The URL can be used to link to this page

10. Preliminary Plat to replat Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition to correct an error =j C 1TY 0 F P.C. DATE: March 21, 1990 -1 CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: April 9, 1990 k ; CASE NO: 86-25 SUB Prepared by: Krauss/v I OD I STAFF REPORT I PROPOSAL: Replat of Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition II- I < VLOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and east of T.H. 101 I —' Q APPLICANT: George Nelson and Associates I 1660 So. Hwy. 100, Suite 428 Minneapolis, MN 55416 IPRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate IACREAGE: Action by Li^; Ati'*trti,N*~•,-a DENSITY: Nc II ADJACENT ZONING 1Reec;�___�_ AND LAND USE: N- A-2 and Lake Riley Date Sutatti ;: t: C. S- A-2; nursery - Date Sib r.itt to Coot ,t E- A-2;- single family ��' _ °_ II 0W- A-2; single family W WATER AND SEWER: Not available III" ' PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site has been graded to allow for develop- ment. Pineview Court has been installed I and one home is currently under constructi )n on Lot 4. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Rural , . I Il Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL/COMMENT On June 15, 1987, the City Council approved final plat for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition. The plat resulted in a creation of five single family lots which are accessed off of a new cul-de-sac, ' Pineview Court, leading to Foxford Road which ultimately exits out onto Pioneer Trail. The subdivision was developed under existing ordinances which allowed for the platting of 21 acre lots. By agreement with the Metropolitan Council, further platting of lots ' under these provisions was prohibited after July 1, 1987. Current ordinances also allow 21 acre lots with 200 feet of frontage and a depth of 200 feet, however, at the present time the average gross ' density shall not exceed 1 home per 10 acres. After approval, the plat was filed and improvements installed. ' Pineview Court was constructed and a home is presently under construction on Lot 4. The street has not yet bet been accepted by the City and we continue to retain financial guarantees as provided in the development agreement. Staff has recently been contacted by the developer and by the surveyor working on the project. It has become apparent that the developer's surveyor made a major error in the location of the street and of lot corners during construction of the plat. The error was significant enough that the cul-de-sac was displaced approximately 50 feet north of where it was intended to be and ' additionally, the home being built on Lot 4 has part of its drainfield located on the adjoining Lot 5. The surveyor is proposing the replat as a means of resolving these discrepancies. ' The replat would have the effect of shifting lot lines to place the Lot 4 drainfield on Lot 4 plus give that lot the acreage the purchaser had expected. It would also result in the shifting of ' the right-of-way to the north to accommodate the actual street alignment. However, the proposal results in the creation of a variance. Lot area on Lot 5 would be 2.2 acres which is 3/10ths of an acre below the 21 acre minimum standard. Staff has reviewed the history of this matter and finds no rationale for supporting either the variance or the replat as proposed. Through the development process, the City made a good faith effort to insure that our standards were complied with and that a compatible, well designed project would result. What we ' have here is the basic fact that the developer's consultants appear to have committed a major error. We also note that there is no way the City would have been aware of this problem. A registered surveyor is licensed by the state and assumes liability for their ' work. The City in turn relies on the fact that the work prepared Planning Commission I/ March 21, 1990 Page 3 by a registered survey is legitimate and finds no need for further questioning. We understand that a hardship results for the purchaser of the home on Lot 4, who is an innocent bystander, and to the developer who quite probably has legal recourse against the surveyor he retained. However, this does not constitute a hardship consistent with the finding that is required to support a variance request. This is clearly a self-created hardship. We see no reason for the City to assume the burden of having to accept lots that do not meet our standards as a result of this situation. ' We believe that there are several methods that could be considered to resolve this issue. There are two situations that result from this problem which need to be rectified. The first is that the drainfield for Lot 4 is actually located in part on Lot 5. The second is that Lot 5 itself is undersized and with 2.2 acres requires a variance. Alternatives for resolving this situation include acceptance of the plan as proposed by the applicant which would also require approval of the variance. The second alternative is to eliminate Lot 5, merging it with Lot 4 so that the variance situation ceases to exist. Staff would be opposed to making an outlot out of Lot 5 since with 2.2 acres it is not buildable in this district. A third alternative could conceivably result in reconstruction of Pineview Court back to the approved location. This would allow the plat to be configured as approved, however, it would not resolve the problem with the placement of the drainfield for Lot 4 nor would it apparently result in the platting of a lot that meets the expectations of the persons that bought Lot 4. The drainfield on Lot 5 could be covered by a protective easement. ' Staff is recommending that the second alternative be adopted. It will result in the creation of a lot that is consistent with the expectations of the purchaser of Lot 4, it will avoid the creation of any new variances, and it will avoid the need to reconstruct Pineview Court. Staff understands that this recommendation will likely result in some financial hardship which we presume will ultimately fall back onto the shoulders of the consulting firm that prepared the plat. However, we believe that this is reasonable given the source of the problem and our belief that this is a self- created hardship that should not be approved by the City. COMPLIANCE TABLE Rural Residential District Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Home Setback Ordinance 2.5 acres 200' 200' 50' front/rear 10' rear Lot 1 2.5 280' 370' N/A Lot 2 2.5 220' 400' N/A ' I Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 4 11 Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Home Setback Lot 3 2.8 acres 210' 230 ' N/A Lot 4 2.5 250' 350' 70' front 230 ' rear 60' east 100' west 11 Lot 5 2.2 (V1) 302 ' 430' N/A Variances ' V1 - Variance of 13,068 square feet to allow the platting of lots as a 2.2 acre lot. ' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE/ACTION ' The Planning Commission discussed this proposal at the March 21, 1990, meeting. The discussion was a lengthy one where a variety of alternatives were explored and discussed with the representative of the engineering/surveying company, Pioneer Engineering, who were at fault in preparing the survey work, a representative of the developer and the purchaser of the home being built on Lot 4. It became clear that Mr. Fraser, the home buyer, had additional concerns relative to this issue. It is his contention that the ' home is mislocated on Lot 4. Not only is it located closer to the property line then they had originally anticipated because of the survey error, but that the home was also misoriented so that effectively its back yard area is located in large part in what is actually Lot 5. This is due to the fact that the home is located at an angle to the property lines and is oriented towards the northeast rather than having a northerly or northwestly orientation that would have provided a back yard area located on Lot 4. ' The following is one of the alternatives that was discussed by the Planning Commission. 