1b. Final Plat, Chan Hills 3rd Addition 3 ( v
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM TWA-
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner U 531 , E
' DATE: May 3 , 1989 f.
SUBJ: Final Plat Approval , Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition - --- �� -.s-._-
The City Council approved the preliminary plat and planned unit
development for Chanhassen Hills on June 16 , 1986 . The first
' addition of the plat was approved on October 6 , 1986 and the
second addition was approved on October 5 , 1987 . The third addi-
tion of Chanhassen Hills contains 76 lots and is consistent with
' the approved preliminary plat.
Recommendation
' It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat
stamped "Received April 28 , 1989" with the following condition:
1 . Execution of a development contract and submission of the
necessary financial security.
' Attachments
1. Approved preliminary plat.
2 . City Council minutes dated June 16 , 1986
3 . City Council minutes dated October 35 , 1987.
4 . Final plat dated April 28 , 1989 .
1
Mil
MN NM 1111iii-rilliiii-M1-111111V-M--.111.- 1111111 MN MN NM MO IIM NM I= NM I=
AREAS LEGEND
SINGLE FAMILY 674 ACRES / --
PARK 7.8 -----ACRES --- LAKE SUSAN
intiltl.*es c.
...
OPEN SPACE 22.4 ACRES * wn,�
MULTIPLE FAMILY 6.6 ACRES �"�
TOTAL AREA 124.2 ACRES 1
DENSRES
7--
SINGLE FAMILY ISO UNITS \ /
MULTI PLE FAMILY 62 UNITS ..TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 222 UNITS 1'
SINGLE FAMILY DENSITY 2.04 UNITS/ALRE SY ACE /
MULTIPLE FAMILY DENSITY 6 UNITS/ACRE °
OVERALL DENSITY 1.67 UNITS/ACRE -,'roo.- CFE"I / s� `� f
ZONING
EXISTING ZONING p_1 / 12 �;`
PROPOSED ZONING P-1 p — f /
q p0 � (�
l /J!
s f t P, ° PGVt e t e .i' N , '
'/N....N. /
)111‘, .. F
• 0�r, 1 6 \a • LAKE 5 VSp ' Z \, \ ,sue _�� \ J
6 + P \7.. s' \
A t ....'s- .<<C../.,
.,. DRIVE w 'L. . )P. 'g — / / �
/ ,/
.K\ ..
`\��, I W / * .5 I o /,� SUSAN COUR '. I ,. . i .,/ L, i 1 . .....• __ , ../ •N a;, \ 92 \.a I •C 1 I n , ` 1�• a %. •
\\ \ s °/ / DRIVE E
\4H ∎\ `, O4? • •./ P PARK ° , / �'
N.\&- I t' ` / J* \ LAKE SUSAN CIRCLE. SOUTH ' ' /// `4" �N
\' , ,\
N. *i'' .� *./ / / - - --- a o MULTIPLE j
\ \ �/ '/ ,, a , s, , s / I.
r_ / ;4'‘.Z' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FUTURE HWY. 212 � �
\ RECEIVED
1 a �\� // /
.° % \�\ _ -- ----- - - --/ ___� MAY 1986
\ \\ ; // -� CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
1 n�°� &
MOLINARO ASSOCIATES J
MERITOR DEV. CORP. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1
Chanhassen Hills '
's"' 46 OLS ROAD WOO W.60TH ST.SUITE 120D AND
MNEMOUS,A61 6sM71
LIGHTING PLAN 4
a0• 11
-..
4: ,
r
t J y i
IIChanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
persons and to property in the minimum amount for each occurrence
I for each year of $1,000,000.00 for public liability and endorsed
to show the City of Chanhassen as an additional insured.
I 3. That the Public Safety Direction make an assessment at year end of
the Water Obstacle Course and its use and report its findings to
the City Council.
IAll voted in favor and motion carried.
Meritor Corporation, Chanhassen Hills.
Ia. Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
b. Preliminary and Final development Plan to Subdivide 124 Acres into
I 180 Single Family Lots, a 6.5 Acre Multiple Family area and to
create 7.8 acres of park land.
II c. Land Use Plan Amendment to-Redesignate 20 Acres of Medium Density
Residential to Low Density Residential; to Redesignate 6.5 Acres
of Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and to
II Redesginte 7.8 Acres of Low Density Residential to Parks and Open
Space.
d. Wetland Alteration Permit to Alter Existing Wetlands for Drainage
I Purposes and Single Family Home Sites on Property Zoned P-1,
= Planned Residential Development.
