpoint as far as that goes. Sometimes topography is not available and to go out there and try to shoot, especially through a woods, an extra hundred feet for instance. I'm not sure where this topography came from. It was given to me and from that point it's really tough to get an extra 100 feet. First off you have to trespass on other people's property to do that and that sometimes is a problem. I do have most of the property lines in there and granted I don't have the ownerships in there. That is accompanied of course by ~ property owner list that comes out of Hennepin County. Councilman Johnson: I don't really think we have to get this topography to keep it going but these are little things are part of our ordinance that I like to see. The 25% grades aren't illustrated on here. Anywhere there are 25% grades, it's supposed to be pointed out that we have a 25% grade. There are areas in here I calculated around 33% grade so obviously we're over 25. Little things like that. Yours isn't the only one tonight that I nit-pick but overall I think that with the houses that are going to come in here, we're going to get some really nice houses on these wooded lots. These aren't cheap lots. I think with Outlot A and B sitting there protecting the neighbors and everything else in here, I personally am in the same boat as the Planning Commission. I like to see good flow from one property to another but there's nothing in our ordinance that says we have to do that. If you want to come in here as a PUD we could say we need that flow from one property to another but he's not. That's the extent of my comments. Besides the nit-picks, I don't think we can legally make thsm do anything. Acting Mayor (~eving: I guess I've recognized this property for some time and we had, a few years ago some similar type questions regarding the trail easement to get to the school site at West Jr. High. Correct me if I'm wrong now, how many new access are we going to make on Chaska Road? Is it 5 or 6? Wayne Tauer: Are you talking about driveway accesses? There are seven lots I believe down there. Acting Mayor Geving: Seven lots total and none of those exist today. Wayne Tauer: 2 does. Acting Mayor Geving: 2 exists today. Is that Mr. Sommers property? I would like to know a little bit about any negotiations or comments that were made regarding the trail and the trail fees. I really don't agree with the comment that was made to us in our Staff Report and I would like to have you clarify that for me Jo Ann. C~ page 4 of the Planning Commission comments June 17th, at the top of the page where it says that this trail, to investigate a southern trail connection, these trails would be accepted instead of trail 40 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 fees. Where did they come from? Jo Ann Olsen: The Park and Rec. Acting Mayor Geving: The Park and Rec recommended that to us? Jo Ann Olsen: In their M~mo Attached 96. Acting Mayor Geving: Ar~ their recomm~atioo is that in lieu of the Park ar~ Bec trail fees we would get a 20 foot trail from Chaska Road to the cul-de- sac. It would er~ there? Jo Ann Olsen: Along Chaska Road also. Acting Mayor Geving: ~he extent of (haska Road but we would get that anyway wouldn't we as part of a road easement of some sort. Do we have enough room on the road? Barbara Dacy: ~here is a 66 foot right-of-way for Chaska Road that if that were to be improved there conceivably could be an off-street trail constructed within that right-of-way but the Park ar~ Recreation Commission wanted to insure that there was adequate room in there for an off-street trail. It may be several months or years before, there is no specific plan to improve Chaska Road at this time. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess what I'm commenting about ar~ really very much in opposition to is accepting that trail easement in lieu of trail fees. I've always ~ in favor of accepting the dedication of trails as part of a plat but with little or no reduction in the fee. As far as getting ts the south side of this, how do you propose to do that? ~ow do you propose to get to the southerly portion of this plat and link up with the school? Barbara Dacy: They were going to continue investigation with the existing property owners oo there. I know a majority of them are opposed to the connection of a trail. We may not get a connection but the Park and Rec wanted the Park ar~ Rec Director and Planning Staff... Acting Mayor Geving: To pursue that. E~en though, as I mentioned when I started my comments, I remember a few years ago we did have a connection down a long trail that eventually ended up at the school. Remember that? I remember it. Just to the south of this plat a block or so. Do you remember that Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: No, I don't. Acting Mayor Geving: Don't you r~ that Carol? Carol Watson: No. Don Ashworth: It goes through the plat back at the road connection. Carol Watson: That o~e comes out over by the water tower. 41 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: This was a few years ago but Just to the south of this there is another three lots and there's a roadway, a long roadway and at ~ end of that road it connects to a trail right to the West Jr. High. Carol Watson: You mean off of Melody Hill? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes. You'll have to look at your plan but I remember that and I think maybe you do too don't you Clark? Councilman Horn: I recall it. I believe it came up around a cul-de-sac over here. Don Ashworth: Yes, I think it's off of Pheasant Hill. Carol Watson: Wasn't it on 65th? Don Ashworth: Between Lots 2 and 3 of Pheasant Hill. Acting Mayor Geving: I remember we made that connection but that's not that far away. We could still get to the school. Carol Watson: The discussion was the kids will take the path of the least resistance and they aren't going to come east a ways... Acting Mayor Geving: I won't pursue that. We can discuss that later but what I'm opposed to as a Council member is the reduction of any trail fees or park dedication fees for the access that we're talking about here. I'm always looking at this as part of the given in a plat and I would like to pursue that. Let's discuss briefly again Outlot A and the fact that this is looking for a home, is that correct? We don't want it as part of the City so in this case it would go to Mr. Johnson, Outlot ~ Is that correct and they will accept it? And 0utlot B, what happens to it? Wayne Tauer: One of two things. We could move the street south and eliminate it basically in it's entirity. Acting Mayor Geving: That's not a bad proposal. Would you make a larger Outlot A then? Wayne Tauer: Yes, that' s our only option. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, that's a good proposal. And the lot size of 14 and 15 would conform then to the neighborhood to the east, to the Graul~nanns? I think the comments from the Council is they would like to see combining Lots 14 and 15. Wayne Tauer: The only problem I have with that is it's not going to do anything basically for the property to the east because essentially you're still going to see the side of that house in most cases and I think all the city is going to gain in this case is some sideyard and you're going to lose the value of a $150,000.00 or $200,000.00 house as far as the tax base. 42 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: I don't ever concern myself with tax base. We've got lots of tax base. Wayne Tauer: I think the advantage to the people just to the east would not necessarily show ~o. The house would still be there and they would just have maybe a few more feet of sideyard. Now, I don't know what advantage that is. Mrs. Grau~xnann: You' re using eastern? Wayne Tauer: Of your property. Wayne Tauer: Of the outlot but we're talking about Lots 14 and 15 which are basically to the west of you. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's stay with that a minute because I think it's important for us to identify the fact that we could move the entire proposed street to the south and eliminate proposed 0utlot B. I think that's a good proposal. Jo Ann Olsen: When we visited the site, if you kept the street to the north as much as possible it increases that sight distance so if you move it to the south, that really shortens that sight distance. I don't know if we could support that. Wayne Tauer: We' re talking 3~ feet. Councilman Horn: T~e other option is to make Outlot B part of the 14 and 15 combination. Wayne Tauer: Yes, that's possible. You can add to 15 and get that lot area up dramatically. Acting Mayor Geving: But it's such an unusual piece of property. What would you do with it? If I were an owner of Lot 15, what could I do with that 0utlot B except pay taxes on it? Wayne Tauer: 7hat's why I proposed that we plant it in a non-maintenance tsTe of plantings. Acting Mayor Geving: I wouldn't want it. Wayne Tauer: If you bought Lot 15 for instance, you would know you were getting that. It's not like it's going to be forced on you. Acting Mayor Gevirg: I think the Grauimnanns would like to see the property to the west of them about the same size as their property. Is that true Mr. Grau~mann? Mr. Graupmann: Right now I'm wondering about how you're going to put that road in. I don't want a wall out there. 