Loading...
1d. South Lotus Villas Townhomes, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review _ _ _ 0 1 ,b ' CHANHAOS:111 CITY O F <' P.C. DATE: Flay 3 , 1989��C.C. DATE: clay 22 , 1989 ) , CASE N0: SUB 89-6 , �-� Site Plan 89-4 IPrepared by: JO:k f I t STAFF REPORT I I PROPOSAL: PUD Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for South Lotus Villas on property zoned PUD-R I i LOCATION: Northeast corner of South Shore Drive and TH 101 APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Carmody Mr. Brian Cluts 15112 Portland Ave. South 7520 Market Place Dr. Burnsville, MN 55337 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1 , PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R '•;Iii,n ')'J !'nv Ar±riinist^ata I ACREAGE: 1. 5 acres - - 4)( '�� N',;.„t ?eisct ,i` DENSITY: 9. 3 units/acre r_, 1; _vr ' ' ADJACENT ZONING ,ec �, �� nJ'" ' AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R, Single Family ,+.� �, , t<<<,i .� :. :, .- IS- R-12 , Chanhassen Meadows ______= __Ye.:____.; ' _„ E- Park IQ W- RSF, City Outlot Iii . WATER AND SEWER: Cty services are available to the site. IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is fairly level with a slope towards TH 101 on the south side of the site. I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential , Low Density 4 II if „� �� 0 . OR. `, LOTUS ------ � _ �� _ -6900 I 7(' liZ � n�1a* a \� `--i_.'R �c -0 . 7000 1 �4 $i 11 � •pritiA 1 _ �p • 4 qi _ ——7100 -- ONO. 1/1 - ,� �s U(!� • Y �� �• L A K ' 7200 ;�,.;. 1 t 1 a,�., �,���� � 1. 41■■■ ,- x ' ,Mr■ ■.■in ' 1 _ 7300 mu 111111112011prft I . flurwo trrfrir.:14 ,,fil■.r ., ---- . ..,,,," ,--7 2 , , . lat.,wk.&:Ittr-Aer. " - - : 7400 L._/ Af .440 ) ormafts. CO . itliiir L114 if 12 I co .:;■■• -- AN I .,_„. - ..._-......----4.�� ` // - _ -- 0 7500 �.�il 'iiTt 7 - ff __ .� 1 -.12.unfinsurier NNW i mows =Fr owl ■�" ' �/' _' 7600 New MIR WWI =IF liWi"Allir CAI row re rmi i .7.&111i MOW NW.. ltt�ll `�•'t•��F•'l11 P.�k. ,. cn- . Q ■/t ��r„„;: i o n thrill x t.!' 7700 I I���pr, ■ 11111 llilVlift ` ` _ Q ■L.F X111 II1l "' ', W. .TH ST. 3 =�it LJT JUD ��' % �� � � Un 7800 I p = 7900 It . _ ' '■ INIA % I „doof : -w 1 Wild".a T I 1W0 -Ss�` 6`ts Or yam'«,; \, w: = ?* sir 4 � o O 8000 , OA i � � � IIAI ♦ o 0 co tO i RV Itrie. c v5 t ci —8100 1 i . )3 H ' a'1 .'e. R sF -- 8200 ; , . \ D...[U •NG II K\ - t \cN E 8:0-- �icE sH a�-E 1 -_ r t South Lotus Villas May 3 , 1989 Page 2 Referral Agencies ' City Engineer Attachment #1 Fire Inspector Attachment #2 Building Inspector "Buildings required to be sprinklered" ' Background On August 5 , 1985 the City Council approved the final development ' plan for the South Lotus Lake Addition. The PUD contained 58 units (1 single family residence exists in the extreme northwest corner of the site ) , a five acre park and a boat access site. ' The 57 new units consists of the following housing types: 23 single family homes , 28 townhome units, and 6 twinhome units (Attachment #3 ) . The applicant amended the PUD plan on July 7 , 1986 (Attachment #4 ) . The amended final development plan proposed to eliminate the 28 townhome units in the center of the PUD and instead plat 14 ' single family lots and one outlot. The applicant stated that the overall number of units originally approved would not change and that the multiple family outlot would contain 14 units . Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review The applicant is proposing to plat Outlot A, which is the outlot ' that was created as a part of the PUD plan amendment. The appli- cant is proposing 14 individually owned townhome units on 1 . 5 acres of property zoned PUD-R. The proposed 14 units is con- sistent with what was approved as part of the PUD plan amendment. Sheet C-2 of the plans shows the proposed preliminary plat. The townhome lots are proposed to be located on Lots 1-14 , Block 1 and range in size from 1 ,184 sq. ft. to 1, 295 sq. ft. Since the ' property is already zoned PUD and the number of units were pre- viously approved as part of the PUD plan amendment, the smaller lot sizes being proposed are acceptable. The density of the area is 9 . 3 units per acre and the impervious surface is 54% . The density of the whole PUD with the proposed improvements to the outlot is 2. 2 units/acre. ' The proposed townhomes maintain the required setbacks for the R-12 district of 25 front yard setbacks and 10 ft. sideyard set- backs . The units will be serviced by a private 24 ft. drive from ' South Shore Drive. The internal drives servicing the units are shown as two 18 ft. drives and one 16 ft. drive ( the most easterly drive ) . When scaled , the drives actually are 16 ft. , 24 ' ft . and 16 ft. The Fire Inspector and Engineering Department are requesting that the three internal drives have a minimum width of 20 ft. The applicant does have room on the easterly portion of the site to widen the driveways and still maintain the typical setbacks for a high density property . r z South Lotus Villas May 3, 1989 I Page 3 The applicant is proposing landscaping along the north, south and 1 west side of the property. There is no landscaping proposed along the eastern and northeastern property line. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide landscaping along the northeasterly and easterly property line of the site. The zoning ordinance requires 28 parking spaces to be provided. The applicant is providing 63 parking spaces including 7 visitor parking spaces . Staff feels the number of visitor parking spaces is adequate for the size of the development. Grading, Drainage , Utilities The City Engineer addresses these issues in Attachment #1. Miscellaneous The Land Use Plan still designates this property as residential ' low density. Staff will be processing a Land Use Plan Amendment to redesignate the subject property as residential high density . Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat No. 89-6 and Site Plan No. 89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10 , 1989 with the following conditions: 1 . The three internal drives shall be at least 20 feet in width. ' 2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the northeasterly and easterly lot line of the site. ' 3 . An additional fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of the second building and that the fire hydrant located between the two buildings shall be moved to the end of the middle driveway. 4 . The land use will be amended to Residential-High Density. ' 5 . All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protec- tion. 6 . Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the submittals , including valves . t 7 . The sanitary system shall be 8-inch PVC main line with 6-inch PVC house services conforming to City standards . 8 . Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. ' South Lotus Villas May 3 , 1989 Page 4 9 . All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained. 10. The Developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On May 3 , 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat and site plan with staff' s conditions and Conditions #7 and #8 be worked out between staff and the developer prior to the City Council meeting. Attachment #6 from the City Engineer addresses which conditions have been met and which remain. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Preliminary Plat No. 89-6 and Site Plan No. 89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10 , 1989 with the following conditions : 1 . The land use will be amended to Residential-High Density. 2 . All side slopes greater than 3 :1 will need erosion protec- tion. 3 . Concrete curb and gutter shall be constructed throughout the site except along driveways , which shall have valley gutter construction. 4 . All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained. 5 . The Developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. Unless the developer changes the drainage to flow to South Shore Drive instead of T.H. 101 ditch as shown on the plans . Attachments 1 . City Engineer ' s memo dated April 26 , 1989 . 2 . Fire Inspector ' s memo dated April 26 , 1989 . 3 . August 5 , 1985 City Council minutes. 4 . July 7 , 1986 City Council minutes. 5 . PUD plan. 6 . Memo from City Engineer dated May 18 , 1989 . 7 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 3 , 1989 . 8 . Proposed plans dated April 10, 1989. CITY OF rirk CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: April 26 , 1989 SUBJ: #89-4, #89-6 Comments and recommendations : 1. As per discussion with Allan Larson, an additional fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of the second building in, and the fire hydrant located between the two buildings be moved to the end of the middle driveway. 