1. The possibility of obtaining land from Lot 8, Block 2, Lake ' Riley Woods First Addition which is located north of Lot 5. The idea behind this is that if there is sufficient area on this lot which is as yet undeveloped, that it could be ' transferred to Lot 5 to avoid the variance. This would then allow the lot lines to be reconfigured such that the drainfield for Lot 4 is located entirely on that lot. Staff ' finds that there are two problems with this approach because, the first and most important being that upon further research it does not appear as though Lot 8 has sufficient area to make up for this shortfall on Lot 5. The second is a concern by ' Mr. Fraser that his home is still misoriented and that a home could be built on Lot 5 in what he perceives to be his backyard. Planning Commission I March 21, 1990 Page 5 2. The Planning Commission discussed ways of resolving Mr. Fraser's concern about his perceived back yard area. If there was a way to resolve this it could be used in a variety of alternatives being considered. At issue is the City's ability to restrict a home placement on Lot 5 to an area no further north then the north property line of the existing home. Thus the home on Lot 5 would be built on the south end of the property near the intersection of Pineview Court and Foxford Road. Staff indicated at the meeting that we were unsure as to what mechanism could appropriately be used to restrict home placement. We noted that we could not establish unusually restrictive setback requirements on this lot. Since the meeting, we have had an opportunity to talk to the City Attorney and believe that if the Council wishes to pursue this option, that we could require a dedication of a conservation easement over that portion of Lot 5 in which we do not wish to have the home located, thus putting the home in where the Fraser's would be considered to be a more appropriate location. This option would leave the variance justification question unanswered because it presumes that the variance would be approved. In addition, we are not certain that it would satisfy all of the Fraser's concerns. 3. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of moving the home on Lot 4 to a more appropriate location and/or relocating the street to the spot in which it was intended to be placed. There is obviously significant cost involved in this option but it would result in a plat and home location situation that is consistent with the expectations that the City had for this plat when it was approved. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to deny the replat due to its inability to support a finding of justifiable hardship for the variance. The denial was on a split 3 to 2 vote. Commissioners on both sides of the motion expressed desire to see this issue worked out in some way. Since the meeting, staff has spoken to the City Attorney and asked him to research the matter. Should the City Council uphold the denial of the replat? An issue would remain as to how the developer would be required by the City to resolve issues pertaining to this plat. In particular, staff's recommendation that Lot 5 either be joined with Lot 4 or split between Lot 4 and Lot 8 to the north to eliminate the variance problem and to avoid the platting of a lot which is unbuildable and has no purpose. , STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to replat , Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition due to the fact that the resulting variance is a self created hardship. We further recommend that the II . Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 6 ' City Council direct the City Attorney to proceed with measures to bring the existing plat into compliance with conditions of approval. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Pioneer Engineering dated March 15, 1990. 2. Reduced copy of replat. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 21, 1990. 4. Preliminary plat. I I I I At* * PIONEER CM Engineers • Land Planners •Land Surveyors • Landscape Architects * engineering March 15, 1990 Memo To: planning Commission & City Council Members City of Chanhassen tt8: Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition - Replat I P.E. Job # 89049 Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commission Mangers: t We have presented a replat of the take Riley Woods 2nd Addition plat with a variance request for Lot 5 to be 2.2 acres in lieu of the required 2.5 acres. The reason for the replat is the result of two (2) itens, one is construction staking error which resulted in the paved-surface of the 1 street shifting to the north. The second is the location of an existing house on Lot 4, together with, its septic tank and drainfields. The distance the street moved to the north ranges from 0 feet at the intersection of the cul-de-sac street and Foxford Road to approximately 50 feet at the center of the cul-de-sac. When it was ' discovered that the paved street,was not located within the platted right-of-way, there was a choice to make between moving the street back to the platted right-of-way or replotting the property to move the right-of-way to where the paved street was located. At the time the error was discovered, the first course of asphalt pavement had been constructed together with the crushed rock base, street grading and a considerable mount of subgrade correction, which involve excavating and removing unstable soil from under the roadway and replacing this material with suitable stable engineering fill. The cost of the street construction to this point was in the range of $30,000.00. In addition to the street having been constructed, the underground electric has also been installed. The cost to relocated the street to the platted right-of-way would be considerable. In light of this, it was decided that the practical answer would be to replat the property. , The replat is essentially the same plat as what was recorded with 2nd addition plat. The net area for the five (5) lots remains the same as the total area of the plat remains the same. The request for the variance relates to the condition with the house that has been constructed on Lot 4. Had there been no house constructed on Lot 4, the replat of property would not require a variance request for the reduction in the lot area of Lot 5 from 2.5 acres to 2.2 acres. I 2422 Enterprise Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • (612) 681-1914 I ,1 , • Planning Commission & City Council members 11 Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition March 15, 1990 Page 2 There have been numerous meetings ng with the homeowners of Lot 4, regarding the placement of the won lot line between their Lot (4) ' and the adjacent Lot (5) . These meetings have resulted in the placement of that lot line as presented on this replat. It is the condition that exists with the location of the existing house which has created the request for the variance. Relocating the street back to the right-of-hey would not result in removing the need for the variance because the location of the common lot line would need to be the sane as presented on the replat due to the location of the house and septic tank and drainfields. It appears at this point that our options with regard to the lot area 1 variance are to either request the variance with the plat or to move the house . we do not believe that moving the house is a viable option, or is it acceptable to the homeowner. 1 Thank you for your time and consideration with this request. Respectfully, PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A. J54,e 6y9 -L - Joel G. Cooper, P.E. ' JGC:blh 1 1 1 I • "tj la .. lirli .:t r. . . :it. .r i a Sy s 11-it n i i if IC �. Ii U_PSPJ/1 is la 0 ' 4. sk -1 m i; '4 I *4 6.' es:-• 1 , 'k• ■' ..0■ g 1 t.::. ‘,.. ...., $ rtz, .1._ ,! ..:. ... . t ,..t .t..?