43 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: Is there a steep elevation difference there? Mrs. Graupmann: Yes, there is a hill like that. Mr. Grau~ma~: I'll have a 6 foot wall up there. Wayne Tauer: It drops across that property about 6 to 8 feet. Gary Warren: I have two factors. The sight distance is a concern if we would move it. I think the 30 feet in this instance is important to us so I would not recommend allowing the connection to go any further to the south than it presently is. By favoring where it is presently it allows more room for tapering and staying away frcm the 6 foot drop or whatever it is. Acting Mayor Geving: So in other words, if you did anything you would rather go to the north? Gary Warren: Right. Although we press against the sight distance to the north also. Acting Mayor Geving: That's something we maybe have to work out in the field too. Gary Warren: We've had three engineers quite honestly, myself included, out looking at the sight distance and I think it's a pretty good central location as it stands. Acting Mayor Geving: So Lot 15 would get 0utlot B, is that what you're saying? Wayne Tauer: In this case. Acting Mayor Geving: No one has addressed this drainage issue. We're going to be pushing a lot of water down Chaska Road and that isn't much of a road to begin with. Where does that water eod up? Does it go to the east? Gary Warren: It goes to the north area? There's a wetland actually that's in Shorewood or is that a wetland? Wayne Tauer: It's not a wetland. Acting Mayor Geving: It's not a wetland but are we creating a major problem here by adding 15 hc~es in an area and about 7 accesses onto Chaska Road? Gary Warren: I think the drainage increase, predominant increase is from the road construction itself which was originally proposed to be piped along the property to the north and I don't believe it's an inordinate amount of drainage especially because there is a pond there that can acccmodate it. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, I have no other ccaments or questions. Councilman Horn: The old TH 7 update, would that affect this in any way? 44 city Council Meeting L July 6~ 1987 Barbara Dacy: The TH 7 Corridor Study? Oouncilman Horn: Yes. Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Horn: If that ever got revised. ~hat's all I have. councilman Boyt: Mr. Johnson, can you tell me how far your house is approximately from the lot line to Lot 3? Mr. Johnson: Our house sits appro~imately, the depth of our house maybe one- third from Murray Hill. Gary Warren: About 100 feet. councilman Boyt: About 100 feet east of it, thank you Gary. So you're 100 feet. Mr. Johnson: 100 feet of FA~rray Hill. councilman Boyt: 200 feet from Lot 3. So what you're looking at is you're giving Lot 3 200 feet of cushion betweem you ar~ them. Now it's certainly conceivable at some point that you would subdivide. I guess we have to take that into consideration tocu Lot 3 is giving you 30 feet, give or take a little. That's the kind of issue I'm talking about. Now that doesn't mean that Mr. Johnson can't c(xae back and bring in a sufx]ivision as well. As far as I'm concerned, we better be telling him you've got match the size lot that you're adjoining. In your piece of property, do you know how far you are from Murray Hill? Are you about the same distance Mr. Johnson is? Mrs. Graulxaann: We're a little far~ back than him. councilman Boyt: 150 feet Gary do you think from Murray Hill Road? So you have about 15~ feet that you're giving to Lot 15 in terms of cushi~ NOw Mr. Johnson on the one hand you're saying that it makes sense to you to take another 10,000 square feet on your property. I can understand that especially if you're going to subdivide some day so with that and it's quite reasonable to you to accept Outlot A and allow Lot 3 to remain at 16,000 square feet. If you had an option that would sound like a good deal to you. Mr. Johnson: Correct. Mrs. Graupmann: Can I ask a question. NOw if we did take 0utlot B, could we subdivide? Acting Mayor Geving: How much land do you have? Councilman Johnson: 71,000 square feet. Acting Mayor Geving: You could build a couple lots in there. 45 City Council Meeting ' July 6~ 1987 Councilman Boyt: You have the frontage to do that. If Outlot B goes to anybody besides you, I don't know if you have the frontage. I don't know. Acting Mayor Geving: If I were you I would take 0utlot B. Tais is my recommendation to you If you ever intend to subdivide that lot, your present lot, you would gain by picking up 0utlot B for frontage purposes on t_hat road. If for no other reason. You may have to pay taxes on it obviously but you would have some valuable frontage for subdividing at some future time. Now let's move on. I think we've had enough discussion. Councilman Johnson: Do you all have a problem with having an 18,000 square foot lot directly behind you. Councilman Boyt: They'll take it. They said they'll take it. Acting Mayor Geving: With that in mind, I think we resolved the outlot issues. Is there any motion that any of the council members would like to propose at this time? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request #87-24 as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 22, 1987 with the following conditions: . The proposed right-of-way shall be reduced to 50 feet, removing 10 feet from the northern portion of the right-of-way and the street shall be constructed to city standards. . Outlots A and B shall be deemed unbuildable and shall become parts of the adjacent property to the north and south if the adjacent property owners agree to accept them. If not, the outlots shall become part of Lots 3 and 15. . A utility easement shall be granted over Lots 5, 8, 9 and 11 and a drainage easement shall be granted along the easterly boundary of Lots 1-3 (if storm sewer is required) and over the drainage basin. Also, easements shall be provided along the internal lot lines as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. . A detailed grading, tree removal, and erosion control plan for each lot shall be sukmitted at the time of building permit application. . A detailed drainage plan and drainage calculations shall be suhnitted for the city staff and Shot.wood's approval. . The applicant shall provide trail easements as determined by the Park and Recreation Commission along with full trail and park dedication fees. 7. Any structure on Lot 1 shall be within Chanhassen city limits. . Watermain on Chaska Road shall be extended from the existing 6 inch main to the Shorewood city limits and a hydrant placed at the city 46 CitY Council Meeting - July 7, 1987 limit terminous. The internal watermain shall be connected to this extended connection. e A drainage easement shall be provided along Chaska Road ar~ the drainage ditch shall be preserved. Erosion control ara/or sod should be installed on the 2:1 slopes on Lots 12, 13 ar~ 14. 11. Fay bale check dams shall be utilized at 50 foot intervals along the utility easement from the proposed cul-de-sac to Chaska Road and likewise along the storm sewer aligrm~nt. 12. Lot 2 shall connect to the existing sanitary sewer ar~ proposed watermain along Chaska Road ar~ the required connection charges shall be paid. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mrs. Graupmann: I would like to exter~ an invitation to the City Oouncil or the Safety Engineer to coffee at the Country Ki~ some s~owy day next winter. The only catch is that I want you to provide me transportation down there and back and I wouldn't like to in a truck because it's bumlmy so just an ordinary car would do and I wonder if you can get back home on a snowy day going in that cul-de-sac and going up that hill. I would like to extend that invitation. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO 3 SINCJ.R FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OOTLOT, LOCATI~) ON TH 41, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, TIMOTHY FOSTER.-- Barbara Dacy: The parcel is located on the south side of Tanadoona, the Girl Scout Camp in this area here. The Worm property is in this location ar~ the Arboretum owns the 80 acres to the south. I want to make clear to the Council that originally this entire piece was originally tl~ Zimmerman property and then this last winter, under administrative subdivision rules, a piece was divided into two parcels. The existing 5 acre parcel for the existing homestead and the remaining parcel, the larger piece. ~hat larger parcel is technically a buildable lot of record. The proposal is to create three lots at the end of the Dogwood Road right-of-way. Two lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2 are five acres and Lot 3 is proposed at 10 acres ar~ to contain the applicant's proposed home. Outlot A remains at 76 1/2 acres and it's reserved for future subdivision ar~ would be subject to the 1 unit per 10 acre requirements. Only 7 additional lots would be able to be created on the Outlot. Concurrent with this request ar~ upon notification of the property owners in this 'area, they notified Staff and reiterated their request to have Dogwood Road maintained. Originally they contacted the staff, last winter. As you may not know the City maintains up to the access to the Girl Scout camp then the gravel road width narrows to where it ber~s south. The existing road surface stops approximately in this location. F&>wever, there is a dedicated public right- of-way down to where the applicant is proposing his proposed home. One of bhe 47 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 recommendations in the staff report was to initiate a feasibility study. Council may recall that in other areas in the City such as Creekwood Drive near the Halla's subdivision, when we have existing road links in this area and constrictions upon improving this to a standard rural section as required by our City Ordinances, the City has gone and done some maintenance operations to improve Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road to include maintenance operations within those overall costs. It is clear because of the topography and the existence of the community drainfield system on the east side of Dogwood Road that improvement on that area to the standard rural section would be very expensive ar~ in some cases it's not feasible so in that case we had to look at this plat by trying to come to some type of agreement as to how Dogwood should function and what should happen to the three proposed lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision. However, they felt that Lots 1 and 2 shouldn't be built upon until the feasibility study could also look at future connection down to the Worm property which will be coming up to the Council for subdivision review which will go down to TH 5. Second of all they felt that this portion of the extension of Dogwood Road should be just built