Loading...
1983 11 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1983 Councilwoman Swenson moved to that in the absence of the Mayor and Acting Mayor, Councilman Horn be designated as Mayor Pro Tem. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. Councilman Horn abstained. Motion carried. Mayor Pro Tem Horn called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilwoman Watson and Councilwoman Swenson Mayor Hamilton came late Member Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Bob Waibel Howard Noziska, Planning Commission APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented:- Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Proposed Ordinance Authorizing the HRA to Develop a Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, Final Reading. b. Approve Development Contract for Lotus Lake Manor Homes, B-T Land Company. c. Approve 201 Program Financing Agreement with Carver County. d. Fire Department: 1) Approve of Amendment to Ordinance 12, Organization of the Fire Department 2) Approve Fire Department Bylaws. e. Approval of Amendment to Fire Department Relief Association Bylaws. f. Approve Budget Resolution Amendment. RESOLUTION #83-52. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL FENCING ORDINANCE: Dic~ ~ - The Sheriff's Department, last November, approached the Public Safety Commission in regards to a swimming pool ordinance regarding fencing strictly for below ground pools. We put quite a bit of work into that. Studied a large number of ordinances and we found that 'we are probably the only city that does not have a swimming pool ordinance. Some of them are incredibly complex. They go page after page of definitions and detail. With the Council IS permission we would like to pursue that again for public safety. Just the fencing portion of that ordinance strictly requiring fencing for below ground pools with incidents that have occurred within the city to support our position. Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -2- Mayor Pro Tem Horn - Do the other cities in Carver County have such an ordinance?- -- Dick ~ - We only went from Eden Prairie down to the north. I guess I am I so unfamiliar with Carver County we did not pursue that as they tend to be very much rural and I guess I see us as more urban. Councilwoman Watson - Don't you think that was basically our point, that we could see the fencing ordinance but it was all the other items that made it complicated. Front yard, side yard, we found that we really didn1t want to determine where someones house on his lot lay and whether they should have a pool. Ql~ ~~ - I read the minutes from the Planning Commission and realize that they went the other direction, with our entire point of ever giving it to them in the first place was we felt the Planning Commission should have it and had we known that they were going to get so wrapped up on the other aspects we would have submitted it directly to you. Don Ashworth - It would still have to go through the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was concerned with remote areas and at the Council level one of the comments was that other sections, in other words setbacks etc. seemed to be too extensive. Councilwoman Watson - We could certainly look at the fencing again. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - If this came from the Sheriff's Department, why are they-oñTY addressing Chanhassen? Dick ~~ - I guess I consider the police department our personal police department directly related to our city and our problems. We werenlt interested in the problems beyond the borders of Chanhassen nor was the Sheriff's Department. It was prompted by an incident of a lost child in the north area and followed by a deer falling into another pool and drowning. We were looking for input from the Sheriffls Department on a personal basis and that1s exactly what we got. Howard Noziska - We would sure be happy to take a look at that. One of the ThTngs we didn1t have was any data as to the necessity for it and we were virtually handed this thing without any backup data as I recall, and it did seen to go into some side issues that we felt maybe they should stay out of so from that standpoint there is absolutely no problems whatsoever with us taking it up and I am sure with the proper backup data we could have some reason to act. We didnlt have any reason to act. We didnlt know whether there had been an incident, hadn't been an incident, how many incidents there had been if there had been, all of that data, what the other com- munities around were doing, if you could get that for us we would be happy to review it and pass on our recommendation to the Council. Mayor Pro Tern Horn - As I stated earlier, action will not be taken this evening~ r-woüra-suggest that we have a full Council to discuss this. We will bring it up to the Council to see if it1s the Council IS pleasure to have the Planning Commission address this before it comes back to us. Don Ashworth - You want to place this on the next agenda. --- I I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -3- Councilwoman Swenson - I remember that last year George (Donnelly) was very concerned about at least two or three specific pools in the area. Given the time of the year I don't imagine even if an ordinance was approved next week would have to have a second hearing and I don't imagine that there is any opportunity of getting the fence up this year. Dick ~ - No. I think as I remember most of the cities that adopted this were very strict on the grandfathering they gave something like 30 or 60 days to comply which is really pretty harsh. I believe we went six months and gave them considerable time to comply with this because of the money involved. Councilwoman Swenson - We have had some experience with this swimming pool fencing thing within the last three or four years and I guess my question is, if there are any suggestions to be made as those particular pools which George considers to be in a very unsafe condition, I would be interested to know whether the Sheriff's Department or anybody can come up with any solu- tion to those to get us through the winter. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - This will be discussed on the next agenda. MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the October 3, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Swenson Motion carried. October 17, 1983, Council minutes. The following voted in favor: and Watson. No negative votes. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the September 15, 1983, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: Don AshWorth - This is-the same one that was submitted the last time around. At that time the Council determined to send the item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The enclosures are exactly the same that you had last time. My point in submitting that as you can see I did put a cover letter to the Planning Commission basically saying we have to keep the wheels moving in terms of that applicants are walking in the door. They need a means by which that they can come before the City Council. At the present time it is an ordinance that does establish the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. You would need an ordinance amending that ordinance to change the composure of the Board or to in any other way handle its functions. There are a number of possibilities that exist. This is only a discussion item tonight. I am not proposing to have you set in motion any final means of handling it. You could establish the Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In that case they would act on each application in the same way that they act on zoning items, etc. Howard Noziska - I unfortunately was absent last time around so the latest discussion on it I don't know. I think basically it was our thoughts to shorten the process up as much as possible. As Mike said, maybe it would Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -4- be possible for the Planning Commission to meet early or to take it up earlier. What happened last time around, I don't know. Councilwoman Watson - It indicates here that the Planning Commission wasn't I interested in-havlng anyone serve on it regardless of when the meeting was. I guess I was a little surprised at that. All we are asking is that for an interim period. I didnlt realize that we couldn't even get anyone on an interim basis. This supposedly was a suggestion from the attorney. I have never seen that suggestion in writing. I would like to see in what context the City Attorney made this recommendation. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals must continue to meet while we make a decision and it doesn't seem to me that it should be to difficult for someone to attend on an interim basis until we at least have a chance, you obviously have had a chance to see this, we kind of ended up with it sort of thrown at us. Don Ashworth - Other possibilities include solely a citizens group. I appears-as~hough Dale Geving enjoyed his role on that. Willard Johnson enjoys his role on there. You have a number of options that are open to you. My only concern is that someone coming in to City Hall at the present time asking how do I process my application for a variance, we donlt really know how to respond. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - Do you know if Mayor Hamilton had his meeting with [ãd~Conra~ Don Ashworth - He did not. Unless he did it since we sent this agenda out. Mayor Pro Tern Horn - Is it your understanding that the Planning Commission I TS-UnwTTTing-to-SUpport on an interim basis until we reach a conclusion on this? Don Ashworth - It appeared as though that they would rather have the City Council act on it rather than to go through the interim position. The only comment was Mike Thompson's stating that if they held it early on Wednesday evenings he may be will ing to serve. Councilwoman Swenson - It seems to me that review of these does come to the City Council a~WhTle I am opposed to eliminating the Board of Adjustments and Appeals because I think it does give us additional input and I appre- ciate having that, I don't really feel that going back to the Planning Commission or making the Planning Commission act as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals would account for anything and I don't see that that1s going to accompl ish the elimination of the step that they are trying to get at. Is it possible to establish, since we are having this conflict, to have a temporary ordinance put into effect during which time the Council would actually act as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals until such time as satisfactory arrangements can be made either for another committee or a formalization of the City Council. Don Ashworth - The easier way would be to pass an emergency ordinance that