IIDacy: What I would like to do, members of the Council, is to briefly run
through the proposals, the development plan itself and briefly review the
II request and end the presentation with a discussion on the EAW and the City
Engineer also has additional comments as well. The Council considered the
sketch plan for this proposed PUD, I believe it was April 7, 1986. The
II plan that you see before you is consistent to that plan that you reviewed
before with the inclusive of a couple changes that was recommended by the
Council. First one was the inclusion of the riparian lots along
Lake Susan with the reservation that the City would retain a walkway
I easement and secondly that the park area be expanded. The sketch plan
consideration was around five acres, now has been increased to 7.8 acres.
The proposal consists of 180 single family lots and 52 multiple family lots
II proposed to be constructed over a 3-5 year period. The project is divided
into five phases. Primarily the first phase would start in the northern
part of the site and would proceed in the southwest fashion with phase 5
being the seven single family lots on the east side of TH 101 in the multi
II family area. As you can tell, the site is bounded on the west by
significant wetlands. A Class A wetland exists roughly along the boundary
line of the property and is surrounded by Class B wetlands between the A
and the rear of the proposed lots. From the south property bounded by
-4 Lyman Blvd., on the east TH 101 and as you know, the proposed alignment of
TH 212 and the one they have shown is consistent with the most recent
IIalignment considered by MnDot. Quickly to run through the density of the
25
II
mil
a
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 ,
project and lot sizes. The gross density of the entire PUD is 1.87 units
per acre and the net density is 2.95 units per acre. The single family
portion only has a net density of 2.49 and a gross of 2.05. These density
ranges are consistent with the guidelines in the comprehensive plan. Lot
sizes from smallest to largest range from 11,200 to 150,195 square feet.
That is the lots adjacent to Lake Susan. The median lot size is 14,466
square feet and the average is 17,415 square feet. Approximatley 130 of
the lots are 80 feet in width or greater. The remaining 50, a majority of
those are along cul-de-sacs and have a lot width of between 65 and 80 feet
which is typical and has been approved in the past by the City. The lot
layout is characterised by the largest lots adjacent to the lake, around
the perimeter of the development, along the west and on Lyman Blvd. along
TH 212 and TH 101. The smallest lots are contained in the center of the
development. The lot pattern is consistent with our standards for tiering
for PUD's. Just a minor note, there are four lots however in Block 4,
adjacent to the wetlands area that are just shy by about 400 square feet of
15,000 square feet. These lots have to be increased, or we are
recommending that they be increased_to the 15,000 square foot lot size.
The Lot in Block 4, Lots 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18. They are 600 feet low.
Councilman Horn: What about Lots 27 through 31?
Dacy: Those are beyond the 200 foot radius of the lot area. As I
mentioned earlier with the creation of the three riparian lots along Lake
Susan, as you recall from the topography of the area, from the lakeshore
there is a steep rise in topography to the rise of the hill. The proposed
Eli
building plans are located at the knoll of this hill. There is a small
wetland at the base of this hill also it has been proposed to be used for
sedimentation phase. Because of the slopes. involved in these areas, Staff
is recommending that detailed grading and erosion control plans be
submitted at time of permit application. Another item, the PUD has
proposed that the middle part of the lots along Lymand Blvd., TH 212 and TH
101, applicant has submitted a landscaping and berming plan which is
included in your packets which proposes a 4-6 foot berm as well as
deciduous and evergreen vegetation. We are recommending that at the time of
final plan inspection that a more detailed landscaping plan be submitted.
The proposed traffic pattern has gone under a tremendous amount of
revisions since the original sketch plan was considered since last fall.
It provides vehicular movement and proposes only one access coming in on
Lyman Blvd. and one on TH 101. The utilities on sewer is located in the
norhteast corner of the site and can be provided to serve the development.
Extension of the water main will have to be provided from the Lake Susan '
Park area south on Powers Blvd.. You also have a memorandum in your packet
from Lori Sietsema regarding the Park and Recreation Commission action on
June 3, 1986 which is basically consistent with their action on April 1, 11 1986 recommending that the Council accept the proposed 7.8 acre parcel
along TH 212 for active park purposes. The wetland area along the west
side of the development. An easement to be located off of Barbara Court to
provide access to the wetland area and pedestrian easement along the south
side of Lake Susan. Further, they recommended that the pavement width of
Lake Susan Drive be increased 4 feet for pedestrian and trail purposes.