2. Driving lanes shall be a minimum of 20 ' width as per discussion with Allan Larson and as indicated on site plan. c , Council Meeting, Aug( 1985 ®_ Nip o -12- .c _ w Don Ashw---Ashworth : There were several problems associated with the Carver Beach area . was not just the parking. We have a road system that if I any type of a vehicle down to the boat access , none of those roads wide to capable of providing any type of traffic to get was the physical construction of the access itself.wn to the site , The second concern tation by Mr. Koegler, there is If you looked at the presen_ quite an extensive area that is being shown for that . My point is that I don 't think the parking is the only issue of concern to the Citizens Committee in looking at Carver Beach . Councilman Horn : The committee did look at the Carver Beach site and at one point there was a lot available right across the street from what had been the moorin and the committee felt that had the Council at that 9 area would have been a viable access . point acquired that land that to figure out all kinds of ways to a house was built on that property, we tried to the other park, which is get parking in that area without having to go up almost a half a mile away , and it seemed like there was no other way to get any kind of parking close to the vicinity t option did exist at one point, but when the committee reviewed it we •didn 'tlseetaareasonable way to get parking in the vicinity that would be at all code. Don Ashworth : The Council did approve for the Mayor and Manager to sign the grant the last meeting and set this meeting ,up as discussion, so g at additional action , you need not take any Georgette Sosin : I would like to ask Councilwoman Swenson = when you had that access with a a question, On Lake Riley gate or did the gate, dnd that come on after it was approved with no y put it on at the beginning, Councilwoman Swenson : No, that was put on because it was determined ned that it be Geo— r ooette Sosin . That was the point that I wanted to make . Mayor Hamilton, We will be reviewing that , I am sure , the items that we will want to consider very It will certainly be one of e Y carefully , PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT DEVELOPMENT PL UNITS WEST OF AN REQUEST FOR 61 ATTACHED AND DETACHED AND ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 , BLOOMBERG Ma or Hamilton —�_ COMP ANIESs --�— This item was reviewed also recommendations made by the Council to Mr, on July 15, 1985 . There were some review those requests that Bloomberg , He asked for some time to t the item back on tonight so that owec can hrevieweitna he has replied to them . We have gain this evening and look at the changes that Mr. Bloomberg has made . a Brb Dial At the July 15 meeting the City how the plan should be amended , Council made several recommendations as be rmme were that the duplexes should be eliminated tosreduce the density toe 2.eco7 unitsdptrons acre which coincides with the Planning Commission recommendation to close the access to West 77th Street . A recommendation was made that additional TH 101 and that there be individual riparian rights for tofour i brrpr lots be made nlong Lotus Lake . There was an additional recommendation inthat the duplexlot besplit so that there would be two single family lots instead a duplex lot and two single family lots . The applicant has reviewed the City Council minutes and has submitted this revised plan , which represents the. fourth revised plans si cation . He has reduced the number of units from wcp the oo iditrel 0pplt _ L single family units , 14 duplex units and 28 condominium units . The grross density of C / f1 0 SO j Y 1985 w Council Meeting , Augur , r' " o the project is 2.91 units per acre . That excludes the acreage for the boat access '' and park . The net density is 4.23 units per acre . That excludes the public right of way . The average single family lot size is 19,356 square feet . The average duplex 0•04( size is 6, 348 square feet . The median lot size is 16, 500 for the single family lots and 7,500 square feet for the duplex lots . In conformance with the DNR recommen- dations, the applicant has indicated a conservation easement to match the 930 eleva- tion contour in the area adjacent to the lake to preserve the slope. He has also amended the drainage and utility easments in this area to conform with staff recom- mendations for the existing ravine between Lot 17 and 18 as well as he proposed a retention pond on the north part of Lot 16. An additional change was made, Lot 3 was originally a duplex lot and it has now been changed to a single family lot . The con- ! dominium units was originally 31 and three condominium lots have now been eliminated. The land use pattern remains as has always been considered to match the existing single family uses which propose single family uses and to surround the 'perimeter of the plan with single family lots. There has been a reduction in the number of duplex lots. Seven lots remain as duplexes. The intent of the land use pattern is to con- centrate the highest density of development in the center of the parcel adjacent to the cluster street , the park and across the existing high density development . The traffic issue is also a major issue discussed both with the Commission and the II Council meetings. The Council concurred with the Commission recommendation to not connect the proposed South Shore Drive with West 77th Street . Staff is maintaining its previous recommendation that a connection be made with a right on only , turning movement at the westerly access onto TH 101. The grading and drainage features have II also significantly changed since the initial time of that location. The cul-de-sac in the northwest corner of the plat has been pulled back in conformance with staff recommendations and the necessary easements identified as mentioned earlier. DNR II approval : As you know, the PUD must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources. We discussed at the last meeting the issue regarding individual docking rights for each of the four riparian lots. I talked to the DNR staff regarding the I Council 's desire to have each of those riparian lots enjoyed. They normally allow one dock per lot. The DNR ' s adamant that not only that the slope be maintained , but that the number of docks in that area would be minimized as well . They will not approve the plan if the docks in this area exceed two docks. I II that they would approve up to eight sli s , also indicated in the indicate that is now four slips. p That was incorrect . They now P They will only approve two docks and four slips . Mayor Hamilton : Which lots? II Barb Dacy : Lots 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 and 20. I believe on Lot 16 they already have a dock, so it is Lots 17 through 20 . II Councilwoman Watson : That would be one slip per lot . Barb 22c1: Correct . Two docks and four slips. II Mayor Hamilton : The existin I' ------ g dock is not included in the numbers . Barb Dacy : Yes , that is correct . Mayor Hamilton : So it would be three docks then . II Councilman Horn : So there can only be four boats there . 'i Barb Dacy : Correct . Mayor Hamilton . On the two docks . There is one dock there already . II II c `ti/2 Council Meeting, Au \ c 7 .,, 9� yust 1985;L O' -14- .2 , Councilwoman Watson : So there would be six boats making multiple use out of the pre- !' sent dock . Councilman Geving: The dock on Lot 16 remains as is , that is excluded. ' Councilwoman Swenson : Then it would be two in addition to that? ICouncilman Geving: Yes . Coun� ci_lman Horn : Do we need the DNR approval on this? II Barb Dacy: Yes . Councilman Horn: When does the DNR supercede our lake ordinance? IIBarb Dacy: The most restrictive rules will apply , w local regulation or state regulation , which ever is theemostrrestrictivelwillbapply. 