would delete the section referring to the Planning Commission and simply place the names of whomever in that spot. Councilwoman Swenson - That would be a suggestion to get off of this stalemate it seems to me. Letls do something so that these people can be taken care of. I don't think itls right to keep people dangling like this and I think whatever we do if we can do it on a temporary basis, let's try I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -5- it out on the City Council and see how it works and if it isn't satisfac- tory there is nothing that says that we can't say that this isn't going to work out, we need this committee. Councilwoman Swenson moved to table this item to later Motion seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Horn. The following Mayor Pro Tem Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. Motion carried. in the agenda. voted in favor: No negative votes. Tom Klingelhutz and Mark Koegler SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PHEASANT HILL PRO: were present. Bob Waibel - This is a 92 unit proposed single family detached housing pro- ject on an approximate 38 acre parcel at the northwest end of Lake Lucy Road. Before we go to the staff report, I think we should allow Mr. Koegler, representing Mr. Klingelhutz, to make a presentation. Mark Koegler - One of the main issues that we ran into initially is that the MUSA Line used to cut through this property and it was proven to the MWCC that this property was serviceable through existing gravity sewer and hence they agreed that the property is in the City's MUSA Line. The sewer issue from a regional perspective we have addressed and there are letters on file that this is within the MUSA Line proper. The parcel itself con- sists of about 38! acres. The present zoning is R-1 and obviously it is being proposed as a Planned Residential Development. What we essentially have done is, we are looking at a proposal that's 92 single family detached lots and they range in size from approximately 7,500 square feet up to about 22,900 square feet. The average being at about 13,700 square feet. Essentially in looking at the site what we have tried to do is leave basi- cally the larger lots kind of along the northern end abutting the existing residential with some of them at more key locations along the southern end where we are abutting Lake Lucy Road. The circulation system that we are looking at we really had two major concerns. If you have seen the property it's fairly rolling. There is some pretty good slopes on there. It also has the advantage of having a couple of knobs here that have absolutely beautiful vistas here down to the south and what we have tried to do is look at a road system that will allow us to preserve and enhance the quality that is there which is why it is rather a circuitous type of pat- tern. The other reason is basically the circulation system sets up the way it does is we have some concerns about the existing neighborhood, basically to the north using this is a convenient cut through to get to Lake Lucy Road over to #117 so we have tried to come up with a system, again, that's going to have a few stop maneuvers and checks to hopefully somewhat discourage that traffic. Obviously there will be a secondary access out of those areas for some of those people. Essentially, the main entrance we are looking at as being down here off of Lake Lucy Road. We have got future connection over to Yosemite which will not really happen until such time as development occurs. We have got a connection up off of Steller Circle as a direct connection to #117 in addition to the entrance at the intersection of Cardinal and West 63rd. We are looking at all detached uses. The central portion of the site we are looking at providing an area that will handle the ponding and drainage requirements of the project. We obviously don't have any fine calculations on how big those are going to be but we feel confident that there is adequate space in this area. Sewer and water is available around the periphery of the site. Basically the existance of sewer will probably mandate what the phasing of the parcel will be. We are looking initially at basically this northern lobe being the first phase. Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -6- Time frame, basically that we are looking at is 1984 for the first phase. We are calling the second phase 1984/1985 and the third phase 1985 and 1986. I Councilwoman Swenson - We have a 500 foot minimum on a cul-de-sac. Just because this TsnT~a cul-de-sac it still gives us the same situation. The purpose for the ordinance was for safety measures. Ma~~ Koegler - The cul-de-sac length thing obviously gets debated fre- quently and, yes, we are not denying that is a long cul-de-sac situation. There really is no short term answer to your question. It would exist potentially as about an 800 foot stretch through there. In the staff report you will note, Bob has brought up some very valid concerns with access to the northern and southern properties and he is calling for poten- tiallya right-of-way in this area as well and I donlt know what's going to happen. We can It speculate when this will occur or when development will occur in this area. Obviously, these are the long term solutions to that kind of situation. Mayo~ fro Tern ~orn - It should be pointed out that this is in phase three. Councilwoman Watson - Which is the latest phase and by that