The Park Commission recommended that Staff proceed to negotiate with
26 '
1
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
the developer for a reduction in park dedication fees. Briefly I would
f like to go over the Land Use Plan Amendment request. Staff finds that this
proposed request is minor in that the adopted land use plan was merely
trying to be consistent with the proposal for the old Lake Susan Lot Plan at
that time. Basically what we have done is that medium density area will be
removed, the 6.5 acre high density area will be created consistent with the
proposal but then the 8 acre park site will be designated on the plan as
parks and open space. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Land Use Plan Amendment request. Finally, the Planning Commission also
recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan of the
PUD study subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Finally, there was an alteration permit request that goes hand in hand and
one of the major issues that came up during the EAW process. As you all
know, the purpose in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet is to determine
the need for environmental impact statement, is to analyze any potential
significant adverse impacts from a development. City Council is designated
as the RGU in this case. If the Council finds that an EIS isn't necessary,
the scoping period will have to be implemented and the EIS process beyond
that will take three to four months. In the analysis that you have in
your packets, we go through all of the comments that have been received by
phone or by mail from reviewing agencies. The majority of the comments
received stated that there were no adverse impacts. The major issue
regarding the EAW was the effect on water quality and the major comments
came from the Metropolitan Council. Their report is contained in your
1E1 packet and their concerns are the eventual downstream impacts of the storm
sewer runoff from this development through Rice Marsh to the east. What
the applicant has done, Staff and applicant went to the Metropolitan
Council meeting on June 12, 1986. The applicant has submitted additional
I drainage information which is also included in your packet. It has revised
j ponding plan that is also incorporated into- your attachments. Basically
the ponding plan has expanded the proposed sedimentation basins to be
consistent with the recommended capacities by the Metropolitan Council
Staff. The Metropolitan Council Staff is also concerned that a fraction of
the runoff from the eastern portion of the site, it's impact onto Lake
Riley and the additional information that the applicant has submitted shows
II that runoff from the this area has to travel approximately 5,000 feet and
through two significant wetlands areas and wouldn't mitigate any type of
impact. Staff finds that what is being proposed is meeting the
I I requirements of the City, the Watershed District and the Metropolitan
Council in addressing these concerns are trying to mitigate any impacts as
much as possible. Staff is recommending that Council find that an EIS is
I I not necessary. That the Council adopt any recommendations made by any
review agencies as well as adopting the June 4, 1986 ponding plan. At that
point I will switch you over to City Engineer.
II Bill Monk: The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the
northeast corner of the site and will easily handle the proposed
development. Council is fully aware that they initiated a municipal
improvement project to extend trunk water main down south from Lake Susan
park area down to the western portion of the site where we stub into the
_ property and where Staff will be presenting a feasibility study on those
improvements to the Council shortly. As far as traffic goes, the City
II
27
I
a
k.
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
as soon as possible.
Barbara Dacy: Their approval is required as one of the conditions. In
reviewing the file, they have received at least two plans.
Jim Curry: I just want to say that I have dealt with a lot of buyers, I
particularly in Eagan as a lot of you know, and I am thrilled with the
thoroughness that Larry has used here. The expense in the engineering and
the study. Nobody I have dealt with in Eagan has been more thorough and I
am pleased too because I'm a lake nut myself up in paradise northern
Minnesota. The fact that the Staff feels that way, makes me feel very good
because this is a paradise of lakes in this town as I have been listening I
for the last hour about beaches and stuff and I share your concern.
Councilwoman Watson asked if Staff could find out what happened to the
Watershed District, if they do have comments, Council should see them.
Councilwoman Watson: We should use this development as an example of building
along potentially high traffic areas. People will live on those areas,
they can be designed and houses can be made. I think it is an excellent
point that needed to be made. I'm not sure that the pedestrian walkway
along the lake is necessary. You are never going to be able to walk all
the way around the lake and I kind of think those three lots just ought to
have their riparian rights and be done with it. I just don't see that we
are going to gain anything by walking along that little piece of shoreline
and stopping dead in somebody's lap so to my way of thinking that walkway
isn't necessary. It seems that everytime we get into these interiors, we
end up with those little lots and the little 11,200's with their little
skinny fronts all scorn to in the development again and I don't know if that
is just a development hazard or how that happens but it always seems you
get in the interior development and the lots get smaller and skinnier as
you move on. I guess, just for the record, say I'm not thrilled with I
those.