as a driveway until the feasibility study could address the overall section recommendation that should be built on Dogwood and Tanadoona. Since the Planning Commission time we have gone out to the field again and felt two options for potential road easement extension. One proposal would be to extend it straight down to where the Worm property easement exists at this point. The other option proposed by the applicant is to reserve it along the lot lines. As is obvious, and the applicant is here tonight, I'm sure he'll express that from his point of view he does not prefer this option because it disects the proposed parcel for his home. On the other hand this does match the point exactly where the Worm property easement will be coming to t~ north. But another disadvantage there is that there is a 12% slope and existing vegetation t_hat the feasibility will have to take a look at that. This option does provide some flexibility to connect to a road to the east of this area would be resubdivided. Since the Planning Commission approval staff is recommending to the Council that both options be included in the feasibility study to look at the overall Tanadoona and Dogwood Road section. Again however, the applicant wants to build his home this summer or fall and is concerned that the feasibility study conclusion will not be done in a timely manner so that he can accomplish his building plans as well but as I said, the applicant is here and will discuss those. Acting Mayor Geving: Would you do one thing for me? Go back to your original slide showing the full picture. I would like to see Mr. Worm's property again and how that might look coming off TH 5. Barbara [lacy: This is the Worm property here and the road is proposed to go in something like this in a cul-de-sac ar~ he's proposing an easement be reserved here. One of the options we're looking at is making this a straight line. Acting Mayor Geving: Does that give a better picture to everybody on how we might be able to service this in the long term? It does for me anyway. Okay, Mr. Foster, are you here tonight and could you say a word or two about what you would like to see in this preliminary plat? 48 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Timothy Foster: I would prefer not to see the easement come through here. I'm going to build a house right here. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that right enn the beach there? Timothy Foster: Yes and it appears to me that you can't have a high density development here anyway and if you could have some access to get out at some time in the future, at maximum you can't put more than 7 lots on the existing 76 acres so therefore I think the eve~l road easement be wheneve~ sewer and water comes in... The neighbors expressed their views is that they would prefer to keep it real homey but I do ur~erst~ that there is a problem to service the roa~L It is a problem that has existed for approximately 57 years. It's just that we just uncovered it. I think there's another solutio~u I don't exactly know what it is~ A turnarour~ or something such. T~is property, the Zimmerman property that I would be purchasing b~- 1~ lots. The existing owners have 7 units. I think if you people would address the road issue now when you have been fonmally been requested to service it. Acting Mayor (]eying: I still don't see that request. Councilman Boyt: It's in the Minutes. Timothy Foster: The trail you made reference to and I don't know where the other trail is supposed to hook up but I would like to see the trail hook up back here. The Girl Scout Camp is here and then the Regional Park is, and I don't know how that would hook up. I didn' t talk to the Park people. Barbara Dacy: ~hey did discuss that. Again, the Planning staff has been reviewing the Worn subdivision and it has gone to Planning Commission ar~ was tabled so as a part of that approval the Park and Bec Commission recommex]ed establishnent of an easement in the similar aligr~,ent to where the road easement was. The trail plan that the Park and Bec Oommission was looking at showed the trail to go along Dogwood and aloog to Tanadoona to hit the Girl Scout Camp and then provide connection to the regional park but when Lor i and I went back out there again, we used this as a starting point realizing that Dogwood Road and Tanadoona would not be an option for an off-street trail. There are cornfields all alcan3 here ar~ we look at it from the fact that it would connect in the Worn subdivision again and that we could establish some type of path along the edge of the cornfield. Acting Mayor (~eving: Amd the Park and Rec people have they seen that? Barbara Dacy: Again, this has happened since the Planning Commission so since the Planning Ommission meeting Lori and I have gone back out. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so you're going to come back to us with that. Councilman Boyt: What was Mr. Foster's reaction to that? Timothy Foster: Just put it in the back there scmewhere. Same problem, I don't want it running right behind my house. I have no problem with an eas~e~t. 49 City Council ~eting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: It would run alongside of the house if it goes that way. Councilman Boyt: It looks like it might be about 150 feet from your house. Acting Mayor Geving: Tnat wouldn't be bad. Timothy Foster: No. Starting here ar~ running this way. Barbara Dacy: No, it's not. Councilman Boyt: No, we're talking about going around the perimeter. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Mr. Foster, thank you. Councilman Horn: Are these lots all developed along the lake? Barbara Dacy: There are about 12 homes in there now. Those are all lots of record so if a building permit application did come in we will issue permits. Councilman Horn: So in effect what he's doing here is puttirg a much deeper lot in next to t/he already platted lots to the lake. Barbara Dacy: Down the opposite side of the street. Councilman Horn: I'm a little confused here. Where we're proposing to put the easement in, is that the edge of the lot he's proposing or does his lot go down to the lake? Barbara Dacy: His Lot 3 extends from the lake all the way down to this point here. This 10 acres and that's the concern that this easement would basically split that in half. Councilman Horn: So what he's proposing here is a much bigger lot that's maybe twice as deep as what's existing in other areas. Of course we would prefer to have that size lot too if we were starting over today. Barbara Dacy: Yes. These were platted in 1930's or thereabouts. Councilman Horn: Well, I hate to run an easement right through his property. We're ruining the lot if we do that. I think we have other options. I don't know whether we've got a good option but I don't like that one. Acting Mayor Geving: You're talking about the road now? Councilman Horn: No, the easement adjoining the Worm property. Are there any other options for that Worm eas~nent? Barbara Dacy: Because of the lot line, the lot line is right here, originally had proposed another street pattern that came up something like this but because of the topography and grade in there and the trouble that they had in locating septic system sites, they went back in there ar~ proposed this alternate street route which in terms of their site is the most 50 City Oouncil Meeting - July 6, 1987 enviro~nentally sensitive. Councilman Horn: You know, this whole thing would be solved if that site were joined with the o~e immediately to the east. Then we would have some planning room. Barbara Dacy: Tr~t' s the Arboretum. Timothy Foster: Does it have to go to TH 5? Could the exit just go back to TH 41 or back to Tanadoona? Councilman Horn: I don't think we want it go out on TH 5 to tell you the truth. Acting Mayor Geving: But we have one there now with Mr. Worm's farm. Barbara Dacy: That's the issue that the Council really has to consider tonight is whether or not this is an option worth at least evaluating because the option over to TH 41 may take a longer term if that remaining outlot is to be resubdivided into 7 lots, because of the topo and so on going on over here, potentially have a street here ar~ seven 2 1/2 acre lots occurring over here that you might be able to tie in but again, we've got separate ownership here ar~ there's another jog in the ownership line there. This is definitely closer than TH 5, it's just a matter of timing. We may find out through the feasibility study that this connection can't be made. Councilman Horn: How can we act on this before we see a feasibility study? That's the whole issue here. Barbara Dacy: ~be applicant is requesting action on it. ~hat's the issue. This area is where he wants to build his new h~me and if this is the area that the Council wants to pursue then that's really the issue. Timothy Foster: I guess if I knew that now, that that was not an option, then I could proceed. If it was an option I would just prefer just to withdraw and I would co~e up with a different plaru Then if I withdraw then obviously the Tanadoona, Dogwood problem is still there so I would like to join with the existing neighbors and try to solve that problemu It's just that 3~ feet to hook up to TH 5, I prefer that that isn't an o~tior~ ~hat there is some other option. Councilman Horn: The problem you have is that you're on the only little sliver of property that isn't cut off from being landlocked there because of the odd shape of the Arboretum property. If there were just a corner out of that property or a slice out of that Arboretum property there would join us together to make a reasonable development proposal on it but where you're getting little chunks of this all developed in pieces rather than a whole thing as an overall plat. Barbara Dacy: And that's usually the case when you have separate ownership. Both plats are going to be oaning in within a month of each other. 