9 The shoreline management ordinance is adopted by apply . I clearly states that the DNR has to approve a PUD or final ordinance #65. That plans . Councilman can Horn : What basis do they have for limiting the number of docks , what is I their precedent for that? Barb Dacy: They believe the unique nature of the site beyond the slope and they II want to protect the integrity of the lake and the shoreline in that and minimize the number of structures and the number of slips per dock . rticular area IICouncilman Horn : I guess if we are concerned about the challenge ability of our ordinance , I would really be concerned about that one . Barb Dacv : The parks and open space issue , the Park and Recreation Commission recom- ' mended that a trail easement be identified between the condominium area and TH 101 provided pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the west to the Also the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City post park site . negotiations with the developer to acquire what is known as Block 4. I Council pursue II lar in shape and approximates two-thirds of an acre . It is tandngu- Recreation Commission this would be suitable for tennisccourts, vol the Park and basketball areas. Staff concurs with the Park and Recreations Commission's and ' dation and would recommend that the City Council strongly rthemp park charge per unit in view of a land dedication agreement of thisltwo_thirdsng the park parcel . In summary , staff is recommending a acre final development with rezoning to P-1, F pproval of the proposed preliminary and 8 I the plans received on July 31, 1985, and subjectrtoltthet following based on g coonnddit tions: II 1 . DNR formal approval . 2 . No more than two docks and four slips for Lots 17_20 , Block 1 . 3 . Watershed District approval . II 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer ' s memo dated June 10 , 1985. 5 . Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and the condominium area . 6 . Authorizing staff with City Council final approval to negotiate II the dedication of Block 4 for park purposes . 7 . Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit at the rear of the duplex lots . r II 1 J ?co Council Meeting, Auyu..,. f�Mi y 1985 -15_ -1 •o ~io Herb Bloomberg: I don ' t know if I understand exactly what the DNR is restricting in regard to the shore. They are limiting the four lots to two docks, I understand that , but are they going to jeopardize the Fenger lot? Are they taking jurisdiction there? I would rather take that lot out of the plat . My sister won 't sign this plat / if she loses her dock . She has lived there for 17 years and has dock rights. I Barb Dacy: If there is an existing dock there on your sister ' s property , their recommendation does not include that existing dock . This is for the four proposed new lots . Herb Bloomberg: We had planned a dock there before . But she hasn 't been using the dock and so she certainly isn ' t losing rights because she hasn 't been using the lake, I hope . Councilman Gevinq: That is something that we better check on, but I am sure that it ' s not true . Barb Dacy: It has always been my understanding that those two docks were for the preliminary proposal and would not affect your existing dock . Mayor Hamilton : We will clarify that for you, Mr. Bloomberg, to make sure. Herb Bloomberg: We got involved in acquiring this strip of land where the blue house is over on the east edge because we have been trying to develop without it and that has been happening for two years. I didn 't think that we would be losing the dock rights for this home that had a dock and there is even one there today on the shore. It is a sandy shore and that is part of my reason in wanting to cooperate to get this lake access on this end of the lake because it is such an ideal one from an ecology standpoint . There is no way that boats can stir up the soft bottom and hurt the eco- logy of the lake . There has been concern in regard to the activity , and I think that anyone recognizes that that could be a problem, but you have grandfathered in two lake residences , both with lake rights . What I would like to do would be to find if we couldn ' t trade those two dock rights for one single dock that could be used for four slips which would let them maintain their dock . Another advantage would be that , for whatever concern there is in being the last dock in the line next to the public access , that this be a buffer dock . I would think that Mr. Melby would maybe appreciate four friendly neighbors that would help police that . Mayor Hamilton : Did you have anything else , Mr . Bloomberg, that you wanted to relay to us? Herb Bloomberg: It is quite obvious that this will be going through the next phases. One thing that I built from the start , I love this view down the lake . You can see the hills that over look Christmas Lake two miles away . I would like to see it writ- ten into the park board stipulations for maintaining this landscaping and that this would be forever a site line so that when you are driving north on TH 101 you will get a nice glimpse of that lake . We all know that with one building and with some trees and shrubs in the way we have lost that forever . We named that road South Shore Drive and I think it would be nice to see what shore you are talking about . 1 Councilman Geving: I think you could help with that by when you develop that area , make sure you leave that view open with the homes that you are planning . If you plan it that way , it will stay that way . Herb Bloomberg : I have problems on a couple of building sites , too , which restricts me too , but I think it is well worth the effort . 1 V 4 J �/2 I ' Council Meeting, August , 1985 ` \ ° ` -16- " 3 Councilwoman Watson : Here again we come to the drainage a Idiscussed that in relationship with the park , but if we couldlkeepnthe water z from this site and try and minimize any water that leaves . It is all the same problem and I am sure that it can all be dealt with at that time . I don ' t know when we will be dealing with crossing TN 101 . There will be people crossing TH 101 . One suggestion was a pedestrian overpass and I realize that would be extremely expensive . Don Ashworth: Mr . Koegler , I know you did look at that issue briefly on the I pedestrian/traffic issue . Mark Koegler: Yes we did . We had taken a look at the pedestrian issue in regard to Ithe park . TH 101 is , admittedly , a difficult situation . Anybody that is in the area is well aware of that . The apartments across the way from the potential park is really the concern that we were looking at . In order to look at that we reviewed the project and talked to the apartment management people. They indicated that there are approximately 20 - 25 children in the entire apartment complex right now . Two of the buildings are adults only . From their observations, the smaller children are kept within the complex and, they said they have only seen teen-age type kids walking into I town along TH 101 . Regardless of that , we still need to provide the safest crossing as possible. What we have looked at , opposite the driveway that comes in with the parking that is close to TH 101 at that point is probably the best location for a I marked crosswalk across there. We also talked to the Minnesota Department of Transportation about the possible installtion of the flashing warning signs for pedestrian crossing in that area and they agreed that this would probably be I appropriate there . I would like to point out that they would not share in the cost of that and that would be a city expense . That can be done reasonably and economi- cally . , Another reason that we proposed the crosswalk here is because it would tie into the trail , which I believe is one of staff' s recommendations that leads behind Ithe condominium units over into the park itself, which would allow people to get across TH 101 either into town or in the park or whatever the best connection might be . We have addressed that as a preliminary fashion . ICouncilwoman Watson : The access on South Shore , is this a right out only? Bill Monk : The original plan that was submitted called for two access I TH 101 and a connection onto W. 77th Street . At the last meeting the Council had o talked about leaving the two access points onto TH 101 completely operational with all turning movements and not making any connection to W. 77th Street . That has to I be made a part of whatever motion the Council makes on this item. That should be specified. Councilwoman Watson : Okay . The only logical thing would be to have people be able to make either a right or left turning movement out of those two streets , especially since the desire is to cut off W. 77th Street . I Mayor Hamilton : If you want to talk about the movement of traffic , perhaps you could address the Hill Street intersection issue . I Bill Monk : Since the very beginning, I have always thought that as the series deve- loped, one of the primary concerns would be a realignment of the southern most Hill Street access onto TH 101 on a really bad curve with severe sight distance restric- tions in either direction . I proposed that the existing southerly access point of I Hill Street be closed off and realigned into this plat , that street would not be built to a full section , the section would be built more along the lines that already kexist there right now . You could eliminate that dangerous access point . That