Councilman Geving: I am really pleased with this particular plat and I
would like to advise our planning staff of that fact because I think this
represents the kind of plan for a development that we can market in
Chanhassen. I think that the mix they have come up with in terms of lot
sizes, densities 2.95 net density, I think what they have done with their
cul-de-sac sizes is excellent and I would like to promote this particular
development as the kind of thing that I would like to see continue with
future developments in Chanhassen. I think it has everything I am looking
for as oppposed to some that are currently in the mill, and you know what II
I'm talking about, several that are currently before us can take a lesson
from they are proposing here. On terms of lot size, cul-de-sac size and
the net density, always think in terms of the net density. Overall, I I I
really only have one concern and that is about the amount of water that
would remain in those drainage areas and I want to be sure that it would
drain out of there so it would become a hazard, a safety hazard. If you
are retaining it for a period of time, we are hopefully not going to have 2
or 3 feet of water that is going to be in a ditch area, potentially a
hazardous situation for a young child. Can you assure us of that?
30 ii
J l
7
• 1 -,
1
II
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Larry Frank: I'm not an engineer. We are kind of caught between the
I r proverbial rock and a hard place. Metropolitan Council says they want us
to hold water for a certain period of time and magically when June 1 comes
it is suppose to disappear.
Councilman Geving: What I am talking about though is so that there is at
least shielding. If there is water in there, will be a potential storing of
' water for a period of time, is a depth that could be dangerous, we want to
make sure that it doesn't happen.
Larry Frank: I think none of them will be drop off types, they will be 3 to
' 1, 4 to 1 slope type things but not a drop off situation so when little
children walking don't fall in.
Councilman Geving: I just want to make that point because it is extremely
' important. Another thing, I do agree with Carol on the pedestrian easement
along the south side of the Lake for those riparian homes. I don't see any
reason to keep that walkway personally, but we can discuss that as a
' Council and make that decision later. One thing I would like to do
tonight is add an item (e) to our discussion of this particular plan and
that is to resolve this evening the issue of park dedication fees. I think
' we ought to leave tonight with this thing wrapped up. Jim Curry can go on
home and he knows what our plans are as far as the park dedication fee is
concerned and he won't have to come back again. I would like to discuss
I that later on in the agenda. I do have a question on the phasing of the
development. I note that the park area that we are speaking of is set
aside as 7.8 acres, is scheduled for phase 4 and I feel that is pretty far
down in the development phase. It is possible we will have a number of
residents in this plan and there will be a very park deficient area long
before we get to the point of doing anything with developing that park so I
would like to see us accelerate that phase and at least move it up one
' notch to phase 3 or something. I don't know what your true phases are but
somewhere in there, it is going to take a long time to get to the point
where we can start putting swing sets and things like that in there for the
tot lots so I would like to see us move that up. Is that possible Jim?
Larry Frank: I don't have the phasing plan and preliminary plan so I don't
know right off but when we go into our second phase, our drainage system
' will have to be graded at that time and chances are real good that we are
going to need the drain in on that pond first for spring water. . .
' Councilman Geving: That is why the recommendation that we move that park
phase up to phase 3.
Councilman Horn stated he thought the plan looked good.
' Mayor Hamilton: I hope the Council knows, I want to call it to your
attention that 12% of the lots are under 12,000 square feet, 52% are under
15,000- square feet. I just wanted to make sure that when we review and
I perhaps pass on this one that we remember what we have done with other
developers come in. I know Jim is one of our favorite people out here but
I think we need to treat others the same way we treat Jim. If you look at
31
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 ,
Block 4 you have Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 34, 50 and 51 are rather large lots.
Take those out of the overall picture, which is what was suggested on the
last development we looked at, your average lot size is going to reduce
significantly. I was glad to hear Carol's comment on the Lake Susan
because I don't want the walkway there either. I guess I have been opposed
to creating a walkway someplace that starts no place and ends no place so
there isn't much sense in having it there. Then I just had a question on,
I don't know if it is for Staff or Jim, many times we have looked at this
property and talked about how it was going to develop. We have thought
about the idea of changing the alignment of TH 101. I noticed on the one
map we had there was an almost readable in the small print, a proposed
realignment of TH 101 moving it to the east. What can you tell me about
the possibility of that happening and I would assume the current TH 101
would become one of those streets or you would vacate it.