time perhaps this Yosemite-might be more realistic and that's three years from now. Mar~ Koegler - There is talk that maybe something is going to happen here but maybes are cheap. It may occur in the next three years and it may not. Mr. Klingelhutz does own property all the way over to Yosemite but unfor- tunately in this section it's only 12~ or 17 feet wide. I Mayor Pro Tern ~~ - But there is really no other option. Mark ~Q~ler - When we looked at the circulation, this set up is a very natural movement through this site with the terrain and with the need to really kind of connect the two and we are somewhat tied until that does occur. I almost hate to bring this up, we have talked about the emergency access issue, well, the advantage we have here potentially is that there is property owned as a part of this through here and it's not unforseeable that something like that could happen. There is not any tree problems or any really grade problems through this section so that's a possibility. Councilwoman Watson - I guess I had gotten used to the subdivision with the TT:700 I am haVTng-a problem with 7,500. These lots all have 90 foot frontages? ~ark Koegler - No~ they do not. They range all the way from far in exccess of 90 feet to 75 feet. Councilwoman Watson - I must express some concern about that. I understand where the thinfTñg-comes from, that cuts down land costs thereby brings in another group of people and makes it possible for them to perhaps own a home but some of these lots are three times larger than the small lots. Mayor f!:'Q Te~ ~.c~ - You said the average lot size was 13,700. Mark ~~~ - Right. 13,702 to be exact. What we have tried to do in concept really Carol, we have tried to provide a lot size economic mix. We are looking at obviously That would be a gross figure. is exactly what you are saying diversity that will provide an what the market is doing. We I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -7- have got the neighbors in Eden Prairie that are constructing and selling probably the hottest project in the Twin Cities right now on 5,500 square foot lots. We are not saying we are going to duplicate that here. I don't think we have any desire necessarily to build the same architectural pro- ject they do but it is a very efficient and very effective selling property right now and I guess we are trying to look at providing some very good size lots obviously in the upper portion because there is still somewhat of a market in the north area for some of that and we feel to hit the lower end. In terms of a breakdown on the lots, basically the lots that we have in this particular project that are under 10,000 square feet, in the 7,500 to 8,000 to 9,000 range we are looking at 16 lots or about 17% of the total property. Councilwoman Swenson - We have to work with 11,700 because our Subdivision Ordinance says 11,700. Councilwoman Watson - I counted out about 1/3 of the lots fall underneath that. Mark Koegler - I don't have that breakdown but I have 10,000 to 12,499 which would put 38 of the lots under 12,499. I wasn't aware of the 11,700 or I would have targeted it. Councilwoman Watson - I see there is only one access on lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is hardly what you would want to call your up-to-standard lovely residential type road at this point in time. Mark Koegler - The Comprehensive Plan does call for Lake Lucy Road even- tually to be a major collector in the city so I think we are responding to that fact that it's going to be a fairly major street and we have taken that into account with the lots also, in making those a little deeper. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - In summary, density is the biggest concern you have of this? - - - Councilwoman Watson - I shouldn't say density because I don't think the overall density is a problem at all but lot size. Tom Klingelhutz - We could, by destroying the hills and the views make more even size lots but we don't want to do that. We are trying to retain the hills that are in there. I think this is a better alternative. Councilwoman Swenson - Isn't there some way that on these lots that are 7,500 square feet, isnlt there some way that you could conceivably arrange to maybe take one lot out and make it a little bit bigger? The problem that we have is that we are working with PUDls that we establish lot sizes like this and then time goes on and somebody says, well gee, you are saying that I can only have 11,700 or 15,000 square foot minimum lot and there is a whole bunch of 7,500 foot lots up there and people forget that that was a PUD and they begin to pick this up as being a standard size lot or an acceptable size lot in the City and it throws off the whole thing as far as having any rules and regulations are concerned. I agree too, I think the plan is great and I have to just reiterate what I think the commissioners on the Planning Commission said, they are concerned about 1/3 of the lots being under 12,000 square feet and if there is any way that you could eli- minate some of these I think it would be very good. It1s the 32 below the Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -8- 11,700. One or two or three is fine but gee when we have got 32 and it's 1/3 of the project, I am concerned about it. Mark Koegler - They intentionally are there and we are looking at whatls happening throughout the Metro Area and feel a mix such as this is not out of