has ' I alwaysnoeen a part of the plan and is a part of the plan that is being recommended I -I f. 91 jj o� o Council Meeting, Augus 'S, 1985 -19- I A e Mayor Hamilton : I am very pleased that Mr . Bloomberg came back and responded to our 9 • comments and concerns about changing some of the items in the development . I am not convinced that closing off West 77th Street is the best idea . Off Councilman Geving: I am now proposing that this development contain a total of 57 (I'l units . That total consists of the elimination of one of the single family lots in Block 1 , the elimination of the four duplex units identified as Block 1 , Lot 4, 5, 7 and nine and making those single family , leaving the duplexes on Lots 21 , 22 and 23 and we have eliminated five units for a total of 57 units for this plan . Mayor Hamilton : I am wondering how far we are going to ask Mr. Bloomberg- to go . He was here three weeks ago and we asked him to cut out several lots again , he responded to and solved nearly everyones concerns and now he has come back and we .are asking r him to reduce some more . So the next time that he comes back , we ask him to reduce i again, pretty soon we 'll be down to one house . I can' t agree with cutting out II another five . I think you are asking him to do too,-much . Councilwoman Swenson: May I review our minutes for the 15th of July when we discussed this? I suggested, should we review our recommendations and Councilman Geving replied , "I think we need to identify them." Councilwoman Swenson : "Our first recommendation that we would make would be to eliminate the duplexes , which reduces the density to 2.7, close W . 77th Street and the berming would be appropriate and the individual riparian rights for docking would be retained ." Mayor Hamilton: "And that the development contract states that there be no cutting other than to put a walkway down to the dock ." Councilman Geving: "I made a recommendation on the corner, making 2 lots out of the proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 ." According to the minutes that we have , what we are recommending tonight is consistent with what we recommended on the 15th of July . i Barb Dacv : I need some additional Council direction as to the status of Block 4. I know it is the applicant ' s concern that it is not to be used for park uses , that some type of determination be made if he could locate a couple of the condominium units on ' I that lot or try and subdivide it for single family or duplex use . I believe the applicant is concerned that if it is not used for park purposes that he will have two-thirds of an acre of land that is just sitting there and not being used . I need some Council direction to give to the applicant as to what to do with Block 4. Mayor Hamilton : I think Dale ' s comment was that that will take care of itself in the long run . He felt that we had enough park space . I guess I would think that purchasing Block 4 would certainly be advantageous to the City . To have parkland combined with the property that is at the well house right now would make a very nice park . But I think Dale felt that it would take care of itself in due time and I perhaps some time in the future maybe we could think of making use of that . Councilman Gevinn: I just don ' t want to mix that issue up with the whole plan , I because it has not been a part of the plan . It is silent in the plan . Mayor Hamilton : But it is a part of the overall property . I ' Councilman Gevinn: It is a part of the property , If Mr . Bloomberg wanted to designate that for condominiums or something, I wouldn ' t have any problem with that . Don Ashworth : There would be a change though , in that all the way through in the I ' L park commission at looking at this , that has been part of the park plan that has been considered by the Park and Recreation Commission . In the negotiations , that has included the lot . But if the Council determines not to pursue that , Mr . Bloomberg should be able to use that . r Ii ca EL sr N C Council Meeting, August,'•,3 1985 Ito Coun_ cilman Gevina: Maybe we should just indicate that we will continue negotiating with Mr . Bloomberg as our original intention . The Park Commission 's recommendation clearly stated that we should attempt to negotiate purchasing that sometime in the I I don ' t know when that would be, because that could cost us a considerable amount of money . The only other consideration that I would make is that we could acquire Block 4 by reducing park charges on all of the 57 units that are proposed to equal the cost of Block 4 so that , in a sense, we would acquire Block 4 through the I park dedication process . Councilwoman Watson : How do we establish the value on that property? IDon Ashworth: In all the discussions that we have had regarding the property from Mr. Bloomberg, this parcel has always been included in those ase of the discussions. As far as the total amount of money is concerned that would be paid t over a period of time. We did discuss whether or not there would be any easing of the park acquisition charges that would be a left that issue open not saying applied against the property , and I have Y g that the city would make a reduction or not . I Councilwoman Watson ; I would prefer to see it done in that purchasing the land, manner as opposed to IMayor Hamilton : That is what the recommendation was. Wes Arseth : I have a question on Hill Street . Ito p left and TH 101 , it makes a sharp I noticed the road is going adjacent then makes a sharp right again . Every winter we always have troubles with the snow plows making that bend by Mr . Power 's there any problem on separating those two southerl house , Is IIBill that? That seems to be a lot more wise , y lots and putting Hill Street bet- Bill Monk : We did review that , but the problem is the house on the property . We are waiting for the Placing of the existing blue Ithere . It seemed best to bring it u Potential layouts for the property in we will separate those lots that much •more dfrom lTHv101has that access make it workable and access road , looked at and in trying to separate it you lose too much of the use of the s pace in Tcet was I the flat area . I do believe that the layout that is there is workable . Mayor Hamilton : We could do that . That is an alternative that we should keep in IIJudy Schmie I guess I resent the that askin comment that you made , Mr . Mayor, on the fact 9 Mr. Bloomberg to do something different than when I Along with everybody else and in the minutes it was very clearly was here last y youe . also as to the number of units that there would be after the aduplexes ewweredcut and y by you everything else . I don ' t think it has been unfair . It hhs been very up n fI do ' t The Planning Commissioners have said it I feel that that is it , the Council members have said it and I don ' t a fair statement . I think you ' ve been very up front with him and then to come back and completely ignore all your requests , I found , quite startlin I Councilman Geving moved to approve g � with remanin pprove the preliminary and final development 9 to P-1 based on the plans stamped "Received plan request to the following conditions: July 31 , 1985" and subject I1 . DNR formal approval ; 6 II II ME council Meeting, Augus , , 1985 -21- f' o so 2. Two docks with 5 slips each on riparian Lots 17 through 20, Block 1 , excluding the Fenger property and the blue house on the eastern part of the property . Staff will contact DNR regarding their requirements as to the amount of the dockage that can be permitted; 3. Watershed District approval ; 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer ' s memorandum dated June 10 , 1985 t excluding recommendation #4: a . Four drainage design modifications be adopted: ' -Lowering the center island area of the townhouse turnaround so it can function as a landscaped detention basin with a controlled outlet . Should this location prove unacceptable , equal area must be provided elsewhere on the upper shelf area . -Using catch basins with sumps to retain large sediment par- ticles (now that the City has a vacuum truck for removing the silt build-up) and drop manholes to dissipate energy and reduce runoff velocities. -The two outlets be released into elongated swales on the lower shelf adjacent to the lake so disturbance from the discharge on the lake is minimized and additional area is provided to allow sedimentation in a location that can be readily accessed and maintained . These swales will have to be located so as not to interfere with the existing forcemains . b . The northwest cul-de-sac be shortened and lots realigned to avoid disturbance of the steep slopes adjacent to Lotus Lake . c . All Streets be constructed to City standards including a 28 foot width , and 18 inch gravel equivalency and lined with concrete curb and gutter . d. eliminated. e . All MnDot requirements for drainage and access within TH 101 right- of-way be included as a part of City approval . f. That an additional 17 foot wide strip be dedicated along TH 101 for future highway improvements. g . That all DNR and Watershed District conditions concerning density and drainage be incorporated as a part of the City ' s approval . 