Jim Curry: You would probably be vacating it at the time. Here is what I
have learned about it. I know that new TH 101, according to Bill here,
says it will not be done until TH 212 is done and TH 212, the earliest it
will be done is 1992 if everything goes on schedule. I have an appointment
with Fred Hoisington Wednesday morning at 9:00 to be brought up to date as
to where he is coming from because obviously if he did anything with that
intersection, a new TH 101 and TH 212, it would involve much of the rest of
that land over there so I will be keeping in touch with that and we will be
knowing that has to be approved before anything else is done with the rest
of the land. I think what you have been going through is excellent. Doing
a real soul searching about what kind of intersection you should have
there. I feel good about it. I saw Fred at the last meeting, Planning
Commission, and I said I would really like to be brought up to date as to
where you are at so I have an appointment to see him. The whole thing is
planned with the time it will take will mean that we won't be over there
until it is very, very right. Hopefully, TH 212 is right because I really
think it is going to happen. But it's not the wilderness so we can work
with it so that is why everything Fred has worked with so far, the
possibilities are on the east side of new TH 212 which isn't included here
at all so I am very aware of what you speak. One of the inspirations I
have, of course, I have a bunch more land south of TH 212. I think it is
35 acres at least, and what happens at that intersection is going to be
very important to what we can do south of there so I'll be with you in
working that out.
Mayor Hamilton: Just to clarify my comments on the smaller lot sizes. I'm
.certainly not opposed to that. I guess I'm the one person on this Council
who has continually been in favor of smaller lots. They seem to sell and I
think that is a good product and if they didn't sell we wouldn't have
developers coming in suggesting 11,200 square feet or 12,000 so I think it
looks like a good project. On the Evaluation of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet to accept the findings of that so we do not have to
go through an EIS.
Dacy: Yes, if you wanted to act on the proposed recommendation on page 7.
32
•
7', '111 ' : .
i ;t
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Council
recommend the "negative declaration"for the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet subject to the revised ponding plan stamped "Received June 4,
1986" and subject to compliance with the comments of the review agencies.
All voted in favor and Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Preliminary
and Final Development Plan Request #85-6 for 180 single family lots and 52
multiple family units based on the plat stmaped "received May 7, 1986" and
the grading and planting plan stamped "Received May 20, 1986" and subject
to the following conditions:
a. Detailed landscaping plans shall be included in the plans and
specifications for lots abutting TH 101 and TH 212 during final
plat review process.
b. Reservation of a trail easement between Lots 23-24, Block 4.
c. Satisfactory completion of the EAW process in compliance with
Environmental Quality Board rules including compliance with
recommended conditions of reviewal agencies.
d. Lot areas in Block 4 (Lots 13-15, 17 and 18) shall be a minimum of
15,000 square feet.
i Ell
11 e. Detailed grading and erosion control plans shall be submitted in
conjunction with the development of Lots 1-3, block 4 including
certification of plans by a registered architect/engineer.
f. All utility and street improvements shall conform with city
standards for urban construction.
il g. Final plat approval shall be withheld until approval of trunk
water extension that will service the development.
!I h. Approval of the final drainage plan by the City, Watershed
District and DNR and compliance with all applicable conditions.
i. Utility and drainage easements comply to accomodate all site
IIimprovements.
j. Lake Susan Drive, the main street going through from Lyman
II Boulevard all the way over to TH 101, be constructed 4 feet wider
than standard residential sections to a width of a driving surface
of 32 feet to better accommodate pedestrian uses.
IIk. The street names shall be reviewed by the Public Safety Director.
IM 1. Lots 20 and 21, block 4, shall be revised to equalize the lot
widths.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
II
33
II .
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess when we worked on this before, I wasn't
aware that this lots were 80 feet wide and I guess I'm not as concerned
with the footage as I am with the width. I'm concerned about the footage I
guess, Tom pointed out that 52% of these lots are under 15,000 square feet
and I guess that scares me a little because it didn't appear to be like
that. I am mostly concerned about these 80 foot frontages and I see on the
four there, the ones the are going to be changed, there is a 73 or
something like that and those I assume will be changed so if you have to
make them 15,000 square feet anyway. I wish there was some way we could
take out a lot in the middle of those and just spread it around to bring it
up at least to 8,500 which is going to be a recommendation of mine that as
a minimum when our new proposed zoning ordinance comes out. Does anyone
else concur. We just had another development that we sent back and said he
had to come up to 8,500 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we did. They had some 7,000 and 7,400 feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: What did we_send them back for? I guess I'm trying
to be consistent with what we have done particularly in view of the fact,
as we have all taken note, that we all know Mr. Curry and we don't want it
to appear that we are bending over backwards for him. I would like to
eliminate, if at all possible, anything under 80 feet in width, if you can
Larry.