„..:.. cz _, t i " I .....i. ,11. _ .1s, 1 $_, . 1 ....t..:) I 7- � L ai2.12 C)1/Gb M& ;3'..'i �, a fM N If • I o I ii f li I l6 1 t 1 a !! I , 4r" I •` : i Ef R - r t 1 f° E 11FsiiIPEO IR s t• i !! j II j '91 1 11111111 illii! Jiiii€ l �. I : itflhI I I it •€1° 1 I '` i Et"t >: a ! II '. i 1 @ i ill !1 r"c iI IitiIi !iII F tE ii i iff I 1 1 1 II I/ Ill I i I 1101 I 10 II II xi f . . _ ig E II E .. . 1 i s 1 e ili t 1:!al 1 E si # 1 t1 i ! l it I E ' I , ! i ; f '::I I t I t i= • es I -- I a sr �� I . E i I : t $ i ii 's l F 14 1j as '!s ' - t1iI- ii s r c a s x; j li iiiitaili , t i i E: E gi 88 "1,': I e I. i till C 1 1i l 3r I Q R g iti " ii ° _1 (• i ix E ; a • I ill nil II " • P J e E• = III i it t e Et v I a� . I r g_ lei eft F.: • - - 1 . I - g F I • 1 r t i II iiIIIi 1 IL . , e ç33343 il.l I i 1I .. V __mot II' i =,=4) li ilia L :1144,-:.,. .1-11:1-11: 1 • - 1 • 0 trios 0,...„‘ , i4i I4 - < b VII0 < �,� it O =1 ESQ;}� * s �f p.f ps IIM Q •��. sYi �— �► rr I I \ �F \ \:- :� ,\ � \ , 1t` \ it I\ NI I / n it /, I \ ` ��' .= .„�r� ' -mow �; 3g- I1 / / , �y y 3 4 s, .I. •„). :ter-' .. q\; ;s.,1 1 \ PN5'11.1'/\ -:'..:71 '-'.3: ‘.:::b7 11S .:4:-\_ 1 It4li I'...1. , 1 1:;:. _ 1 • nill 1 7 A�L — Dl ,---`).4:GHINdY IN *^N7 :o: P" - i� r � ..; ., 1 ., ,. II. .ii ......, . . I ` - _ Q = I I a3 lI I ...1 .•-1- � .:..�'E":: . .Y�w_: r +t- # . x ' Y ' "4 Planning Connission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 18 I PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION TO CORRECT A PLATTING ERROR, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES. Public Present : ' Name Address Joel Cooper Pioneer Engineering Jim Peterson George Nelson Associates Mr. and Mrs. Eraser Lot 4, Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. Joel Cooper : My name is Joel Cooper . I'm with Pioneer Engineering . We' re the engineering firm that was fortunate enough to have made this mistake. I guess I take exception with Paul ' s statements. I guess our position is II obviously we've made a mistake and it's not a little mistake. It 's one mistake that' s compounded to another mistake. We have in good faith tried to resolve this situation in a manner in which we think is reasonable and II most prudent for all concerned . We've had several meetings with the homeowners on Lot 4 trying to resolve a lot line that would meet with their satisfaction in this replat . Had met with that satisfaction. The line that we have roved it over to is at a location where they previously thought was their lot line and contains all the improvements that is on their lot. The net result of this of course is that the corner lot requites 2. 2 acres , or is reduced to 2.2 acres . We realize that this is substandard but we feel that .3 of an acre shortage in a 2 1/2 acre lot doesn't make that lot deficient in the fact that it can still function as a lot. You can still locate drainfields on it. You can still place a house' on it and can meet all the other needs and can support a house. Also, wi this replat is the net platted area remains the same. The only difference here is that one lot is .3 short and I guess we feel like this is the best" solution for all concerned. I guess I don't know what else I can say. Erhart: Thanks Mr . Cooper . Go ahead Steve. Do you have a question? Em ings: I 'd just like to ask you a question while you're up there. Has I anybody estimated the cost of moving the road to where it ought to be? Joel Cooper: Well, to construct the road where it is presently cost. . . II Er►iings: No, that's not the question. I know that cost. Joel Cooper: Well okay. To move it to where it would have to go would bell approximately the same cost. Basically what you'd have to do is you'd have to tear up the whole street. There was extensive earth correction work II done. That would have to be redone into the new location. Errimings: So your best estimate is that it would be the same? I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 19 I Joel Cooper : You'd basically be building the street over again, yes. In addition, there would be costs in locating the electric that' s presently there and I 'm not sure what that cost would be. Erhart: Okay. Mr. Cooper, maybe if you'd just take this front seat there ' in case we have any other. questions. Is there any other comment from the public on this? ' Delores Fraser : My name is Delores Fraser and I 'm the owner on Lot 4. I 'd like to express my opposition to the plat being replatted and a variance given on Lot 5 because we feel that with the position of the way our house is on the land, that it would seriously depreciate the value of our house. ' The only way I can really show that is to show you how our house is sitting on the land. You have the same map but I think I have it too. . . .the way the house is oriented , the surveying company that surveyed the road and put the road in also staked our house. The ideal was with the road in straight that they have the house flush with the cul-de-sac and the back of our house should be looking back into the road that comes here and here houses ' and here is the back of their 2 1/2 acres and our house should be looking straight back into the 2 1/2 acres . Instead with the road coming in at an angle and they staked the house, it was staked back into the development as a results of the skew of this road. The only buildable place on Lot 5 is ' on this ridge right behind our house so the house is pretty much on the lot line very close to our house which could have. . .back yard literally. 50 feet away and it would be really close together . We feel that that is an ' unacceptable situation. Another point that wasn' t brought up by engineering , when you 're looking at these maps , the way they use the center line of the road it should have been. . .the lines that are on the ground are not the lines that are on there now. This is the way that it looks now. E&timings: Another thing you might do is we' ve got a new map from the engineers and why don't you tell us if this looks kind of accurate to you. Delores Fraser : It is. ' Mr. Fraser: Do you have a red marker? Olsen: This might work. Mr. Fraser : When we got this piece of property this is what we thought. . . It was staked along that line there. That's what we thought. . .and in reality the problem was found when another survey company came in because ' somebody was going to buy Lot 5 and jumped the gun a little bit and had the house surveyed and when he surveyed the house, he put it in the most obvious spot. The stakes are still sitting there and that's where it is in ' our backyard because it happens it all low lying in the front and you can' t see the picture but it's actually swampland almost. . . That first high point is the most obvious place to put it but it ends up in our back yard . Then when they came in, they staked it. They put the corner stakes really where the line is, 10 feet, 5 feet from our house. That' s how close it is to our house, the corner stake. That's really where the whole problem was found by another surveying company coming in there and. . .the way that lot ' is existing, the two houses will be about 75-65 feet apart. We' ll look I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 20 I out our back window and see this house and we bought a 2 1/2 acre lot. . . Part of that location problem is when we put this house where we. . . and they showed it on the map to us after they surveyed it and put it on there which had to be wrong because they used the wrong lines so it couldn' t be right. And then when my wife got the paper, she told them something' s wrong here. This looks terrible. It looks really. . .and it's really wrong" so they brought somebody out to the back of our house. You' re looking at lines on a