5 . Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and the condominium area; ((( 6 . Authorizing staff, with City Council final approval , to negotiate the ded- ication of Block 4 for park purposes and for park fee credits; 7 . Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit ; • Council Meeting, Augus,r 1985 ° 4 II ' �, ` '�' -22- r 4 B . Connection into West 77th Street is not permitted . All access 1 Ihave full traffic movements; points shall 9. Lake views from TH 101 shall be retained; I10 . Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 , shall be combined into two single family lots facing South Shore Drive, and Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9, Block 1, shall be single family lots; II11 . Staff should investigate the possibility of bermin between the Melby property and the Bloomberg g along the lot line g property; I12. Staff will continue to look into a cross-over of TH 101. The last two conditions are items that will be pursued by .. 1 tion of final specifications for the boat access and y City Motion in its prepara- tion Horn . park . P para- P Motion was seconded by Bill Monk : I have a problem with the condition to allow dock rights with the I existing blue house . That might involve allowing the private dock in I don 't know with the DNR regulations if that will be commended, a public park . IDon Ashworth : We may have to bring the issue back . Bill Monk : The Council may want to direct staff to pursue that , but I really don ' t II know whether that is actually possible . If you look at the plan, property off. That property no longer extends all the way down tottheplake . Y that caught me a little bit by surprise with that request . y You down , it could definitely cause major q If the dock is to be straight I J problems with the park access site . Mayor Hamiiton . It will remain staff wll pursue it as is in the motion with the understandin and it will then come back to this body . 9 that IIRoger Knutson : I have not discussed this with Mr . B decides that he would rather Bloomberg, but if Mr. Bloomberg or law suit with them, it would beot9ew Council 's sNwillingnessnttohallow him ftoongotwit II two docks with two slips each rather than five, if that was go with his desire . Mayor Hamilton : We would amend the motion I at that time . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilmen Horn and Gevin Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , II 9• No negative votes . Motion carried . Herb Bloo= : There are a number of f the blue house . actors . One is in regard to docking I know the City of Minneapolis they rent anchorages to boats . seems to me , in view of the circumstances , losing I trade taking five It 9 acres with no lake and trading it dock if you esre involved it a beautiful lake shore . It doesn ' t sound g it for five acres with 300 f beautiful be something like very feet of g done that would help that . y other angle to we .eliminate there I duplex lots and maybe One other angle is if we eliminate the Y you want to consider squeezing them together to be foot lots when you put them together .9 The other thing is that I feel eventually with the development with this whole park scheme , public would that there will come a time when the I ould want to make a connection there and I would like to offer to donate that portion of the road as a park with the stipulation that someday it Y • I can see a few years from now that little league baseballlist going be ov e gs er as a I p v ec us { c) s Council Meeting , Augu ..y , 1985 -23- '' d r here- and you have bicycles and walking and all of that , and I think you wouldn ' t trouble getting a few hundred signatures of people to the west to say thatthey woul ( like their youngsters in the middle of that park without going onto TH 101 . So maybe things can change. I am satisfied that we don 't need the connection now , and maybe forever . But I think that we could maybe keep some of those options open . i VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR A DECK , 7300 LAREDO DRIVE, ALAN FOX: FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK, 801 PONTIAC LANE, PAUL NAAB : II LOT AREA AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR-A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1565 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. ALBERT DORWEILER: — II VARIANCE TO CONTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2821 , TANGERS LANE, OLSEN/HAWLEY: II The above four items were approved unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore , no action was required by the Council . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT O II Barb Dacv: Attachments #9, 10 and 12.are going to be the RprimarE� CITY OF CHANHASSEN: discussion . #9 is the existing beachlot ordinance, #10 is the proposed sordinance and #12 is the proposed ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Swenson. I would like to run through the differences between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance . The first item in the beachlot ordinance is conditional uses of any R-1 District taining to the location of the chemical toilet facilities . The current ordinanceper- allows that they be placed on the beachlot but they be required to be placed 75 feet back from the ordinary high water mark . The proposed ordinance only allows these facilities for administratively authorized special events or if the Council finds it such , the facility will not entirely affect adjacent properties. The Planning Commission felt that this particular proposed language was too vague . So that was their major concern with this item and that the present language be maintained . II Secondly , the current ordinance does not permit any motor vehicles to be driven or parked on the beachlot . The proposed ordinance does permit those if you launch from the beachlot by a motorized vehicle but does not allow any vehicle to be parked on the beachlot . The Planning Commission was very much opposed to the proposed ordi- I nance amendment regarding this particular section . Item C. remains the same . That prohibits overnight camping on a beachlot. Item D . , the current ordinance does not allow the overnight storage or mooring of watercraft or overnight docking of I watercraft . The proposed ordinance allows overnight mooring or storage of up to five watercraft . The rest of this section regarding storing of items remains the same . Item E. refers to launching on the beachlot . This is mentioned again just because II the way the proposed ordinance is structured . Item F. , the current ordinance requires that a beachlot be 100 feet in width at the ordinary high water mark and landward 100 feet . The proposed ordinance requires 200 feet of lake frontage for a beachlot to have a dock , plus another 200 feet for each additional dock . There is I also an area requirement for a dock and this is that a beachlot must have at least 30 ,000 square feet for the first dock and 20 ,000 square feet for each additional dock . So the proposed beachlot would have to meet both the frontage requirement and II the area requirement in order to have a dock , Items F. and G . remain the same in the proposed ordinance as to the number of units a beachlot can serve . The final item that the proposed ordinance allows and is not included in the existing ordinance is 1 that in areas that are designated as conservation easements shall not be considered '' as part of the beachlot . So that is more restrictive than the existing ordinance . I would now like to review attachment 1112 and highlight the items that are different II 1 mm ll ' Council Meeting, October ]__41985 -10- RESOLUTION #85-60: Councilwoman Watson moved to adoption of a resolution I approving the modified feasibility study for phase I of the South Lotus Lake improvement project . Resolution was seconded by Councilman Geving. The II- following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, 11 Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried . B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL , SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, HERB BLOOMBERG: Mayor Hamilton: I believe