Larry Frank: I think the only time it occurs is when there is a curve in
the street, on a cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Swenson: Then back some time, I don't remember who it was,
exception was taken to the fact that the Lake Susan name was used for the
street so frequently creating potential confusion for the Fire Department.
You might want to address that.
Larry Frank: I guess the Fire Department and Police Department, the
comment on that if they want it changed, they can. I find just the
opposite. You are better off, if you are going to have them, have them all
together rather than one on the south side of Lake Susan and on the north
side of Lake Susan. Typically what we try to do is keep the names that are
the similar in the same area and typically that helps for visitors coming
to an area. I would think it would help the Police and Fire Department
also, but if they have problems we will certainly change it.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would recommend that we get a recommendation from
the Chanhassen Police Department.
Councilman Horn: Just to refresh my memory, how does the density compare
on this proposal versus the last one for this area?
Dacy: The original Lake Susan South? I believe it is less dense than the
original proposal.
Councilman Horn: I think one of the criteria we used too when we consider
a property and what it was already approved for versus what we are allowing.
34
k •
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
II [11 Resolution 86-39: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the Land Use Plan Amendment Request #86-1 to redesignate 20 acres
of Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, to redesignate
6.5 acres of Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, and to
' redesignate 7.8 acres of Low Density Residential to Parks/Open Spaces
subject to Metropolitan council approval. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
' Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetlands
Alteration Permit Request #86-1 to alter the wetlands for drainage purposes
subject to final drainage plan approval by the City, Watershed District and
' DNR. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I think at this point it would be appropriate for Lori
to indicate to us what the Park and Recreation Commission had recommended.
If there was any recommendation from them in terms of percentages, etc.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this and
' because they didn't have any figures on appraisals or anything, they didn't
feel they should make a recommendation as to a percentage of reduction fee.
They were very open to a reduction of fees but they felt it should be left
' to the Council or Staff to determine what that amount should be.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve a 500
reduction in park dedication fees per unit and this would not include
I/ credit for the outlot areas. All voted in favor and motion carried.
ill
Councilman Geving: I believe the figures that we have arrived at here
' would mean that, Don and I talked about this, roughly it came in at
$4,700.00 per acre was the estimated amount -and then you would give a
credit of 50o for each unit which leaves us somewhere in the ballpark of
' $50,000.00 for development of the park. I think that was the figure I
originally found based on the number of units that we are talking about
here. We are talking about $450.00 per unit at least for the single family
and it comes in at about $96,000.00 for the total project which would leave
' us close to $50,000.00 for dedication and $50,000.00 for development. To
me that is a fair amount of credit to give to this particular project even
though they are giving us a substantial amount of outlot area and wetland
' area. I do believe that the credit would be right.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Don if that is consistent with what we
have done on others.
' Don Ashworth: Yes it is. The recommendation being made i
g is consistent with
the percentages and allowances, etc. offered on other projects and
' whatever.
Review Petition for Watermain Extension on Chaska Road, Frank Reese.
Bill Monk: The City has reviewed a request for private extension of a
water line. The water main runs along Chaska Road on the south side would
go from the existing terminous just to the northeast of Melody Hill and
35
. 69 1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
1r- OCTOBER 5, 1987
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting
eet�.ng was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann
Olsen, Lori Sietsema, Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve ,
the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss
oil pollution and the Community Education Program, Barbara Dacy needed the
Council to make a motion regarding the Community Development Block Grant
program. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: '\ Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the following cohsent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations: ,
b. Sign Variance Requets to Construct an Entrance Gateway to the 1
Cemetary on West 78th STreet, St. Hubert's Church.
c. Approval of Easement Agreements for NSP Transmission Lines.
.d. Final Plat Approval, Lake Riley Highlands.
e. Resolution #87-104: Resolution Authorizing Assessment for Failing '
Septic System, 6510 Yosemite Avenue, Mark Erlanson.
f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Reduce the Septic and Soil Absorption ,
System Setback from a Wetland from 200 feet to 150 feet, Final
Reading.
g. Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addition, Meritor Development: -
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Approval of Development Contract
3. Approval of Plans and Specifications
h. Resolution #87-105: Accept Utilities in Chanhassen Vista First 1
Addition.
i. Approval of Modification to the CR 17/Kerber Blvd. Trunk Waterin
Assessment Roll. ma
k. Dangerous Animal Ordinance, Approval of Final Reading.
1. Adoption of Appendix E to the Uniform Building Code Requiring
Sprinklers in all New Commercial Construction, Final Reading.
1