the ordinary and we feel it1s realistic. The reason for these being here really is twofold. First of all the smaller lots, I guess, we have somewhat consciously, whether right or not, have located closer to Lake Lucy Road. The real reason, though, that these appear in here is that we have got some topographic constraints in this area that really set this up as a very narrow situation through here. That1s not to say that we can It make the lots wider. Yes, we can do that but in terms of overall depth we are fairly limited through that portion. Councilwoman Swenson - If you could get them wider this maybe satisfy the 90 foot buildTng setback. There is just really two strips here. Now is the time to advise if elimination of a couple three of those lots could spread those two sections out that I think it would certainly be acceptable to me and make it not violate the ordinance quite as much as we are. I Councilwoman Watson - What basically would a 7,500 square foot lot with sewer and water and street, what price are we talking about? Tom Klingelhutz - Laredo Lane in Western Hills has the same size lots. About $16,000. Mayor Pro Tern Horn - Neither one of you are uncomfortable with the gross densitY:-just some of the lots? Councilwoman Watson - I am uncomfortable with it coming out at 13,700. I wish it would come out at 15,000. I Tom Klingelhutz - Your ordinance says that we can have a density of 3.4. Bob Waibel - The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a low density residential area. lom Klingelhutz - We are well within that by quite a ways. Councilwoman Swenson - Our Subdivision Ordinance also says that you are supposed to take the, granted I recognize that there are variances given to this with a PUD Tom, but you have to start from beginning and then work down and it very clearly states that lot sizes are supposed to wind up with 15,000 square feet net, an average net and here we have got thirteen something gross so then you take all of the streets out of that gross and you don't know what the net would be. lom Klingelhutz - The other factor is we are trying to bring in affordable housing. Councilwoman Swenson - We have got 93 lots here Tom and I guess I have problems figuring that you are going to lose that many by making those a little bit bigger. Mayor Pro Tern Horn - As a comparison, what would the price be on a 11,000 õr-r2,ooo square-foot lot? I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -9- Tom Klingelhutz - I assume by every lot that we eliminate we would probably ~adding $400 a lot on the rest of them. Mayor Pro Tern Horn - I can endorse the concept of a PUD and having some lots below-rT,700. A PUD doesn't bother me as much as some of the things we do around the lakes which I think there we do have strict ordinances that say we should have 15,000 square feet, all non-PUD kinds of things. I think from a consistency point of view I would be hard pressed to force a minimum of 11,700 when I know we have gone below that in other areas. Councilwoman Swenson - I am not asking for a minimum of 11,700. What I am asking is the elimination of the 7,500 and the 8,000. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - Didn1t we give a building permit on a 6,800 square foot l~on-Ia~iley? Bob Waibel - That1s correct. Mayor Pro Tem Horn - Which our ordinance says should be 15,000. Councilwoman Swenson - Yes, but the lot was established prior to the establishment of the ordinance. Mark Koegler - I think the frontage issue is more important to us than whether 7,500 or 8,500 is the appropriate lot size. The 90 foot of fron- tage has direct impacts on the cost of the lot. Obviously there is more street. There is more sewer. There is more water. The purpose of the PUD in virtually any city you deal with is to, #1 reduce the lot frontage. I think we can demonstrate that there could be plenty adequate side yard set- backs with much less than a 90 foot frontage on a public street. The 90 foot in an R-l where you are going into an area where there is surrounding R-l, yes, maybe that is justified with the continuity to the neighborhood but when you are dealing with a 40 acre project that is somewhat isolated due to topographic constraints I think we would suggest very strongly that the 90 foot is a number which is not really conducive to more of a market rate type of mix of housing that we are shooting for and that really most communities are shooting for right now. The lot size issue, we can poten- tially play around with lot sizes a little bit depending upon what your thoughts are. The frontage issue, I think personally it would be a mistake if we were to look strictly at 90 feet. I think that's a pretty limiting factor economically these days. Councilwoman Watson - It1s not that I am not stuck on 11,700, I guesss I am not stuck on 90 either. I asked that question more because I couldn't tell on here what kind of street frontage you had. I do understand there is a direct relationship between the frontage and the cost. this particular time is it your intention to It will be built in and we won't be getting road for garages. I would be much more ame- long as you are going to put them up to Councilwoman Swenson - Tom, at put a garage on these houses? any variance requests down the nable to the 8,000 or 9,000 as begin with. Tom Klingelhutz - All the houses will have double garages. Councilwoman Watson - You will be building the houses. These won't be sold as lots will they? Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -10- Tom Klingelhutz - I will be building them. I will sell some lots to other builders but I am going to be very selective. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to make a personal request that you try to revise those just minimally if nothing else. I can see justifica- tion on the inside lots here because of the nature of the topography. It's just this one corner thatls bothering me. I bothers me because it1s establishing more precedence in this direction and I just can't go for that. I Mayor Pro Tern Horn - What are the smallest lot sizes we have approved in PUDs. Bob Waibel - In Near Mountain I think there were some lots that were 6,700 square-Teet. There were some different measures taken in the PUD process where you gave them a 5 foot side yard setback on one side and a 25 foot front yard setback to the street. As far as the creation of new lots, I think the Chaparral Development as well as some of the Lake Ann PUD and the Lake Susan West and South had some lots that were down around 8,500 to 9,000 square feet. There were also a number of multiple areas in there. It was a combination of different housing styles. The gross densities on Lake Ann and Lake Susan South and West, which were approved~ were 2.9 units per acre. ~ay~ fro lem Horn - I think we have already established a precedent. Councilwoman Swenson - Not for 7,500 square feet. I Mayor Pro Tern Horn - We have established a density figure that's acceptable~-ThafTs what we are looking for in a PUD isn't it? Councilwoman Watson - Not necessarily. Councilwoman Swenson - I have no problem with going ahead with this at all Tf you can make some changes on those lots. Thatls my personal opinion. Mark ~~~ - We try not to delete lots at this point. We try to take it from some areas and obviously re-adjust it to bring those to 8,000 or 8,500 or whatever the number will be. Councilwoman Swenson - You can1t just take one lot out and divide that among these four down here with four up there. Mak~ Koegler - I think thatls one approach. I think we could do some shifting around and retain the same number of lots. We don1t feel the gross density is high. I think that1s a comfortable number for what Tom is looking at economically. If we keep the same number of lots we will keep the same gross density and we can bring the average lot size up by adjusting lot lines. Councilwoman Swenson - I think that would be my only request. I don't want to see a lot or-J,500 and 8,000 square foot lots in Chanhassen. I think itls too young yet to establish that kind of a precedent. Mayor Hamilton - I think we need to start thinking along the lines of smaTTer-TO~ecause property is so expensive. I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1983 - 11 - Councilman Horn - We have got a good enough mix here. I am only concerned with the gr~density figure. If we can attract enough people in to buy that 15,000 square foot, the 21,000 square foot lots that's fine. If you look at this thing the large lots are all in the first phase. It isn't like some of the plans that we have seen that come in with, the first phase is usually all the smaller lots and you wonder what you are going to get. I donlt see that in this proposal. As long as it's within the overall plan. I don't like to see trees and dirt removed when it doesn't have to be. I don It have a problem with it as it is a PUD concept. Councilwoman Swenson - What is the status on park lands, there is no dedi- cation of land here? Bob Waibel - The Park and Recreation Commission in the past has looked at the plans and told the applicant what they feel is needed for park, whether or not land is necessary. In the case where land is not necessary they make motions and recommendations to the Council saying that they recommend the park charge fee be paid in lieu of the land dedication. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, SUNNYBROOK INN: Bob Johnson, Barney Schlender and Wanda Squire-Schlender were present. ---- Bob Waibel - This is a sketch plan review. Itls a proposal for a 30 unit motel and restaurant on 24 acres located on the east side of the proposed expansion of Lake Ann Park. Wanda Squire-Schlender - What I want to do tonight is just give you a feel for the atmosphere that we are trying to create in this project. We do plan a number of structures for the site and several of them will be imme- diate at the initial stages of the project and some will be phased over a three to five year time frame. The main structure will probably be situated in the center of the lot and that will be the inn itself. The inn will contain initially approximately 30 motel rooms. It will also include a formal and informal restaurant and a pub and also a gift shop. Another initial structure will be the carriage barn which will be located to the back of the site. This will be a banquet, large meeting room, wedding reception type facility that will accommodate up to 400 people. Also, in the main structure, in the lower level, will be meeting rooms. We plan to add, in a three to five year time frame, a gristmill. We would like it to be operating and you will note on the site plan there are some ponds planned. We eventually plan to add a chapel where small weddings could be conducted but also just to add to the atmosphere. What we are trying to create here is a New England style village. We also plan to add an