piece of paper. In the field there is no line. It's just like this and we find out later, 2 months later that the person who came up and. . .was a computer programmer and did not anybody of any knowledge and w raised. . . Part of that is due to the fact that the survey company, when they placed the house and we did bring up the point that my wife, when she picked it up, something doesn' t look right. We didn' t know what because weren't knowledgeable enough. &tmings: Do you know how far in fact your house is set back from the true, lot line that divides 4 and 5? Mr. Fraser : Oh I know. It' s about, the true lot line, I have less than 1011 feet from the corner of my house because the stake ended up. . . That' s where the stake ended up. Emmings: That was the stake showing that lot line. ' Mr. Fraser: That was the other survey. Emmings: The platted lot line. Mr. Fraser : The other survey showed the lot line there. I Delores Fraser : We feel the only way. . .is to go along with staff ' s recommendation. . .so we' re hoping that you don't approve the variance because we think it' s going to. . . Wildermuth : Would you lay your overhead back on there. You show 3 cul-de-sacs. Which is the actual cul-de-sac now? Krauss: The actual one is where the solid line is. Wildermuth: The most northerly one? , Krauss: Right. The right-of-way is the dashed line underneath. ' Wildermuth: I guess there are only two. It seems to me I saw three. Joel Cooper: Some of what the Frasers said is true here. However, I guess I have to take exception to a couple of the comments they've made. First of all the location of their house, they mey our survey crew out on the site and they located on the site where they wanted their house and how they wanted to orientate it. The lot line that we' re showing them right now is the exact same lot line that they thought they had at the time they orientated their house. 1 Planning Commission Meeting Match 21, 1990 - Page 21 I Erhart: Let' s let Mr . Cooper finish. Joel Cooper : We in good faith met with the Frasers at their house more than once trying to establish a lot line that would meet with their satisfaction. What we've shown on the replat at that time had met with their satisfaction. We agreed also at that time to provide them with financial money to help them screen themselves from Lot 5. Create some ' privacy in their backyard . We sympathize with them. However , we have to also bear in mind that although the house is skewed, they also had the opportunity out at the site to look at how their house was sitting on their lot to get the orientation they wanted and they chose this orientation ' because at that time they told us their excavater , they wanted a walkout lot or a walkout on the corner of their house and told them that this was the best way to get a walkout on their house so this is how they selected how they wanted their house orientated to get the walkout to reduce or minimize their grading costs which be it as it may is basically as I understand it is how they selected how they wanted their house orientated . As far as the distances from the existing lot that they' re platted on, their house is presently 20 feet from the existing lot line as platted. It meets setbacks. The only encumbrance that we've been able to find is that their septic system encumbers onto Lot 5 in it's present condition or it' s ' present location . I think the drainfield as we located it is still on Lot 4 as platted. The purpose for putting the line over there where we 've shown it on the replat was to try and create a back yard to the same conditions as what they thought they originally purchased. I guess that' s all I have to say. Erhart: Okay, why don' t we let the Frasers speak one more time. We don' t ' want to get this into an argument but why don't you go ahead and if you would come on up. ' Mr . Fraser : The original lot line is obviously always a straight line because that' s, and when they made the error it was still a straight line. . .so all that area in the front there would have been included in our ' property also. . . And when we met with Pioneer, to us the optimum solution and would allow a house to sit on Lot 5 was. . .if it was up farther . . .we would have been a lot more amenable but they said that 's not possible. You can't put any covenants on property whatsoever because, it just requires ' grading to do that and that was what it would take if they. . . So right now we feel that the. . .and the way the replat is shown, actually we have more property. . . Erhart: Let me phrase what I thought you said. You said that you would be better satisfied if the house on Lot 5 was moved towards the front of the ' lot line? Is that what you said? Mr. Fraser : At that point it would have been but even now the way the property is and stuff, I have trouble• • •because I have an additional ' problem with the house being. . .which I still think is Pioneer Engineering's fault because if the road was straight that wouldn't have occurred. Erhart: But because the house, where you think it has to be or on that plan is so close to your view. That's a significant problem for you? Planning Commission Meeting I March 21, 1990 - Page 22 I Mr . Fraser : . . .significant problem in that I 'm looking straight into the development. . . Erhart: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address this issue? I Jim Peterson: My name is Jim Peterson. I work for George Nelson Associates, the developer and I don't know if I 'd necessarily like to address this issue but I will as long as I 'm here. I feel empathetic for II all parties involved. I sold the Fraser's the lot. I 'd really like them to be happy in their new home and I don' t like to see them going through thi stress that this is causing them. I don't appreciate the mistake being made but it happened and I have to live with it and I don' t see a real point myself being vindictive towards the engineer or the people that made the mistake. I really want resolution to get on with things if at all possible. I feel if there's any hardship here, that I 'm probably affected as much or more than anyone. It' s my ultimate obligation to satisfy the Frasers. Not only in title but their happiness to some degree. It's my ultimate responsibility to correct the problem. I put the road in. Paid for the road. Provided financial sureties to the City for the road and I can' t sell a lot until this is resolved . It' s not of my doing, not of my causing but I ' ll do what I can do to help solve the problem. As I sit hell and listen to this, I 've been involved in this from the beginning and I hear two sides and they don' t, I don't know that either one of them are completely accurate from my perspective. And I 'm not in a position to pic� sides here with either of these people but some errors that I 've heard in ■ the discussion of this . One, I don' t know that anybody objects to the replat per se. I think, and correct me if I 'm wrong, that staff and the Frasers and Pioneer are all in agreement that it probably doesn' t benefit anyone to move the road. What I need to know is do we move the road or do we not move the road and that' s the first thing that I have to know. So that has a bearing on Lots 1 thrn 3. To maintain their lot sizes, their lot lines would be different if we moved the road versus if we didn' t mov the road so as we work around, then we get into Lot 4 and the Fraser's lot and the problem with Lot 5. When I first started to look at resolution of' this problem, the first thing that I wanted to see happen was that the Fraser 's were comfortable with their easterly lot line. Moving it where it was moved, it was my opinion at the time that this is where they thought was originally except for the portion in the front where it turns and come toward the new road. But it was shaped that way to put it where they originally thought it was. I think part of the problem is the orientation. They didn't really understand I don't think that this is ho their house would face either until it got built. I think part of that is the road and then part of that is just they're not understanding. But as we look to resolution or as you make your decision here, there' s 3 different recommendations that the staff has outlined. As far as I'm concerend, I'm just looking for resolution because I 've got to get on with my program here. I would ask though if when you consider Lot 5, with Lot 5, if you leave it a lot and we don' t, like Joel says, we don't exceed the' overall density. What I told the Fraser 's was that I couldn't sell that lot and guarantee that someone would build their house where they wanted it. I wouldn't say I wouldn't do it. I said I 'd encourage it. I 'd try t1 11 II . Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 23 11 get them to build down low but I can' t guarantee it because people have a Iway of changing their mind after I sell them the lot so I just didn't want to get involved in something I couldn' t personally guarantee but there are other adjoining land owners that could use Lot 5 also and it may have some I residual value. Be it to the Fraser 's. Be it to the other adjoining land owner , I would still like to see that portion marketable even if it's not buildable. At least so there is some recovery cost and if that's the I solution that y come up with. I 'm available for any questions. Thank you. you Erhart: Okay, thanks Mr . Peterson. Any other input from the public? If IInot is there a motion to close the public hearing. I Emmings moved , Elison seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Erhart : Okay, let' s do something different this time. Let 's start in the middle. Annette, why don't you start? I bet you weren't ready for that. Elison: That ' s why I choose the center. I can always hear at least one II opinion before me.� This reminded me of a nightmare when I read it in the first time. Then I kind of read it over a few times. I can certainly feel for the people on Lot 4 and I know that mistakes can happen and yes , they I have consequences when they do. What I 'd like to see and maybe I should ask the applicant if it's possible, I agree with Mr. Nelson I guess that. . . Jim Peterson: Peterson. IElison: Peterson. One of those common names you know. But is that I 'd like to see some sort of compromise is possible. I don' t like the idea of I absolutely turning that one into dust balls because of this mistake yet I 'm wondering if maybe the staff can answer, is it possible to put a requirement that the house can only be built in this area and have it I marked. That this is a buildable lot only if the house is here and it would be someplace toward the front and preferably on the right or something like that. I don't know, do we have any jurisdiction over that sort of thing? IIKrauss: The City would not be in a position to do that. All they can do is enforce our setback requirements which gives them a lot of latitude to I build wherever they wish. The owner could presumably put some covenants or restrictions on the property that we would not be in a position to enforce that may in fact do that but we couldn't guarantee it. IEllson: I'm wondering, can we approve it asking that this covenant be done? It sounds like yeah, you could ask it. It still doesn't have to be done. They' ll put it anywhere they want to and we have no. . . IKrauss: Theoretically you could I suppose but you're depending on a third party that we have no control over to carry out an action and they might I never record the covenant. They might void it out the next day or whatever and we don' t have any recourse. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 24 I/ Erhart: If I could follow on that point. I guess I find it hard to believe that someone coming in for a variance request that we can' t ask fo that and get it. Krauss: Mr. Chairman, you can ask but we can' t enforce it. I Erhart: We don't have to provide the variance either so I mean it just seems, just by practice that it could be. Ellson: We'd get more for a variance because it's out of the ordinary anyway. I Erhart: Yeah . Anyway, go ahead. Ellson: I guess that ' s my concern. I'd like to see that it could be pullet off or if necessary to people on both sides or at least a portion of it. I don' t want to see them build a house they way it's on that and for the sari reasons that they mentioned. I mean you don' t buy a 2 1/2 acre lot so tha you have somebody next to you like you're living downtown. Nor would I think the person building there probably would want that so I think it would be hard to sell a house that' s going to next to it either so I guess if we can't control where the house would be, then what I would want to do' is. I don' t know what is it that I 'd want to do? If I want it allowed to be sold but I don't want it allowed to be built. What do you do? If you I still plat it the way they want it but then you say unbuildable? Krauss: Well what you would do in that case is plat it as an outlot which we would have a problem with and our recommendation would be to you that that not be done. The reason being is that it has no purpose. This is a II lot that' s not buildable under current and presumably future ordinances in the City. What typically happens to those is that they're not maintained .' They become nuisances . They go tax forfeit. Frankly we don' t care and really don't have any authority to tell anybody how to dispose of that piece of land except to the extent that Lot 4 has to be made whole. They shouldn't have any setback variances of it's own. If there was a way that the lot to the north was going to pick up some property, I mean there' s only 2 choices. There's only 2 lots that border the site. If it was disposed in some manner that gave a share to each, we wouldn' t have a problem with that either. I guess the fundamental issue here though is th, City accepted a plat that on the face of it met all our standards. We had no comprehension of the fact that when it was actually built it wouldn't. We accept surveys and subdivision proposals on good faith that they're prepared accurately and that they' ll be developed accurately and in this case it didn' t work. Ellson: Well that's my comment. I'm interested to see what the other people have to say but I guess I 'm fishing for a middle ground. Not easy to get though. ' Emmings: Now the replat , would the replat push the line that divides Lot 4 and 5 further away from the house that's on Lot 4? I Planning Cormdssion Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 25 I Krauss : Yes . ' Earrings: So in a way, I'm not sure what' s best for the folks in the house on Lot 4. Nothing ' s real good but at least the replat gives them a bigger side yard than you'd have if we deny the replat. My first reaction to this was that it's very simple, and I 'm not so sure it is but we never would have approved this lot at 2.2 acres. Ever . So I don' t know why we want to accept it now unless it does something maybe good for the people on Lot 4 ' and as to what ought to be done, it' s easy. It ought to be fixed and the folks who made the mistake ought to pay for it. That's what I do everyday as an attorney and when I screw up, I have malpractice insurance and people ' don't hesitate to come and get their money. And that's why I 've got my insurance for and I invite them to come and get it because that' s what it's there for. And that would certainly be my reaction to this if that house wasn't sitting there on Lot 4. If it was just the road issue in there, I 'd say sorry Pioneer. Fix it. It's your fault. You've admitted fault. Fix it at your own cost and get it done. But I don' t really know if that' s the best thing for the house on Lot 4 and I could go with, I don't like the ' replat except that it gives them a bigger sideyard . I could vote for a plan to eliminate Lot 5 as a lot. If we did the replat, I 'd just as soon eliminate 5 as a lot but I do like, I kind of like the notion that Annette ' brought up, I hadn't thought of it, was conditioning approval of the replat on the house being built to the front of the lot . Are you telling us that that absolutely, that we don' t have the power to say. . . ' Ellson: To enforce it. Emaings : Put it on as a condition of the plat . That the house is built on ' Lot 5 will , the front of it will be at the setback line or something like that. Krauss : We have no authority to enforce private covenants, if that' s the mechanism that's used. Earrings: No . It's not a private covenant . That's a condition on the plat. You see it's interesting because on the map they gave us, that' s where they put the house. They put the pad right where we' re saying we'd like to see it. Krauss : What they did there is they simply put conceptual pads at the setback line. ' Ei ings: But they sure as hell meant us to think that that's where it was going to be built and it was maybe a little misleading in that way but I guess I 'd be interested to know if you think you could sell that lot to somebody. If that would be a reasonable place to put a house on that lot. It would be attractive to a purchaser. ' Jim Peterson: I don' t think it's the first site. I'm not always, whenever I look at a site, it's not. . . The reason we put that house there was not to mislead you but to lead the buyer and as I told the Fraser ' s, I' ll do everything in my power to get that person to build. . .but when I put a ' covenant on the lot which I can do, enforcement still remains the problem. • Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 26 The. . .and let' s say they say okay, we' ll buy the lot and the covenants there. The ordinance says . . . Emmings: But maybe we could catch it when they come in for the permit. Jim Peterson: . . .but I don't know that I can honestly guarantee. Emmings: Oh, no. I'm not asking you to guarantee it. I guess I 'd like t, know. .. Jim Peterson: . . . it's really hard for me to guarantee that. , Emmings: Okay. We' re not asking you to guarantee anything. Can we put a condition on the plat? I guess I 'd like a yes or no answer . Can we put condition on the plat as to where that pad will be? Krauss: I don' t believe you can. You're creating a condition that' s applied to no other lot in the city. , Ellson: That 's because of a variance. We can ask for all kinds of things on those can' t we? Krauss: Well that 's true but getting in the mind set of exchanging something for a variance is not necessarily an ideal place to be. Emmings: Well yeah and that' s a good point because under our standards I right now there is no hardship here and we shouldn't be granting a variance. I Krauss: Now there is a possibility. Jo Ann and I were talking about it, that you could do something like require the platting of a conservation easement over part. You know over the back, north part of. the lot that would prevent any construction and we have control over it. As you crowd II that lot through to the front , there is a drainage pond on the corner there that precludes building real close. It's outside the setback line but their yard , their front yard in essence would slope down into a pond that II had water in it when I was out there a couple days ago. Emmings: It seems to me if he thought that he could find a buyer for the II lot with the house to the front and the house to the front would satisfy the people on Lot 4, then maybe I could swing with the replat. Otherwise I'm opposed to it. ' Erhart: Okay, thanks Steve. Joan? Ahrens: I think that's a sensible solution but Steve are you saying that I you would recommend approval of a lot size of 2.2 acres then? Emmings: No, and there's no grounds for a variance and I would never go II along with it except it might be the best thing for the people on Lot 4. That's the thing that really, like I say, to me this is simple. You make Pioneer fix it but that doesn't really help the people on Lot 4 because it winds up bringing their lot line in closer to their house. That I don't I , Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 27 I think is real fair to them so that' s my hang-up on this. Ahrens: So in order to comply with a variance ordinance, we'd have to see that there. . . ' Emmings: We can't. ' Ahrens : We can' t do it right. Well if we can' t do it because there' s no hardship, what's the discussion about? Emmings: That's a good literal application. The trouble is it hurts those ' folks. Ahrens : You know it bothers me also but I mean somehow we do have ' ordinances and we are supposed to be interrupting those and making decisions based on our ordinance otherwise we can change the ordinance. Emmings: It's cold but true. ' Erhart: Sometimes the human comes out on us . Paul? ' Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one thing we did not look into that theoretically I suppose could be investigated is the possibility of the developer stealing a little bit of land if you will from the lot that's to the north of Lot 5. Erhart : He stole my idea . Krauss : If they have sufficient area and I 'm aware if they do or not. Erhart: It would appear, if you look at it, it appears. . . Wilderrrnth: That doesn' t resolve the homeowner ' s problem. Krauss: You would still go through the replat so that Lot 4 would be in compliance with the ordinance. It may not resolve the owner on Lot 4 's concern about the placement of the house. Wildermuth: There is an interesting option that does resolve the ' homeowner 's problem though. The question who would pay and that's to move the house. Ahrens: I thought of that too. Wildermuth: You'd still have to replat but you could replat without a variance. Without the requirement for a variance. ' Ahrens: I mean even if there's a variance and there's a house built towards the front of the lot on Lot 5, they're still not happy with where ' their house is because it faces the rest of the development. Emmings: That's their claim against these folks. I don't know, maybe we shouldn' t be getting into this. Planning Commission Meeting It March 21, 1990 - Page 28 I Wilderruth: Yeah , but they're not happy with the way their house is situated in relationship to the lot line at the present and potentially in the future is because the cul-de-sac got shifted to the extent that it did . But even if the cul-de-sac didn' t get shifted, their house is not in a very good position any way you look at it. For whatever reason. 1 Erhart: Joan, do you have anything more? Ahrens: I guess I can't go along with the staff recommendation on this. can't go along with any of these. I would like to see a solution of the problem. I mean I think there is a big problem here. I 'd like to see the Lot 5 sold so the developer can make some money off of it. I 'd like to se the people, the Fraser 's satisfied but I don' t know how we can approve a variance when our ordinance doesn' t allow us to. Emrings: So you agree with the staff recommendation? I Ahrens: Is that what? Emmings: They're saying to deny it. Ahrens: Oh, okay. I agree with you. Brilliant . 