there were no substantial changes to this other than II the addition of two lots . Is there any other changes that we should be aware of? ■ Barb Dacy : No. Wes Arseth : On the angle of the turn on Hill Street , it seems more abrupt now to where the changes are made . I am concerned about the snow plowing and things of that nature. I don 't know if that is possible. II Bill Monk : Mr. Bloomberg wants to attach a 9 garage to that existing residence . By doing that and even getting a minimum setback , the offset that is shown has to be I there , but we have been out and looked at it and feel quite confident that we can make that work . We will cut that corner as much as possible . It is workable and I think it will be a improvement over what is there right now . IMayor Hamilton : I think all they are asking for is to round that corner a little bit so it is not quite" as sharp. IIBill Monk : That can be done . Councilman Horn : Why does this plan show the extension of Hill Street still there? III thought that was going to be vacated . Bill Monk : That exists on another piece of property as a right-of-way . The I City will have to go through a separate process to vacate that . We cannot do that as a part of this plat because that property is not a part of the plat . So we will have to go through a vacation proceeding. We will do that after the Hill Street alignment is done . ICouncilman Horn : I have another question . Why is West 77th Street shown on this plat? 1 Barb Dacy : I believe they are just reserving the right-of-way cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac extends into the property . We are just reserving the right-of-way . I Councilman Horn : But this isn 't shaped like the cul-de-sac . It doesn 't show that it exists . I Bill Monk : Because the outside of the edges of the bubble exist by easements . He is just buying the right-of-way out to the road that will be there in the future . The outside edges of the cul-de-sac will continue to exist and be the City ' s by easement . IICouncilman Horn : The one case because it hasn ' t been vacated yet it is shown as it is , but in this case because it is an easement , it is shown as a road . IIBill Monk : The other way to do it is we could have asked them to plat the house , but in essence he would be platting part of the exception and the City would have had to become a part of the plat . It was decided that would not be the way to go . II l Cr`11(E / 7ti7 Council Meeting, Octob 7, 1985 - -11- II Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat for South Lotus Lake , Phase I . II Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, CLIFFORD PEDERSEN : II This item was approved at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore, no Council action is required. I PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CREATING FOUR LOTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED ON PINE CIRCLE, GARY KIRT : Barb Dacy: One recommendation that I would like to point out is that we recommended the lot line be as close to 2.5 acres as possible . Especially in the northwest corner . This lot is shown as 2.4 acres. The surveyor has contacted me and said that -4 it may actually be 2.5 acres when they do the final plat . This represents the recom- mendation of staff and Council . Councilwoman Swenson: I have only one problem there . On the second recommendation II there should be no increased density . In looking at the structure of the lot , it would appear that , from past experience, it is not inconceivable that someone would want to separate one of those in the future . I wonder if we could word this some way so that would encompass the future as to opposed to just now . There should be no increase density at any time . There is always somebody who is looking for some tech- nicality that puts us in a difficult position down the road . I would welcome any suggestions as far wording is concerned . II Councilman Geving: The only concern would be the multiple family unit . They are s.o large and it seems to me that they could be split even further . Councilwoman Swenson : I wasn 't so concered about the apartments as I was about the II actual lots and the subdivision of the lots . Mayor Hamilton : If they want to subdivide it a couple of years down the road that is II something we can 't decide today that they can 't do 20 years from now . Barb Dacy : If somebody does want to plat lot 3 onto lot 2, they do have the right to make that rotation and a future Council could simply base their decision on the fact that the increase in the structure is too intense for the intent of the district itself. The Planning Commission is just trying to say that what is there now is II appropriate and that is it . Councilman Geving: I would like to refer to the City Engineer 's memo of December 5 , II 1984 particularly in terms of the street recommendations. Do you feel strongly about that, Bill? Barb Dacy: That has been implemented on the plat . I Councilman Geving: How about the private wells and septic systems? Bill Monk : There will be no change with that either because of the present zoning II i-- and the utility availability . Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan II request #84-2 for Ches-Mar Farms including rezoning to P-1, Planned Residential Development based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 ." Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor: Mayor II Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried . II 1_1 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 II Jr- Final Plan Amendment Proposal to Replat Outlot C of the South Lotus Lake ' Addition into 14 Single Family Lots and one Outlot for 14 Multiple Family Units instead of the Originally Intended 28 Townhouse Units, West of and Adjacent to TH 101, Herb Bloomberg. *Note: At this point a tape malfunction occurred presentation by Barbara Dacy. during Staff's ' Barbara Dacy:...parking spaces and dumpster location, and as you can tel there is more than enough room to meet the setbacks, etc. With the revised ' plan amendment, there are four or five double frontage lots that are created between the cul-de-sac and South Shore Drive. Recommendation is that access to these lots be gained from the cul-de-sac and that the landscape strip be maintained in this area to provide somewhat of a buffer between the street and those houses. There is a concern raised by one of the neighboring residents regarding buffering between the public park and private property and so on. This is an overhead transparency of the ' original landscaping plan that applicant submitted. It is very busy this particular shot, but basically what Staff is recommending is that in essence, this concept be retained. That there be landscaping adjacent to TH 101 and adjacent to the park boundary and a revised landscaping plan be ' submitted to reflect the lot layout, etc. and show continuation of the screening between South Shore Drive and the proposed single family lots. If Council is to approve the final plan amendment tonight, there are four I recommendations. Cne, as I eluded to earlier, access for Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. Secondly, the landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area ' along the double frontage lots. Landscaping along TH 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. Third, utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. Finally, a detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the ' City, Watershed District and DNR. Councilwoman Watson: We increased the size of those 14 lots and we ' decreased the size of the outlot and we decreased the number of units on the outlot. It just seems like that is going to be a little scrunched in there if you ask me. The outlot is decreasing but the units aren't. ' Barbara Dacy: That is why Staff went back and tried to determine whether or not a 14 unit building or buildings could be accommodated, built to setback standards and meet parking standards, etc. , and it can be done. Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm trying to visualize the single family lots, which are not large lots, but they are single family lots. Then over here we stick this little area, and it is going to be very high density, ' suddenly sitting on the end of this street is going to be this, the rest of it is going to be single family and we are going to have this one little pocket of quite high density housing and I guess I can't visualize in my mind how that is all going to work out. I don't think visually I find that very appealing and I don't know if it is compatible in such a little area stuck right on TAI 101 there. I guess I just think the density of that 9 r T t� a � City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 outlot is too 0o high. There just can't be that many units within that. I don't think the density of the other part is low but I certainly think that the density within that outlot is pretty high because 14 units, to make them look anything like they match the rest of that neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the attached housing theory but I think that is way too many units for that 66,000 square feet. I'm not just wild about the 12,000 square foot lots, frankly. There are some big lot in here which always raises the average so that it looks better than it really is because you take a couple lots that are large. We've got a lot up here, for instance that is 48,000 square feet. Councilman Horn: Those are all previously approved. We are just talking about the center issue tonight. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that, I really do, I am just trying to see if this little center area, the single family part isn't that big but you try to put 14 units on this 66,000 square feet, I think the density is too high. Councilman Horn: The tradeoff was the previous proposal and that was to have smaller single family lots and have a larger outlot. I think this concept makes more sense because typically, you put the larger size with the single family and here we are putting the smaller lot on the multiple family so, between the two tradeoffs I prefer this alternative. With regard to the lot sizes, I think the minimums are compatible with what has already been approved and in fact, there is one at 11,400 on the previously approved portion so I guess I don't see a problem with this. Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, on this Staff Update, is that up-to-date? Barbara Dacy: Yes, after the Planning Commission meeting. Councilwoman Swenson: For the 9.3, is the units per acre on the reduced , outlot size? Barbara Dacy: Right, 14 units divided by 1.5 acres whereas before it was almost two acres so it would have been 7. Councilwoman Swenson: Of course, it is no secret that I completely concur with the lot sizes. I would much prefer them larger and I don't like to see 10,000 square foot lots but as Councilman Horn has pointed out, that is not the point for tonight. I just want to confirm my total agreement with Councilwoman Watson that I also disagree with that. I have a couple of concerns with that apartment building. One being that it is a rapid switch from apartments to single family. We have always tried to have a more transitory development with maybe apartment houses, then townhouses, then maybe single family. I can't remember a time when we have gone abruptly from an apartment complex. That proposed change down in Chanhassen Hills actually sets aside. It is really not quite the same because this is right on top of the street. 1 10 i City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Barbara Dacy: In the Chanhassen Hills case, the area for the multiple ' family was at the intersection of TH 101 and there was a new street and there were 8 single family lots across the street from that area. Again, that situation and this situation is similar in that you are approving the number of units. The applicant at this point, is indicating that it may ' come to this type of development pattern or it may be a singular building but the issue is whether or not the multiple family area is appropriate at that location for 14 units. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we required then to accept the designation of the outlot now or can that be done when the developer comes back for approval of development on that outlot? Don Ashworth: Did you address that issue with the Attorney? ' Barbara Dacy: The issue that I asked the Attorney was whether or not the Council could, through the plan amendment, actually reduce the number of units that have previously approved and Mr. Knutson's response back was that the Council in 1985 established that 57 units was an appropriate ' density and number at that particular location. I guess if you wanted to make your motion to approve the 14 single family lots and development plans on the outlot would be resubmitted at a later date with no specific ' direction as to the number of units could be possible. Councilwoman Watson: Do we have an opportunity to ever change that number? Councilwo I man Swenson: When it comes back, does it come back as a new proposal or does it come still as a portion of this one? ' Councilwoman Watson: Where we have to take the 14 units regardless? Barbara Dacy: It would be part of the PUD proposal because it is part of the 57 originally approved. Councilwoman Swenson: So we have a 14 unit development on there whether we accept it now or whether we accept it when they come in for a proposal. Barbara Dacy: I guess what I am suggesting gg g is that if you want to review it and make a specific condition that it go through the Planning Commission ' and Council at time of development to assess the impact of 14 units. A separate review process. ' Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that was what I was thinking of today, maybe wait and see because by that time it is reasonable to suspect that the development pment will be developed and we will be able to tell whether an apartment complex of that size will be incongruous with what is there. I think it is a little difficult looking at a vacant piece of property. It seems that this setting up on TH 101 being higher also that the single family's are going to be, may make it seem like a towering building but I think we can conjecture what it might look like. It is going to be a lot easier I think for Council to decide whether or not this is an acceptable application after the development has progressed to a farther extent. Does that seem ' 11 Off 1' City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 reasonable to you? Councilman Horn: I can envision it being a single story unit. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, what specifically are these units that we are talking about, these 14 units? , Brad Johnson, representing Herb Bloomberg: What we tried to do since the Planning Commission meeting the last time, was to adjust for the various problems or questions that were raised by the neighborhood, even to the point of catching Judy before the meeting to see if she would go along maybe with what it is. I believe it is correct that you approved 57 units in the PUD. One of the things that we are trying to deal with here is that it was not a specific project. We didn't know exactly what was going to go in that over a period of time. Councilwoman Swenson: Wait a minute. I don't think I can ' We have a plat here that is approved so don't tell us we don't what e approved. Brad Johnson: Okay, what we are coming back with, let me just explain why we are coming back. We are saying you have approved 57, 28 units and strictly from a market point of view, todays world, the next couple of years, single family homes, lots will sell in Chanhassen. There is a question as of whether we could attract a developer of townhomes at this time in that type of project. That is basically why the change was made. The second reason was, after a couple of us had looked at the this, Herb said why don't you do it this way because it would be a nicer subdivision when it is all done because you would have single familys. You have some fairly expensive lots down along the lake and we are going to abut that with fairly high density townhomes, so we came back but the problem we are having is that this road, South Shore Road is already in so you have to deal with that situation. We've got some very large lots on the other side where we can steal land from if you are going to start this whole process all over. The Planning Commission was concerned about the size of the lots because they said they were approving things over 12,000 square feet but anything under 12,000 they had not approved or just did not feel good about so we adjusted the size of the lots in the POD up to the 12,000 and that is what the Planning Commission said so that is why that adjustment was made. The second concern was why don't you exit onto the street here and the real reason there is that there is a 14 foot drop from Lot 9 down to South Shore Drive and that just is not a good way to come into a parcel, so that is why it exits that way. The City, Barb has suggested and Herb has agreed, that we landscape this section here so now we are down to dealing with the outlot. As Judy says, this just keeps changing. Now, as I understand a POD, when we get into the final multiple unit, and tell me if I'm right or not Barb that we put on that property, don't you actually when it gets into a multiple, approve the unit design also? Barbara Dacy: qhe design of the building? Brad Johnson: Yes, in some cases we are actually having to do that. 12 mg /- r k IICity Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 I Councilwoman Swenson: Architectural design approval. We haven't done it recently but we used to do it. Brad Johnson: We are doing it some places so that is why I asked the i question. Barbara Dacy: In the past, for example in the Chan Hills development, II there has been a specific number of units assigned to an outlot but there were no specific development plans at that time. Brad Johnson: What we did then is said it is a little confusing, this is a I transitional area. Okay, there's no doubt about that and I think a lot of people envision the apartment buildings to the east and just plotting one on that particular parcel. As Herb said, it would be very difficult for I him to sell those lots and then plat a big blob of a building on there and not deal with the transition. So what we did is we drew up over here an example of a transitional development which is basically cluster homes of II fours and twos. When you drive into the area you will see a two family located here, and these would be for rental, they are not big scale units in square footage. Chanhassen needs some smaller rentals with garages other than houses so what we have here is a concept. There would be a two I family home with attached garages, then four units with attached garages here, here and here. Now that was just one example of how you could lay that out to solve this transitional problem which we all agree exists. You II leave a lot of open spaces, there is no outside parking and it looks somewhat residential and in scale, some of the homes in this area will probably be as big as these four units when they are all done because these will be maybe in the area of around 1,600 to 2,000 square feet of living space 1 plus the garages and these would be in the area of 3,200 square feet of living area plus the garages so they are not overly big and they would II normally be two stories. Probably not splits, probably not full basements. That is how you build them for rental rather than real expensive for sale. That is just an example and then there is also a requirement that is part of this development that we have to put in a walkway to the parks which I again takes away something. These are all concessions that have happen over a long period of time trying to get this plot together, but that is the idea. I talked with Judy before the meeting because she is in the neighborhood and is concerned and it seems to me that the process that we I could agree upon, and I guess we would just as soon not have the 14 units taken away at this time by directive, and as long as Herb owns the land and maybe there is some way to do it, we agreed we would start with the I neighborhood the next time around so that they could have their input then come back to the Planning Commission for full approval for whatever would go on there. I would say there are probably two, in todays world of I development, two things that could happen to this site. One would be something like this or even a little less, a little more scattered than this is or the other one is a little senior project that we keep talking about which would be more of a group home or something like that. More of a 14 unit house basically is what it would look like. I think that might 'f be too small and Chanhassen still doesn't have enou h of probably the only kind of building you could justify g der people bet in that is that kind of a scale. 14 unit apartment buildings,1 u II 12 unit apartment II 13 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 buildings just aren't built even on those big of sites. They just aren't economics so he may end up subdividing this off into four lots with three fours and a two. I guess it is a matter of proving that the site plan would work at the time we come in for approval and we all appreciate what you said Carol, but this is the kind of transition we envision. We don't envision a big apartment building and I think at the last meeting, I don't think anybody really explained that. If you can put it in Barb, we agree that we have to come back through for approval. Councilwoman Watson: Would you have trouble with our holding off on the actual design of that outlot? Brad Johnson: The outlot has to be there. Councilwoman Watson: I understand the outlot has to be there but the 14 units there.. Councilwoman Swenson: I still feel when they come to develop that outlot, that what we would like to do would be to have full site approval and design approval and the whole bit at the time. Brad Johnson: I think that is fair. We talked about that with Judy this morning or just now, I think you agree, that is what we would like to do because that is how that should happen. We would just as soon not lose the right to the 14 though if we can show we can put them on the site and we think that is a fair transition but this is the last of a fairly cumbersome thing and one of the things that we will promise to do is start with the neighbors so the people will have a better chance of feeling out what the look would be. Normally in this kind of thing we would probably come in with an elevation so you have a fairly good feeling of how it would look and look at it from one direction. Herb's problem is that if he doesn't do that he isn't going to sell those lots backing onto there and he understands the partical part of that. Councilwoman Swenson: I would just have one comment. I have no problem with the number of lots but I would still like to reserve specifics, if we can legally, on that 14 units until we see how the rest of the development shapes up. Brad Johnson: I think that is a legal questions more than. . . Councilwoman Swenson: Agreed, but in any event I wouldn't want to see you go through the whole cycle over. - , Brad Johnson: We are assuming that is exactly what would happen. Jack Melby: I guess I had one question. Lots 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 it 11 looks like, are those all multiple family units? Barbara Dacy: Those were the previously approved townhomes. 1 14 11 �L 7 k 1 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Ir- Councilwoman Swenson: The only amendment to the original plan now concerns the Block 2 and the outlot. Councilman Horn: I have a question for Barb. Did you say you were recommending some type of a screening between the two rows of single family homes? Barbara Dacy: What I am recommending is being maintained is along TH 101, the park area and along South Shore Drive which goes through the double frontage lots along the edge. On the new plan, the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac are double frontage lots. ICouncilman Horn: So it is because of the double frontage lots? consistent with what you are re Is that questing with other people? I Barbara Dacy: yes, it is a specific requirement of a subdivision ordinance. Jack Melby: I have a question and it relates to this, but I don't know how directly. On June 20, 21 and 22 we had all kinds of water problems with runoff from this development into Lotus Lake. I would simply ask, Bil was involved with this a great deal and I think Don was there that weekend, I that those instances simply be recorded in the public record, the kinds of problems that they had. I have to thank Bill too for responding so quickly. Wish we could have had all those things done before he got there. I There was runoff and I want to thank Bill for responding so quickly.L Barbara Dacy: That is all a matter of public record. IBill Monk: There is a memorandum on file. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the I Final Plan Amendment Request #85-4 for 14 single family lots and one outlot on Outlot C, South Lotus Lake Addition, based on the plan stamped "Received May 28, 1986" instead of the originally proposed 28 townhome units, I reserving any definition or designation of the outlot, development site or density until the new proposed development for that outlot comes in based on the following conditions: I1. Access to Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. II 2. The landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along double frontage lots. Landscaping along T.H. 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. 3. Utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. iI1 4. A detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for + approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. All voted in favor and motion carried.I 15 ' I