51 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Horn: But what we're doing is putting a restriction on this developer because of something we anticipate coming in from another piece of property as I see it. Acting Mayor Geving: There may be a problem here though. As the Staff has indicated that there is a tremendous grade difference there on the Worm property that might make that totally unfeasible to connect up to TH 5 so maybe that's the presumption we could go on without having a feasibility study. Gary Warren: It's a densely wooded area and it does have steeper grades but I wouldn't say it's unsunnountable if we wanted to make a connection. Councilman Horn: I don't think we should. I t~ink TH 5 has enough congestion on it. I would like to see that not made. councilman Boyt: What happens if we go with this option in which we have the road going around the back, of what I call the back edge of the lot. The off lake edge of the lot. That chews up a good bit of your land and yet looking at that, I haven't ~-~_n out to this piece of property, does that look like that's going to support a road Gary? Have you looked at this at all? Gary Warren: Just from a topo standpoint, I've ~_---n out on the existing road and that's quite a challenge in itself but I think we can get something in. There's enough room to work with to get a road section in this way. The other challenge is we've got t_he existing 201 septic system on the north side of that road that we can't expand the road section even in that area to get the width that we want to work with. Barbara Dacy: Tne vegetation in this area stops around in this area and then the cornfield begins and you can tell by the topo, you would have to make a sharp turn here and construct a street intersection but this grade is not as steep as this grade. councilman Boyt: Mr. Foster, are you looking at building this house this building season? Timothy Foster: Probably I would get it started this fall. Councilman Boyt: So you're saying that although you want to make progress there is some time, some adjustment time. Timothy Foster: There's time. The Zimmerman's don't think there's any time. They want me to close on it so there is some time. Tae other restriction that, as long as the study has to be done anyway ar~ we know that the intention would 10 lots at 100 acres, I don't know why there is a restriction on those two lots. It's going to be in the study anyway so if Ikn going to be there obviously the other two lots doesn't .m~a__n a hill of beans. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess the question is how fast could we turn around a feasibility study. 52 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Timothy Foster: That's it. It doesn't sound like you can get it done in the next 2 to 3 months. Councilman Boyt: I don't know about that. What we're talking about on the road that's running in there now is basically a private drive servicing s~mething 12 houses. Timothy Foster: It isn't a private drive. Barbara Dacy: But he's saying the section is like one. A gravel street. Councilman Boyt: ~he one that runs back into your proposed house. Now that road, staff has said, basically can never he moved up eve~ to rural require- ments so that's fighting too many topographical problems. Gary Warren: We _~_n always build s(x~ething if you want to throw enough money at it I guess. ~he biggest constraint I see on it is that it would require moving a fair amount of trees ar~ taking a fair amount of earth to move that arour~ plus the 2~1 septic site. Councilman Boyt: Let's assume then that we're not going to do that for a minute. From a topographical star, point is there a way to access this property? If you were just looking at that and if there's 1~ acres, how do I get a road in there with th~ least resistence? Gary Warren: You've ~ the Centex development. ~nere's a lot of topography in there also. There are ways when you've got e~ough space to get a road in that you meet the grade requirements, you can do it. F~re, because of the uncertainy and the lack of need I guess to further subdivide the plat, we want to keep our options open. Councilman Boyt: What if our option is, we basically said there are two concerns ar,] one of them is we need a road right here. Is that correct? We need a road that's going to connect at this point. Whatever we do in here, we need to connect it here, is that right? ~ry Warren: You mea_n for the TH 5 connection? To service his property and not have a long, right r~w it's a very long cul-de-sac. Councilman Boyt: So if we didn't want to get to here we wouldn't have to be concerned about this. These people down on the Worn property are not concerned where this road goes? Gary Warren: Right, that does not affect them. Councilman Boyt: So the real issue is, how do we get a road from where we have a road to right here ar~ Mr. Foster are you saying that this is t/~ best way to do it? Timothy Foster: No. 53 84 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Is that what the feasibility study is going to tell us what is the best way to get to this corner. Gary Warren: Taere are a lot of issues and that's why the feasibility. Councilman Boyt: You're saying this is a $5,000.00 question? Gary Warren: The cost of the feasibility? Timothy Foster: If some of the comments that were made in regards to Dogwood that it's really difficult to upgrade it to the standards that you would like to see in a rural area, then it would be difficult for me to accept the fact that it would be prudent to hook up to TH 5 something that can't be upgraded anyway so therefore the solution should come frc~ s~mewhere else. Acting Mayor Geving: I think we ought to leave Mr. Worm's development stand by itself and let this whole 100 acres here also star~ by itself. It's got too many conflictions. There's problems throughout here. I'm having trouble for example figuring out where the current road ends. I'm looking at this picture here Barbara. Tell me what you've got on Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Is that Lot 18 there, is there an existing hc~e there now? Barbara Dacy: You see where Lot 12 is and there's a little right-of-way path shown o Acting Mayor Geving: Is that where the road ends? Barbara Dacy: The road back there winds around some of the existing houses there. It's kind of a semi-turnaround area if you want to call it that. Then there's a public right-of-way there. It's a paper street but there is no construction beyond... Acting Mayor Geving: What do I see way down here on the left hand corner, the southwest corner, is that an existing hc~e? Barbara Dacy: No, that's Mr. Foster's proposed hc~ne. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so there's nothing beyond 12 then? Timothy Foster: Yes, there' s three hce~=s. Acting Mayor Geving: And they're serviced by this meandering whatever? Barbara Dacy: Yes, there's a driveway in there. Acting Mayor Geving: Ar~ we own that or we have maintenance responsibilities for that? Barbara Dacy: The right-of-way has been dedicated to the City but the City up until this point has not been maintaining this section of Dogwood. It under private means. 54 City Council ~ting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: So then, eve~ though somebody says it's a public street, is it in fact something that we're obligated to maintain? Acting Mayor Geving: ~hat's what I ~ to know and I think we ~ to tell th~ hc~eowners that once ar~ for all that if that's a true statement and that we're not going to maintain it. I saw an awful lot of comment at the Planning Comnission level regarding that ar~ they want us to maintain it. Barbara Dacy: Right. Acting Mayor Geving: I know we're getting a little bit off the issue here tonight but it's all connected to Mr. POster's problems and I don't think we can solve his situation until we discuss it. Barbara Dacy: Yes, the residents do want the city to look at maintaining the road and in response to their request, Staff recommended that we undertake a feasibility study including an in-house maintenance operation to look at improving that. The Council ~s to decide whether or not, I guess you have a couple of options. If you feel that these three lots on this existing cul- de-sac are not going to adversely affect the whole safety of this area fl%eh you can approve it as proposed without the easement. The Planning Commission recommended that you approve it. Allow him to build his proposed home but reserve some type of easement for a connection to th~ south. Mr. POster is saying that these two lots or the southern four lots, wherever they develop, he's saying that it really doesn't matter where they are they're going to be located in here someplace. Acting Mayor Geving: Mr. Foster how are you going to get access to your three proposed lots here off this wirdin~ trail that serves 12, 13 ar~ whatever? Timothy Foster: I would build a road fr~m the end of the existing road. Don Ashworth: To be built within the right-of-way. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, and that would be an official road and as far as you're concerted that would be your access. Again, we would not maintain that. Timothy Foster: I haven't brought up the question of maintenance. That's not a concern of mine at this time. I think it would be a concern ar~ I would participate with all the rest of the neighbors with whatever makes sense. Acting Mayor Geving: The Planning Co.~.ission recomm~ that you pay for this. Barbara Dacy: No, they recommended that he not be responsible for the entire cost of the feasibility. That was staff's recommendation? Acting Mayor Geving: Who's going to pay for it? You're not going to assess this back to the h~n~s that exist, there? 55 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Part of the rationale again was to do as was done in other cases in the city was to look at reducing those costs as much as possible with in-house construction and grading of an improved Tanadoona and Dogwood Road section. A certain amount of those costs could be usurped into the overall assessment policy of that feasibility study. Again, the study was really going to address those issues. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's get to the recommendations. I think that's the only way we can handle these. Let's go to the recommendations and see what we can do with Mr. Foster. You're saying that the applicant shall be required to install a cul-de-sac at the er~ of Lot 3 at the end of Dogwood. Okay. Do you have any problem with that? You' re the applicant. Timothy Foster: No. Acting Mayor Geving: This would then be a 45 foot cul-de-sac as recommended by our Fire Chief. No development shall occur on either of the 5 acre lots until completion of the feasibility study and the plans for that road are determined. The feasibility study shall be initiated to evaluate the alternatives. The developer will require and set forth, that's normal. And that the applicant provide an easement to connect Dogwood to the development to the south and ultimately to TH 5. What am I reading into that statement, to the south? How far to the south are they talking about? Barbara Dacy: That to the Worm property. Acting Mayor Geving: To the north line there that we are drawing from east to west. Okay, to the top of that development. Provide an easement to connect Dogwood Road to the development to the south. Do we really want to do that? Gary Warren: What we want to do is allow us that a feasibility, for whatever reason, would say that that is an option that we want to pursue, that Mr. Foster will be able to provide said easement. Not to dictate that that is the solution. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, but that would be a recommendation. Okay, will how do you feel Jay? We've talked about this for quite a while now but we should get on with it. Councilman Johnson: I feel that we're coming in under the 2 1/2 acre time limit, that's part of this. That he's required to have this final plat in by the 1st of July. Barbara Dacy: Preliminary plat. Councilman Johnson: This is preliminary plat so this is supposed to have been completed by the end of this week by our ordinance so that's one thing that hasn't been stated tonight so if anything does do...him an expansion if we table this. I think that this feasibility study, Dogwood I've driven it several times. Been in that area for various reasons and it is a very bad area as far as public safety wise. If it snowed a little bit and we had a fire down there, we'll get there in the spring. Taey'll get there they just 56 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 may not get hack out. I~ sure they can get anywhere but getting back up the hill ar~ out of here after the fire is over with, we may get our truck back in the spring. I think the connections are very important here. Whether we connect back up to the upper part of Tanadoona through the Outlot A or whatever the feasibility study, eve~lly we ~ a plan in here. I think that Worm's property necks another access rather than only TH 5 here. TH 5 is going to have future problems. Has problems so I would like to see the whole thing coordinated. The Arboretum property, the Worn property, this property as a coordinated effort. Not as three disjointed areas. We've got e~ough disjointed areas in Chanhasse~ where we end up with cul-de-sacs without any backdoor so to speak for the Fire Department or Public Safety or ambulance or anything to get itu I personally would like to see this feasibility study go ahead at full blast. I kind of tend towards allowing to go ahead with preliminary plat and get it to where he can buid his house this fall. Like I said, I've ~_n in the area, I don't think we're going to get a street through but that's what the feasibility is going to have to show. I~ really torn here. My initial reaction after reading all of this and before listening to everything tonight was to table it and coordinate development with the Worm property. Grant an extension of the time clock for the 2 1/2 acres. Get the whole thing coordinated to where we're not making three disjointed groups. The feasibility study, I can't believe it's going to take 6 months to do the feasibility study. I think I heard Mr. Foster say. Acting Mayor Geving: Will the feasibility study hold up our whole process here if we go ahead with both options? Gary, what do you thing? Gary Warren: I don't think so. I think we can give direction to the consultant on it that we're on a tight timeline here and 6 to 8 weeks. Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to do it. I think we have to go with a feasibility study. Councilman Horn: So do I. Taat'swhat the reccmm~mldation says. Acting Mayor (]eying: Okay, let's move ahead. Do we have a motion on this? Councilman Horn stated he had made the motion although he had reservations with cor~ition number 5. Timothy Foster: Is there a possibility that I can have 1~ days to withdraw this whole thing? Acting Mayor ~eving: You can withdraw it tomorrow if you like. I wish you have done it two hours ago. Barhara Dacy: ~he 2 1/2 acre issue is the old subdivision, the proposal meets the new subdivision requirenents. There really isn't an issue with that. Timothy Foster: ~he other thing is that I would be, if there's any way that you can change 5. 57 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: Well, 5 is a crucial one and Clark m~ntioned that. Timothy Foster: I understand that. Out of 100 acres you should be able to get out somehow other than cutting across that one lot. Councilman Horn: That's why I pointed that out. I don't like number 5 but we'll let that go to the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: With number 3, 5 is dumb. To preconclude that we're going to need this easement. Now we could put something in here about the feasibility study. Barbara Dacy: You could pass the motion without number 5 because 3 would be doing the study is going to evaluate. Councilman Horn: Let's take out number 5. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Foster, I think you're caught in kind of a catch here in the system as I see it. One part of it is, if this lot had been platted back when they did the 17 that are to the north of it, you wouldn't have any trouble. Just go in there and put your house down and build it. Barbara Dacy: That can still happen. The administrative subdivision approval was to create that 5 acre piece and the remnant parcel. Councilman Boyt: Is there a 5 acre piece coning... Barbara Dacy: When I started out the presentation, they came in last winter and created this piece ar~ this whole piece was the other parcel so... Councilman Johnson: So they can build on the other parcel. Barbara Dacy: He can build anywhere on this parcel. Councilman Boyt: Anywhere. So what you could do is just land yourself off the er~ of Dogwood Road period. You would have to extend the road but I would gather since the lots are platted there, we basically said you can build a drive in there. Is that not true? Acting Mayor Geving: I think it is. Councilman Boyt: A~d I think that gets you out of this. It doesn't give you two lots but it gets you out of it with minimal expense ar~ what I see you facing is you've got to make a decision and the decision means $5,000.00 out of your pocket and the decision means a commitment to buy the rest of this and you don't have one of your critical questions answered. Can I put my house where I want to put my house. Timothy Foster: What you're saying is that if the study tells me that there's going to be an easement, now that I've built my house, how would you get the easement? 58 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Councilman Boyt: You won't get to build your house until the study is done. Timothy Foster: If I want to build on the 100 acres I can, correct? Barbara Dacy: ~he option is to continue with the plat action... Timothy Foster: Ar~ you've determined that it's my responsibility to psy for the study? Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know who else would pay for it. Councilman Johnson: The study is benefitting everybody o~ D(x~. Acting Mayor Geving: Not really. Councilman Johnson: It's getting them a backdoor for public safety purposes, that doesn't benefit them? Acting Mayor Geving: I don't agree with that. Councilman Boyt: There's a concept ar~ I don't know if it applies to this particular thing but there's a concept involved call the "but for rule". If this would not happen but for your action than you become responsible for that. I don't know how it applies to this but I think that issue of who pays fo~ this feasibility study is also going to take time to resolve. I don't think you're going to see us saying that the neighbors are going to pay for that when we haven't even heard from the neighbors. Barbara Dacy: I guess I have to apologiz~ The neighborhood did contact City Hall this past winter after Mr. M~nk left. I believe they did m,~it a letter and I think it's in our files upstairs. It should have been included in the packet. I know we may have had s{m~e similar requests as was evident from the Planning Commission Minutes when they commented on some of my comments. In any case, there have ~ a legitimate request from the neighborhood to look at improving Dogwood and Tanadoona. Now whether or not that would involve a feasibility study. Because this plat ar~ that request came in simultaneously we combined the issues ar~ maybe that was not correct. Acting Mayor Geving: We're kind of garbling this thing up now. We had a motion for the three lots. ~hen there was the interjection to throw up the whole thing and just let him go ahead ar~ build on or~ lot. We have to deal with what's in front of us here and that is an application for three lots. We either deny this and throw it out ar~ he can c~me in with a p~rmit. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that you're better off building your house ar~ ths~ start t/~ process. Councilman Ham moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the Prelimir~y Subdivision I~t 987-11 subject to the Plat stamped "Received May 19, 1987" and the following conditions: 59 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 . ~he applicant shall be required to install a cul-de-sac into Lot 3 at the end of Dogwood; however, the applicant may be allowed to put in a driveway as approved by City Staff. 0 No development shall occur on either. 5 acre lots until completion of the feasibility study and the plans for that road are determined. . A feasibility study shall be initiated to evaluate the alternatives to improving Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive, as well as evaluating the connection to the Wonm property to the south. . Tae developer be required to enter into a development agreement guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide financial sureties as required. . Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement along the south and east property lines. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. Acting Mayor (]eving: So now it's entirely up to you Mr. Foster what action you would like to take but you must advise our Staff because we're going to proceed ahead with the study. Gary W~rren: I will go ahead and contact an engineering firm next w~ek. Acting Mayor (~eving: So I would give you how many days Gary? Gary Warren: I would say by Monday if we haven't heard from him by Monday of next week we' 11... Acting Mayor Geving: We'll proceed with the understanding that we are going to bill you for this feasibility study Mr. Foster. Councilman Boyt left the meeting at this point for the next item. APPOINTMENT TO PARK AND Pd~CRFATION COMISSION. Acting Mayor Geving stated that the Mayor has the capability of appointing authority with the Council rejecting or approving of the appointment. With that in mind Acting Mayor Geving appointed Susan Boyt to fill the Park and Recreation Commission vacancy for the reasons of Mrs. Bolt was on the C~m~ission at one time and did a good job and is still very much interested. Don Ashworth stated that Councilman Geving takes the Mayor's authority in Mayor Hamilton's absence to make an appointment. Councilman Horn stated that when applications are received, he would like to know how many times the applicant has applied. 60 41 City Coum:il Meeting - July 6, 1987 Lloyd Anderson: I was contacted by the City about reapplicati~ I understood when I applied originally that they were just going to keep it on file and contact me. Was that considered? Acting Mayor Geving: Yes sir. ~ouncilman Johnson stated that he believed there were several good candidates ar~ it shows a lot of interest in the Park and Bec ar~ appreciates the interest shown. Councilman Horn stated he wanted to point out that Susan's application had the earliest date on it. Acting Mayor (~eving stated that all of the dates were current. Don Ashworth stated that he believed that the applications were re- application. Last time t/~ Mayor had stated that he would not just accept applications on hand and anyor~ who wanted to reapply must made a new application. Acting Mayor ~eving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Susan Boyt to fill the vacancy on the Park and Recreation Commissio~ All voted in favor and motion carried. OTTO, LOCATED 1/4 MILE S(X3TH OF TH 5 ON GALPIN BLVD.: A. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 118 ACRES INTO 39 SINCr.~. FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PEI~/T. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located south of TH 5 on Galpin Blvd.. It is now zoned A-2 which means it has to have 2 1/2 acre lots. It came under the old ordinance with the 2 1/2 acre minimum requirement and the 18~ foot. Planning Commission reviewed the application for the subdivision and the wetland alteration permit and approved both the subdivision and the wetland alteration permit. They recomm~ approval subject to Staff's co~itions. They ~ to go through the request for 118 acres, the lots are located along a long cul-de-sac. We looked at all the different option~ The applicant is providing an easement for future access south of the cul-de-sac and we had also requesting an easement to the east. The Planning Commission specifically requested an easement either from Renaissance Court or Oakwood Ridge. applicant has stated that they will provide that. ..~o not have the 18~ width at the 50 foot setback. They will have it at the building site and the Planning Oommission approved the variance for those lot widths because the applicant has Covenants and Restrictions that restrict those lots from ever being subdivide~L The soils have ~ approved by the Soil Consultant. They have a problem with Lot 14 and Lot 21. Again, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the co~ition that the Soil Consultant approve of those lots or they will have to be re~ved. That's a real quick overview. Acting Mayor 6k=ving: Could you make a quick correction for us Jo Anr~ There's a discrepancy. Is it 39 single family lots or 4~? Jo Ann Olse~: It's change ar~ there are now 39. 61 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: And we're talking about 118 acres versus 104, is that correct? We had a discrepancy between the Staff Report and the agenda so which is correct? Jo Ann Olsen: The 118 and they did remove one of the lots. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Well it's getting late and maybe Wally, do you want to say a few words to start us out? If not we can go right into our Council discussion. Bill Engelhardt: We can just answer any questions. Councilman Horn: I don't see any problem with this. I don't have any problems. The Planning Cc~mission had no problems with it. Councilman Boyt: Do we have any cul-de-sacs in an A-2 area that meet our zoning ordinance? It seems like we have our problems with these setbacks and lot widths and Ihn just wondering has anybody figured that out? How to do that. Jo Ann Olsen: You mean t_he 180 foot width? We have, the other subdivisions that have come in have met that 180 foot width. We've ~ having more problems with the urban subdivisions actually. councilman Boyt: But in this particular zone, I would like to hear about the difficulty there. Bill Engelhardt: I guess the reason of the difficulty is to us the intent of the ordinance, the way we read it, put the 180 feet on a cul-de-sac that allows for that lot to be subdivided at some day in the future into two 90 foot lots. What we've done. is we've actually said that we're going to keep anywhere from 170 feet down to 105 feet for a standard lot and put a covenant that these lots will never be able to be subdivided so in effect you're getting an urban design in the rural area and we feel that meets the intent of the ordinance. councilman Boyt: Then you mentioned covenants. When I was reading through the Covenants I saw something that indicated 20 year limit then I saw something that was probably in reference to this in perpetuity. Now, I'm wary of covenants because it comes down to enforcement and as I understand a convenant, enforcement depends on your neighbors being interested in taking you to court. Isn't there a way in which we can make this a stronger tool? Bill Engelhardt: If you make the covenant of the Homeowners Association, then you have a problem but if you make the covenant a part of the deed that rides with the property, then I don't see where there would be any problem because it's part of the title. Anytime you do a title search, any time ~ property is sold, there are covenants in that title. It's always going to have that covenant on it. Councilman Boyt: The City can take that action? Is that what you're telling? 62 City Council Meetir~ ' July 6~ 1987 48 Bill Engelhardt: Right~ Councilman Boyt: In the covenants it talks about the cemetary and how you only want a certain kind of fence. Maybe s~neb~ who is more familiar with that can tell me the relevance of having the cemetary dealt with in the covenants in your develo~nent. Wallace Otto: The cemetary part, it's the adjoining properties and some people have exceptions to having spear topped fences is mentioned specifically. There are methods a~ today for scr~ing. Berms, shurbery, growing things that are well maintained ar~ if it goes in correctly, you can be assured that the adjoining owner will get this when be purchases the lot as opposed to whatever may happen in the future. Councilman Boyt: Are you saying to me I can't have any standing monuments? I think that was one of your restrictions. Wallace Otto: Yes, and I think the City would enjoy that because it's a lot cheaper to maintain. Both mowing and you take the cemetary that's out there now, I think the people have taken care of it. The~ve done an excellent job. Very few cemetaries that size have gotte~ that care but if you look in there and some of the stones that are there, there is one of them that is engraved on a rock but those generations are probably 3 or 4 times removed and the interest in there is waning then who's going to take care of them in the future. It's my own personal opinion that we kind of looked at it from both angles. The City and adjoining property owners. Bill E~gelhardt: JUst as a sideline, to keep it short, my dad sells monuments. You can't sell, in most cemetaries now they won't allow standing monuments. They all have to be flat stor~e. Councilman Johnson: This cemetary thing intrigues me a little. Is that trying to say the existing cemetary property or just any expansion which we're trying to negotiate an expansion I guess? Wallace Otto: No. The existing property, that character will stay. Councilman Johnson: I think we probably could have avoided some of these 115, 170's ar~ stuff but in light of what else we're heard tonight, I personally think that in future subdivisions 40 years down the road when we get sewer in this area, where the houses are and where the old sewers were probaby won't make much difference anyway. You probably won't be taking these lots and split. A lot of these lots don't look like you want to split tl~am right in half anyway. The 180 into two 90 foot lots never made a beck of a lot of sense on a cul-de-sac situatioD. I~ not too hopped up on that. I think we really need that. Until we get rid of that setback problem but I think they could have ~ avoided. I would have liked to have ~ the Timberwood Drive moved a little bit further to the east as you come up to Re~aissance Court and avoid that stand of trees .... if you move it a little bit one side or the other you wouldn't have taken out as much trees. You wouldn't have come across so much bad topography. T~e lay of the land may have ~ a little tougher to do. 63 City Council Meeting - JUly 6, 1987 Bill Engelhardt: We wanted to cross the creek at a 90 degree angle. Councilman Johnson: It's unfortunate. Other than that I don't have, obviously there are no neighbors here. Acting Mayor Geving: There's really only one neighbor and that is your former neighbor, Pat Maher. Jo Ann Olsen: And Merle Volk. Acting Mayor Geving: We've been expecting this particular plat for some time and the only issues that I see are the ones that the Planning Commissioners brought out again with the setbacks and we have to be consistent with what we said earlier this evening. I'm looking at page 2 of your report Jo Ann. Where the building is located. Your staff comments and recommendations regarding Lot 5 and 21 of Block 2, I'm at the bottom of page 3 now where you're saying Staff is recommending that Lot 5 be combined with Lot 4. Do you have any problem with that Wally? Wallace Otto: Yes. Bill Engelhardt: Yes. Acting Mayor Geving: Why? Wallace Otto: I don't think it has to be combined. Acting Mayor Geving: Staff what do you think? Jo Ann Olsen: We have discussed with the soil consultant, he was just uneasy about LOt 5 although it does have the two sites. Technically, it meets all the requirements and Staff is not pushing it. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so LOt 5 can be built upon? Again, let's go to the bottom of your page then where you say Staff is recommending Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 3 combine into tw~ lots. Jo Ann Olsen: Again, the Planning Commission left it as that these can remain as long as the soil consultant agrees with it. Acting Mayor Geving: Some day I would hope that we would extend some road in this development all the way through to Audubon. Is that in our plans? Jo Ann have you seen that pictured somewhere? An extension of this particular plat. Jo Ann Olsen: We're looking at having an easement provided either along Renaissance Court or Oakwood. Acting Mayor Geving: Of course the thing that I'm most interested in and I always have been is the cemetary. I don't know why but I've had a lot of conversations with Wally over this. The Outlot A that's shown here in the west side of the cemetary is now just a parking area in front of the oemetary. 64 City Oouncil Meetir~3 - July 6, 1987 What do you propose to do with Outlot A? Wallace Otto: I guess we would have to see some kind of alignment there with what's going to happen with this easement. You're talking about 15~ foot easement and that be the case and they want it on both sides... Acting Mayor Gevirg: For the County Road? Wallace Otto: Ye~. Acting Mayor Geving: It would be a shame to do that but I suspect that's the only value of Outlot B really. It's very swampy to t?~ west of the road. Wallace Otto: It isn't quite as swampy as when you drive by and look at it. The previous person that lived on the lot there said that they raised crops there up until Jonathan and if you walk in there and cleaned it up, I guess you could. It hasn't had anythir~3 on it for 15-2~ years. Acting Mayor Geving: What did the Park and Recreation people say about the dedication of parkland? Jo Ann Olsen: They didn't want parklar~ but again, they just wanted a trail along th~ road and also along Galpin Blvd. We didn't required additional. It can be obtained as an easement. With the additional easement that the County is requiring, the trail can be within that easement but they do have to provide the trail along Timberwood Drive. Acting Mayor Geving: Where w~uld that connect to? Jo Ann Olsen: I'm sure that the easement that would be provided to the south ar~ then also wherever this is connected. Acting Mayor Geving: Sometime in the future the property to the south will develop. At the bottom of page 4 it says that we're going to work with you regarding the expansion of the cemetary. Have you thought anything about that Wally and how we might be able to accc~li~ that? Wallace Otto: I guess I've just been waiting your answer. Acting Mayor Geving: I'll tell you, at one time we had a Co-~,ission, the Mayor, myself and A1 Klingelhutz to negotiate with you officially, this was a Council action to officially negotiate with you for the expansion of this one acre cemetary exception. Tree reason I dwell on this Council is that in the City of Chanhassem we only have one oemetary that's a public oemetary and that's it, right here. ~his city, the way it's growing ~s to have a viable oe~etary and I would propose to anyone that would listen that we pick up approximately 5 acres for the evemtual oem~y for the City of Chanbm-sem. I've always tt~ught Wally that we would like to have what you call Lot 1, Block 3 here. For the City at least that's the best piece of land because we have road frontage and we would have 2 1/2 acres there to expam~ with reasonable cemetary land. I know when I talked with Al Klingelhutz and Tom Hamilt~m, we thought of picking up both of those lots. Lot 1 ar~ Lot 2 which 65 46 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 would give us 5 acres and we would have enough there for a long, long time. Are we still in a negotiating position? If you're going to sell Lot 1, you could sell it to the City just as easily as you could to a home buyer. Wallace Otto: That's true. Acting Mayor Geving: I guess I'll leave that to the City Manager and the Staff to work out the details. I have no other comments. I think we're ready for a vote. Councilman Johnson: We've got Galpin Lane out here. Is that a little redundant with Galpin Blvd.? Would that cause any confusion? Everything else is wood. Pinewood, Timberwood. Acting Mayor Geving: I agree with you. Let's change that. Councilman Johnson: Why can't that be part of Maplewood Terrace? Wallace Otto: We'll co~e up with something. I think there was another one on there too. Councilman Horn left the meeting and was not present for the remainder of the meeting. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Subdivision Request %86-27 as shown on the plat dated May 22, 1987 subject to the following conditions: 1. All lots must have the two soil treatment sites staked and flagged. . Lots 10 and 11, block 2 should share a driveway to preserve the septic sites. . Lots 21, Block 2 and Lot 14, Block 3 shall be combined with adjacent lots unless and until city staff is satisfied that they are buildable. Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 shall be deemed as an outlot and unbuildable or shall be combined with adjacent lots unless and until city staff is satisfied that they are buildable. . The applicant shall provide a roadway easement for 150 feet right-of- way centered on CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) consistent with the Carver County Engineer ' s request. . The applicant shall provide a 60 foot roadway easement from Timberwood Drive to the east property line of th~ plat located off of one of the cul-de-sacs from Timberwood Drive, preferrably Oakwood Ridge or Renaissance Court, for future connection to the east. . The city shall work with the applicant in acquiring additional land for the city cemetary. 66 47. City Council M~eting - July 6, 1987 8. Outlots A a~d B shall be de~ u~buildable. . The applicant shall add erosion control fencing on the north side of Renaissance Court along the drainageway. T~e applicant shall comply with the recomm~tions of the Watershed District. 11. The applicant shall provide a phasing plan for incorporation into the develoImuent agreenent. 12. ~he applicant shall enter into a develolmuent agreement and provide the City with necessary financial sureties to insure the proper installation of the improvers. The applicant shall incorporate a final Grading and Erosion Control Plan into the construction ~ts. 14. The lot width variances are granted only because the applicant has provided covenants and restrictions which restrict these lots from ever being subdivided. 15. The applicant shall provide trail easements as required by the Park and Recreation Ooamission alor~ Timbexwood Drive and county Road 117. 16. ~ae name of Galpin Lane be changed. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Coumnilman Johnson moved, councilman Boytsecomded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit %87-9 for development within 2~ feet of a Class A wetland with the following condition: 1. All septic systems shall meet the 15~ foot wetland setback. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRES~TIONS: Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, you had mmmet~ing on Park and Rec. councilman Boyt: I do. I want to get these couple of issues, see if we can't deal with them. It's going to take a unanimous decision I guess. ~he first one is I want the Park and Rec Minutes, I want us to hire a temporary secretary to come in and type them if we have to but I think it's inappropriate to not have those give~ the issues that we're looking at. We've had three meetings that we do not have Minutes for. Don Ashworth: We talked about that at the last Staff meeting. The question really is going to come back to the Council, up until this point we have 67 48' City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 allowed the summary position of what the item is to be included as a part of the packet which is really what we did in the last one. The summary position. It was not the verbatim but it would have forced the application off by a two week period of time. We try to make sure that we have all parts in and I'll be honest, if there has been an area that may be weaker it's the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes. We've always had the Planning Commission Minutes and we often have to make choices in terms of what it is we tell Nann to do because she types those Minutes as well and the ones that you were talking about are ones that are in question. Karen made the decision. Nann quite working on that set to move over to this set to be in by Friday. Now the question is, do we want to employ additional people because right your schedule is very full with the additional commissions that we've given to you and especially on some of these weeks, it's more than a full time job. The last month and a half have been very bad when you start getting into the size of the City Council packet, the size of the Planning Commission packets and again recognizing that, I use the one with Rick Murray, his contention that I'm going to lose a building season and in some ways-he may be right. Each time that they do miss a particular sequence then it does put other things off. Acting Mayor Geving: I think Bill brings up a good point though because that was the comment that I made tonight. We've having difficulty now trying to fit all of the pieces of these developments together into a plan and make sure that we're on top of it and we didn't have the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes tonight that maybe would have answered some of the questions. I think it's worthwhile to proceed to get the Minutes to us and if it costs, it costs. We're just going to have to do that as a part of doing business. Don Ashworth: If it means tabling an item to make sure that those Minutes are here. Councilman Boyt: I see this a little differently. What you're doing is having a secretary type the Minutes off of a dictaphone tape. Is that correct? Now my figures are a little old but I think for about $7.00 an hour you could get that job done so I would suggest that on weeks when we have the kind of volume that you had for the last couple of months that we call somebody and have them do them. We just give them the tape and they type it at hc~e or whatever arrangement you can make but then we get the Minutes. Don Ashworth: During the periods and Jerry Martin who is a wonderful lady and good at what she does, the people who are continuously involved with city government and who can recognize names off of tapes, it takes a period of time before you can get up to the level where you can go through those because you don't hear everything totally clear to begin with. When a person is making a report saying this cul-de-sac is to the rear lot line of whatever and somebody says, what' s all that about. Acting Mayor Geving: But I think we're hitting a period of time now where things are starting to crunch in on us. We really can't make good decisions without all the data to us either. 68 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 49 Don Ashworth: Another thing that's hitting, they're on the same schedule as City Council so they finishing up on a Tuesday night ar~ we're turnir~ arour~ with a Monday City Council meeting. Now the thing has gone to the Planning Commission three weeks before that so the Planning Oommission has see~ those. Those Minutes are done. We've got those implemented and we're ready to go with that whole section but because of the timing at least over the last two months the Park has hit right on a bad schedule. Councilman Johnson: That's the main thing. Getting that timing fixed up so the Planning Commission sees it three weeks before Park, Park and Rec ~s to see it early too. The Planning is always saying what is Park am] Bec doing on this? Councilman Boyt: Actually I think the Park and Re= does ter~ to see it before the Planning Commissio~ The ones that I follow ar~ whatever, I turn it over to you. If w~ ~ a motion, let's make a motion. I want the Minutes. Acting Mayor (~eving: I don't think it r_~s a motion. We've given Don the directive and he can hopefully try to ~rk it out. Councilman Boyt: The other thing is on Park and Rec. I saw a no~e in the Planning Commission Minutes that they quite business at 18:38 and the Planning Commission in that particular meeting happened to go until 12:58. Now something's wrong. They stopped. It wasn't as though they were out of business to do, they just said it's 18:38, we quit. That's not the kind of people I want on the Park and Rec Commission. I know it's a volunteer job and I know that it's tough but I want them to stay there until they get their business done. We count on them to get that done. What ISn talking about is the Planning (k)mmission asked what did the Park and Rec say about trails in this development and I think it was Jo Ann said they recessed at 18:38 and didn't deal with it. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I did see that. We have rules that you don't take up a r~w issue after 11:88. We ter~ to do it but we didn't do it that one time. I think it's good when you're really tired and not doing due consideration that it is good to drop them off. If they had had a very bad meeting, a very tough meeting and they weren't in the disposition to continue, it may have ~ a good decision in that case. We don't know. I can't second guess it. Councilman Boyt: I can't argue that. I've got another one amd I'll get off Park and Bec after this. I guess I'll get off it before har~. Don Ashworth: They have moved into a twice a month schedule now. ~hat's going to help us because before that we had a full month so if they missed one, as far as things coming together. Councilman ~oyt: I guess that's all I have on Park and m~. I had anotber issue o~ the Council presentatio~ ~n the building inspectors, I saw in the ~%~lministrative packet that we're going to be taking them $88,888.88 in fees ar~ with that Jim is recomme~]ing that we hire another perso~ as an inspector. In talking to Jim briefly before this, I think there's e~ough money in there to hire two inspectors. I don't think we're charging buildings fees to make 69 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 money out of them. We're charging building fees for service rendered. I think we get better service if we had more inspectors and I would like to see us hire two. Don Ashworth: That's a projection. I feel, based on that number that the employment of the individual he's talking about, especially with the duties and responsibilities that they're talking about, well rounds out that office and hopefully will provide the level of service that you have been looking for. If by the end of this year the projections do in fact turn at that 80 figure, then as a part of... Acting Mayor Geving: We'll take a look at it next year. Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me we're not going to try and run a surplus there? Acting Mayor Geving: We hardly ever do. It's just that right now we're in good shape. Jim Chaffee: And we do have a summer intern on board to help us out through the building season probably through September. Councilman Boyt: C~e more, I thought about the Park and Rec and it fits with all of them. We have a standard that everybody will attend 75% of the meetings. I would like to see that. I would like to know. I'm pretty sure that we have a problem on the Planning Commission and I~ pretty sure we have a problem on the Park and Rec Commission. I think that we have people in this community that want to be on these commissions. Even though the people that I think are involved in this are very valuable members to those, they've got to be there. Acting Mayor Geving: Don't we review that about once a year? There's a time for that. Don Ashworth: Yes. If I'm hearing Bill, he's want it now. Acting Mayor Geving: No, I think there's a proper time for that. Councilman Johnson: I would like to see a semi-annual review. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission is considering that item on Wednesday night also. Acting Mayor Geving: When do we normally do it? Don Ashworth: Somewhere around the first of the year. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission's meeting is the first meeting in January. Typically they look at it at that time but as I said, the Chairman had directed us for this upcoming meeting to discuss that. 7~ City Council ~ting - July 6, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think our ordinance says exactly that. ~hat when somebody misses an excess of 75%, they are to be noticed. We ser~ notice that we expect you to be there this amount of time. I don't think it waits until the er~ of the year. Acting Mayor Geving: We can't be doing it every meeting. Let's do it on a seni-annual meeting. That will catch this at this level an~ Do~ kno~. Gary Warren: JUst to update the Council on our sprinkling baru We continue to have problems. My last update we were waittr~3 for the Chanhasse~ Post to come out because we do have an article in there. Lb_fortunately it has taken then they proposed to get it out. It is being mailed on Wednesday so we haven't been taking a hard line e~forceme~twise but we are having problems. Our water tank is getting down to very unsafe conditions. Jim and I have be~n talking. The notice should be in the mail by Wed~y so by this week the word should be out once again to the residents. We are looking at getting more aggresive especially on people who are persisting not to abide by it to issuing hard copy warnings to hard copy violations. We have a lot of sod going down, we're in that development phase and we just have to start taking a hard line. Jim, I don't know if you've got more. Jim Chaffee: Jerry Boucheaux came into me Thursday morning and said the tower was down to zero and be started getting a lot of complaints from a lot of citizens on why they had frothy, white water in their faucets. He gave me about five different areas. One was Near Mountain so on my way in tonight I made a swing through Near Mountain and just the sidetrack I went thorugh there were 13 violations occurring right there. That's just in Near Mountain. Don Ashworth: The City Council has authorized acquisition of parcels in the downtown area. It includes this particular parcel. Twice you~e included this parcel, this is Jim Burdick's property... Resolution 987-67: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Acquisition by COodem~ation of Property within the Downtown Redevelopment Project Ar~ All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. T~ meeting was adjourned at 11:50 Submitted by Don Ashworth city Manager Prepared by Nann O~im 71