1 Erhart: Are you done Joan? Jim? Wilderruth: I think it' s been said several times before. There' s no basis" for a variance here but the one attractive resolution, maintaining 5 lots is still to move the existing house. Failing that, then the second alternative discussed in the staff report is probably the way to go. Costly for the developer because it would eliminate one lot but it would certainly eliminate the problem with the position of the house in relationship to the lot lines. I Erhart: Okay, thanks Jim. I am not in favor of not making Lot 5 buildable because it would be a waste of land. I think you know that I think 2 1/2 acre lots are already in my opinion a tremendous waste of land and to make' a 4.7 acre lot is even a bigger waste of land. It would prevent a potential citizen of Chanhassen moving in. Prevent us for collecting taxe on that lot which you pointed out Paul. Creating that lot has, the reques to replat has no adverse affect on the environment. It has only adverse affect on the Fraser's as far as the way the subdivision would be laid out and certainly moving the street doesn't make any sense at this point. Regretful as the mistake is and I agree with Steve that quite frankly that there is a substantial potential liability here that I don' t think that the City is in a position to try to reduce that liability. I think we're purely try to address the issues I just listed. I'd like to see Lot 5 developed and to resolve it. My feeling then is, my recommendation would be to approve the replat with the condition and recommend the variance wit the condition and only recommend a variance and the condition that the house on Lot 5 would have to be built so that none of it would extend any further north than an east/west line from the northeast corner of the existing house or some other terminology that perhaps would be agreeable t the Fraser's and to the staff to the same effect but I think that kind of II I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 29 I sums it up. I think that was what Annette and Steve were kind of looking at the same thing. Paul? Krauss : Mr. Chairman, if that resolution were to be supported , I guess we would ask that you consider continuing the item to let us get a reading from our City Attorney as to what mechanism we might use to guarantee that the home is where you expect it to be. ' Erhart: Okay. Ems►ings: Tim, how do you justify granting a variance? ' Erhart: Well I think if you look at my 3 years history on here, I think I 've recommended variances in cases other than pure hardships . I think my ' personal feeling is that sometimes and given precedent. Given that you' re dealing with precedence, still sometimes common sense prevails. That' s all I can answer. I think the adverse affects. I think little is gained to anybody to deny the variance and there' s a lot of adverse affects I ' think on the City to deny the variance. So if that's common sense, than that common sense prevails in my opinion. Wildermuth: But we don' t meet the test for a variance though. Em1ings: He' s not saying we do. Erhart : I 'm not saying we do. That' s why I 'm not on the variance board . I think that Paul 's request is reasonable. Can I get some input from the other commissioners? ' Ellson : You say that in other words you'd like it tabled so you can look at it or you'd like us to have more weeks between us and the Council to take a look at it? ' Krauss : Well either table it or direct, if you approved it, direct us to get a reading from the City Attorney if (a) there is a mechanism that we can use to guarantee that that condition is enforceable, and (b) if there isn't, we can bring it back to you so you can take another look at it. Erhart: I would prefer to have us vote on it and bring it back if you can't enforce it. That'd be my preference. Steve? ' Emmings: The Fraser's. You understand what's being proposed here is that we approve the replat but on the condition that any house going on Lot 5 would have to be built, could not be built rearward of your house. A line drawn across the back of your house. What do you think of that? Mr. Fraser: . . .his lot is on the hill there. ' Ers.ings: Well nothing can be guaranteed. Let's not talk about. . . Delores Fraser : I feel that Pioneer Engineering who made all this happen is kind of getting away with. . .and we're the ones paying the price. I Planning Commission Meeting • March 21, 1990 - Page 30 I Ei ings: But you understand that if we deny it, that that lot. The road may be roved and that lot will be sold and someone will still build back o' that hill . Do you understand that? Mr. Fraser : At that point we'd be forced to literally sell our house because our angle of our. . . Elison: Right , so this option night be better for you. Emmings: Well now, that's up to them. Mr. Fraser: We would be so far off that road. . . ' Emmings: Alright. Thank you. Krauss: If I could add too. This is a little bit, this is really unusual and I really need to sit down with the City Attorney and find out what sox of legal recourse the City has because we did not get the subdivision we bought. You normally expect a registered survey to be accurate. That' s the whole point behind state registration. In this case, it was not. In my opinion, this lot is not a buildable lot as it sits right now. We would have to, I believe would take some action through our City Attorney to mail sure that that lot is not marketed in it's present shape because it is not a legally conforming lot . Erhart: But aren' t they saying that? I mean aren' t they coming back in II with this application admitting that it's not sellable unless. . . Krauss: This is true but if we deny the application tonight, what happens, then? The situation could exist until possibly there's some sort of a civil suit brought by one of the developer or the homeowner against the engineer. I think the City has a stake in this too and our stake is that we approved a lot that met all our standards and we did what we were supposed to do. We didn't get that lot. Erhart: I understand but that' s one of the options that the Commission hall here tonight is to deny it in which case you' re exactly right. Then you have another whole set of issues to deal with. Krauss: We need to take some action, right. r Erhart: And if the potential exists that we could resolve it here tonight given. The potential exists here we could maybe resolve it tonight and no � be an issue. Ahrens: Let me ask a question. There is, Paul just stated earlier that II there was a lot of standing water out on that lot during the last rain. I'd like to ask, whoever can answer this question, is this lot even buildable in the front of the lot? I mean is that even an option? The developer , I don' t know Paul? Krauss: There' s quite a bit of property there and what you have is you have a storm water pond basically. It's fairly well defined. It's down Planning Commission Meeting , March 21, 1990 - Page 31 near the street intersection and the land rises rapidly above that. It' s a well defined pond. It may not be something ideally you'd want in your ' front yard , especially if the home were pushed towards it but you could build around it. ' Ahrens: So if we required that a house be placed in the front of this lot, are we in essence creating a situation where there's never going to be a house built there anyway because nobody would want their house standing ' above a pond? Krauss : Well if you draw a line someplace through here. If you draw a line across the back corner of the home that's being constructed, you still ' have a fairly sizeable area . Just scaled it off and it's somewhere around 100 to 150 feet depending on where it is. That should be large enough to accommodate most any home. ' Erhart: Anything else? ' Ellson: I have a question. You're saying that if we approve anything versus deny it, then the City doesn't have as much ground to stand on if we wanted to go into , you' re kind of talking along that line? Is that where I'm getting that? In other words, it might be better for us to deny it. Pass it along to City Council with all our wonderful Minutes on what our concerns were and then if indeed we chose later through our own city, we could do something like that . Yet if on the City record there were city ' leaders that said that's fine. We' ll move it. Then we have less ground to stand on ourselves if we wanted to look at something like that? Is that what you' re talking about? In other words, you didn't get what we paid for but if we' re accepting it, then you are getting what we paid for? You sort of confused me when you talk about that. Krauss : We recommended denial because we didn' t see the hardship. It was self created and there was no neighborhood standard that supported it or any of the other typical measures we use for a hardship. In thinking about it this evening and talking with Jo Ann, it occurred to me that if the plat ' is denied and everybody leaves here tonight, the problem's still not resolved. Emriings: You've got the drainfield for one thing. Krauss: Well clearly you have that. Now presumably and this is a guess. I mean there would be some civil action amongst some of the 3 parties that ' are out there tonight to rectify that but that doesn't deal with the City's issues and I would assume that we would have to ask our City Attorney, or the City Council would have to direct him to take some action. And I don't know what that might be because I 've never seen this before. To revoke the ' plat or to make this thing whole again because the plat that we approved is not the plat that's on the ground. ' Erhart: This isn't the first time that somebody's come in and asked for a replat in the middle, after the fact. Olsen: But not with variances . I Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 21, 1990 - Page 32 I/ Krauss: Well in fact the Ersbo Addition is coming back to the City Council next week. Ahrens: For variances? , Krauss: No. They found, remember there's a cul-de-sac in the Ersbo subdivision and that we wanted that to align with I think it was Arlington' Court to the north. They tried to backtrack through the surveys and when they were actually out there staking lot corners, they realized that Arlington Court was 30 feet west of where they had shown it. Now in that case they were able to rectify the situation without causing any new variances which we' re recommending that the City Council approve, or going to when it comes before them. If this didn't have any variances attached, we would do the same here but that's not the case . Erhart: Does anybody want to make a motion? Ahrens: Me? Which one are we working on here now? i Erhart: Staff is recommending simply to deny it. Ahrens: Yes, I see it. I move that the Planning Commission approve the staff recommendation here that states that the request to replat Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition be denied due to the lot area variance that results on Lot 5. Erhart: Is there a second? i Wildermuth: I ' ll second it. Ahrens moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to replat Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition due to the lot area variance that results on Lot 5. All voted in favor except Ellson, and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Erhart: Annette, would you like to add anything already to the Minutes? II Ellson: I 'd just like to try to see a compromise. Erhart: Okay, thank you. I' ll just basically refer to the points that II I mentioned earlier. Okay? Thank you for your comments. Jim Peterson: I'd just like to ask a question to make sure I understand 1 it. You recommend that the whole replat be denied right? Not just the variance but the whole replat, street and all? ERmings: Yes. Jim Peterson: Okay, for me that's major. I can move the street back. . . II I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 33 11 Erhart: Excuse me, I failed to explain what happens here. This will go to ' the City Council on April 9th, unless you request that it be delayed at which point I believe you can come up with alternatives and resubmit the application. Is that right? Krauss : That' s correct Mr. Chairman. The application could be resubmitted again for your hearing. In fact, for example if this were resubmitted with Lot 5 being parceled up somehow, without there being any variance, I'm pretty confident that staff would recommend approval of the street in the current location since it doesn' t seem to harm anything else. ' Erhart: You' re suggesting finding another .3 acres someplace and adding it? Krauss : Or lacking that, eliminate it and come in with a plat that has no variances . Erhart : I think with a 3-2 vote, I think what that says is that, if you ' could do some more work on it perhaps and solve some of the problems that some of the commissioners have, you could avoid going to the Council with a denial recommendation. Emmings : And you understand our action isn' t final . It's only a recommendation to the City Council . Jim Peterson : Yeah . No, I understand that but that's the wrY a possible solution. . .not necessarily for me. ' Emmings: Well what is? That' s what he asked for so it may be the worse for him in your mind. It kind of is in my mind but he seems to be satisfied . 1 Mr. Fraser : My point was, what I was looking for was what staff had recommended. ' Emmings: That is what the Staff recommended. Mr. Fraser : But then they said. . . ' Ellson: No, option 3 is the one that we opted for. ' Mr. Fraser: . . .lots 4 and 5 together? Krauss : We don' t have the authotity to order that. I am going to ask the City Attorney though to tell us what our opportunities are to resolve this. ' Now maybe there is a mechanism where we can force the replat and a resolution somehow in that manner but I frankly don't know. I 've never seen this before. Wildermuth: Probably the least expensive way out is to move the existing house and replat without any variances and still retain the 5 lots. And that would make Mr. Fraser happy. I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 - Page 34 IF Erhart: Thank you very much for coming . I hope we can resolve that one. It That's very unfortunate. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE T REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHI� THE CITY. Erhart: Is there anybody who would like the staff report on this? Apparently not. Is there anybody in the audience that would like a report? If not, then we will not have the report. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on the proposal to change the ordinance? If not, I would request a motion to close the public hearing. II Ellson moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Wildermuth: And I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft ordinance. Erhart: We have to have some discussion. Does anybody have any discussion? Anybody on the Planning Commission? I Emmings: I guess I 'd like to know, the only thing that concerned me about this was the cost. The $100.00 rental fee with a $100.00 deposit and that really seems, it doesn' t seem like a big deal to a developer . What is the smallest development that this would apply to? Krauss : The platting of 4 lots. ' Emmings: I guess then it doesn' t bother me too much. I know that in Minneapolis I went through a variance proceeding when I lived there and II they gave, I think they gave us the signs and they were kind of flimsy cardboard signs that disappeared after the first rain but you didn't need to have them up very long and they were bright orange the whole idea was 11 bring attention to the property in a quick and cheap way so that the neighbors knew something was going on. But I didn't think that was a bad system. But as long as this doesn't affect something that's very small , I guess that doesn' t bother me. Erhart: Any other comments from other commissioners? I have a question. Why did Eden Prairie phase out their program? Krauss: It wasn' t clear. Sharmin talked to them. It sounded like some of their signs disappeared and they just decided it wasn't all that important I don't know. In my experience, I worked in a community that had a sign program and it was not only very effective but it was something that the City Council was very supportive of because it did get the word out effectively. Once you start something like that, it's kind of hard to believe you could stop it but apparently Eden Prairie did. I 11