abun- dance of flower gardens and plant a number of mature trees throughout the site. Bob Johnson - The type of structure here is a New England colonial type with the idea that we are trying to get towards wedding parties, corporate clients, people that would come and use something a little bit on the New Prague Hotel type atmosphere. Part of the site now drains naturally into the low area on the corner. What we are trying to do is develop a ponding and holding area that has some atmosphere to the project which in essence is pumping the water back up and become a part of the gristmill. In the initial phase we are talking about the main structure, the carriage house, and ponding area. Wanda Square-Schlender - The initial plans also call for a swimming pool and a tennis court. Council Meeting November 7, 1983 -12- Councilwoman Swenson - I notice that the Community Development Director has suggested that, you take a look at Concept C on the roadway, where would that cut in? Bob Waibel - Right now the alignment is not certain on that. We feel that when we do look at that closer as part of the preliminary plat review we would probably make an attempt to provide sufficient stacking distance from Highway 5 yet still try and attempt to minimize the severance of the pro- perty as that frontage road would come through. The same with Lake Ann Park we would like to minimize the severance in that situation yet have it line up with that. Councilwoman Swenson - Well, C looks to me like it would be devastating to that plan. Bob Waibel - Itls shown in schmatic fashion on this drawing. When we look ar-it closer we will attempt to provide adequate stacking distance back to Highway 5, yet minimize the severance of this property and still offer that secondary access for local traffic coming from Chanhassen to Lake Ann Park. Bob Johnson - We are willing to work with that to some degree but it is devastating the way it is planned right now. Our feeling is generally that we have got a product here that is going to be beneficial both to you as a community and the metropolitan area. The question that was given to us before was whether there was a real need for this road now at all. I Bob Waibel - The roadway concepts E and F, these are basically taken off of the final plan for Chaparral that was approved. Minnetonka, Inc. did come I in with a different plan. It did show sort of a ring road going around separating Minnetonka, Inc. from what might be a residential neighborhood. Councilwoman Swenson - You are going to have to take a hard look at that road. Councilman Horn - As I recall one of the biggest concerns you had was that people woul~ve an access eventually to get to the park without having to go out onto Highway 5. If we look at E and F, it would give us that. Wanda Squire-Schlender - We have allowed room at the front of the lot for an access road but one that wouldnlt cut up into the property. We have no problem with an access road across the front. Bill Monk - Staff did not resurrect discussion on where the access would come Tñtõ the park or anything in depth. All we were looking at as a part of this we do see that the northern access is the way that traffic will probably get back to #17. All we are trying to do, I think, is to plot a right-of-way for potential across the south portion of this property. We don't really see this frontage road as ever going through but at the same time we tink it needs to be planned for at this point and not purchased ten years from now if thatls the way development goes. What Bob is saying we would of course look at the best location as we get to preli- minary plat and all we are asking for at this time is that the potential for that frontage road be guarded and that right-of-way be platted. Councilwoman Swenson - It doesnlt have to be alignment C though. --- I I I I Council Meeting November 7 , 1983 -13- B i 11 Monk - No. We will minimize the impact as Bob said, but all we are tryingtO do is get something in there platted. Councilman Horn - What about the trees, what i s the time frame on that? Bob Johnson - The initial part of the trees would be in the present phase. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, WEST CITY HALL PARKING LOT, LAKE ANN PARK SEALCOATTNG, AND TENNIS CO~RISITRFACTNG: ---- ---- --- ---- RESOLUTION #83-53: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution to approve the plans and specifications to pave the west City Hall parking lot, Lake Ann Park sealcoating, and Tennis Court resurfacing. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER CITY HALL BOND FUND: Councilman Horn moved to approve purchasing a microf~reader-and reader/printer along with initial document switchover, Plansheet Printer, Engineer/Planning Plan Storage for a total cost of $10,200. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson requested that staff look into the cost of a screen for the Council Chambers. STREET LIGHT REQUEST: Willie Molnau was present asking the Council to con- sider the installation of a street light at the intersection of Aubudon Road and Lyman Blvd. ZONING VIOLATIONS: Council members briefly reviewed the violations as shown in the council packet. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: Mayor Hamilton moved ~place on first reading an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that the Council will appoint three members to serve on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager