Loading...
1a. Final Plat, Colony Point CITYOF -- 1 \ . ; r. CHANHASSEN 1 _ -`°4* .- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 Acton by Cty Admints*rtar MEMORANDUM Endorszd I klodiiied-_ ---- ---- TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �ei�r �---- — Pate 6_./.._X._z. _44_. FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner ''rote S' "''t'`' ' �" DATE: June 22, 1988 tote s...,,... ' _ 1 i SUBJ: Final Plat for Colony Point The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Colony Point IIon June 15 , 1987, with the following conditions: ' 1 . All utility improvements shall conform to city standards and shall be constructed along Lotus Court. 2 . The applicant will be required to construct the cul-de-sac connection to Frontier Trail, including the portion on city 1 property. 3 . Outlot A shall accommodate a driveway easement for access to 1 the existing home to the north of the outlot. 4 . Lotus Court shall be a private street and the City Engineer 1 shall approve of the proposed street standards. 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure- , ties as a part of this agreement for completion of the impro- vements as noted. 1 6 . Location of the home on Lot 3 shall be done in such a manner to direct stormwater runoff in a non-erosive manner and proper erosion control measures shall be taken during construction. 1 7 . A grading and erosion control plan for street and utility construction shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to Ifinal plat approval. The submitted final plat is consistent with the approved prelimi- II nary plat. Outlot A was designated for a driveway easement and the applicant must still provide a separate driveway easement document for Outlot A. 1 a Mr. Don Ashworth June 22, 1988 Page 2 ' RECOMMENDATION , Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the final plat for Colony Point 1 stamped "Received June 13, 1988" , with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure- ties as a part of this agreement for completion of the impro- vements as noted. 2 . Location of the home on Lot 3 shall be done in such a manner to direct stormwater runoff in a non-erosive manner and proper erosion control measures shall be taken during construction. 3 . The applicant shall provide a separate driveway easement document for Outlot A. ATTACHMENTS 1 . City Council minutes dated June 15 , 1987 . ' 2 . Final plat stamped "Received June 13 , 1988" . i 1 1 I 1 I I 172 II ' City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 II i 1 with the 150, that's more consistent with what exists now on West 96th Street. [- ICouncilman Geving: If that proposal goes through then we've got 25 feet between the west house line and the proposed lot line. 25 feet rather than some additional feet. 1 i Jo Ann Olsen: 8 was if you split it right down the middle of the property. IICouncilman Geving: I wouldn't go for that but 25 feet is reasonable. In any event we're still going to get the jog. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request I #87-4 with 150 and 180 feet of street frontage with the following conditions: 1. A driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 1 for access to II Lot 2. 2. The applicant shall provide an on-site individual sewer system. IIAll voted in favor and motion carried. II REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.5 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7423-7425 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS COURT SUBDIVISION, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. II Mayor Hamilton: It think it's important to point out on this, if you don't already know it, that it seems unusual for me to say that we're subdividing into five single family lots when three of them already exist. I think basically there is one lot that is being requested to be divided so that two Ihomes can be built on it. It's not five families there. There are three families there that agreed on doing this but it's not really a subdivision of five new lots. tCouncilman Johnson: It's taking four existing lots and changing the lot lines on three of those lots in order to make five lots. Three of the lots are going Ito change. Councilman Geving: It seems to me Mr. Mayor that the reason this was tabled II the last time is we asked the City Engineer to go back and look at the sewer and water situation. Where those hook-ups were and come back to us with a recommendation. Also, there was a question on the possible Lot 12 drainage potential there. The run-off from the proposed lot onto Lot 12 and some other II factors. As I understand it now you've had a chance to meet Gary with the developers and the neighborhood and have come up with some new information, is that correct? In terms of where those stubs are into Frontier Trail? IIGary Warren: I think to summarize the current memo, we're getting various opinions and that's really what it is. The best guess right now as to where they are and the other aspect that we were addressing is even if we knew where [m. II they were, the best information would still show that we have a need to upsize the sewer to probably service the number of lots and also the watermain. Especially when we're taking two homes off of one service, that's what he II 20 _ -- >li�1�i: 173 II City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 proposed so that really is the heart of the issue as far as upgrading those utilities access. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's the one aspect but how about the second one? The impact on Lot 12? Potential impact if we do any grading? Gary Warren: As far as erosion? ' Councilman Geving: Erosion control. Gary Warren: There is very little drainage from what I could observe that really is going off in that direction. There is a minor drainage swale to the northeast but it's not a large run-off area by any means. I Councilman Geving: I would like to make this statement on this particular subject. I did have a chance, as I'm sure most of you did during the last week to go down there and take a look at that present drivway. I don't think the driveway is going to change. Either if we put it in as a City standard street or the developers rework it and use it as a private drive. There is quite an incline there. The more I looked at it the more I think I realize that there really isn't any need for curb and gutter. I just can't see that in an area where there isn't anything else down there. We're talking about a street that's not very well improved in it's present state and yet to require these people to put in city standard curb and gutter, I've changed my opinion on that after really looking at that and studying it. I personally would like to back off from that. Secondly, looking at the incline and what may happen in the future, these people have not come to us as a Council and petitioned for any of these improvements and for that reason I would like to think of it in terms of a private drive and let them maintain it. I believe that if we were to run our city plows up there for snowplowing and whatever, it would be more of a hassle and a problem than it would be worth and in that regard I think those two issues, as far as I'm concerned are the way I see it. That should be made as a private drive and let them maintain it and let's let them forget about the curbing and gutter and city standards on the driveway. That's all I have to say about it. = Councilman Johnson: Some of our comments last time were on hardship and I showing a hardship. I believe Staff here has done a good job in our packet. They've gone through items 1 through 4 again showing and explaining each point of hardship in here. I think the hardship points are justified in that we are making a very nice improvement to the area. An area with it's topography and the woods and everything being preserved in there, that a hardship is justified for this to allow the variances that are being requested. I wanted to get that into the Minutes to help us in future times as we go for other variances. We've got to make sure that we always cover this hardship very well. Staff did an excellent job here. Additionally, I'm still concerned during construction of the street, construction of the sewer lines, etc. about erosion going downhill and then basically taking a left and heading over to 1-: Lotus Lake. I would like to make it a condition of approval, number 7 added on here that Grading and erosion control plans for street and utility construction be submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer prior to award of the development contract so that we make sure that even though this is a small 21 1 174 I City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 operation, there is going to be a lot of grading for that street in the circle and a lot of digging for the sewer. I want to protect that drainage through Lot 12 as much as I can. Mayor Hamilton: I understand your concern about the street and putting in the ' street and the sewer and water. If there is any run-off from there, before it gets to Lotus Lake, it's going to have to go about a quarter of a mile almost down around a couple of bends with every opportunity to go into the already ' filter basin in there, the rip-rap or down the road. I'm not sure that any run-off from that street could ever reach the lake for one thing. ' Councilman Johnson: If their erosion control plans show that, then that's their Grading and Erosion Control plan. If our engineer believes, I'm leaving it up to the Engineer's discretion actually. If he believes that some haybales are required to be tossed in someplace. We're not talking major expense to toss a couple of haybales outside the development. I Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I just wanted to be sure that you were aware of ' ' how far it had to go. It's a long piece. Did you have any other conditions? Councilman Johnson: No, I just wanted to emphasis that there is a hardship in my opinion and continue to try and protect Lotus Lake the best we can. _ tCouncilman Horn: I had specifically asked for Staff to review to see if there was a greater intensification of the existing Conditional Use Permit on Lot ' 12. They hinted that there would be additional usage on that but they didn't come right out and tell me that there would have to be a re-evaluation of that conditional use permit. ' Barbara Dacy: The original one issued was a grandfathered beachlot so the homeowners association rules basically apply. ' Councilman Horn: That's correct but at that time that that stipulation was made and those were grandfathered in, the uses that were in place at the time they were grandfathered in were to be recorded and any further intensification of those uses would be put under a conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: To be honest we would have to go back and check the survey that ' was done in 1981. There was a survey done of all the beachlots at that time and recorded docks and boats and so on. We can go back and verify. We completely forgot about that. ' Councilman Johnson: So we would like to put that as condition 8? Councilman Horn: I believe we need an evaluation of whether the use has ' intensified and see if a conditional use permit is required. Barbara Dacy: We can bring that back on the next agenda. [mm Councilman Boyt: First, I think the neighbors who pulled this together are to be congratulated on coming together to try and clear up a mess. I'm not convinced it's possible. The reason I'm not is when I look at Staff's • 22 F 1'7 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 1 response to is this a hardship, unlike Jay, I don't think they did a very good job. I think that anything could be a hardship under this. They are saying, and I guess I need more detail than what I read. If I'm to believe that it is a hardship, you're telling me that the things, and parts of it I can see better than other parts. I can see where maybe the way the lot lines are drawn is one fairly minor matter because at the building site, which I think we clarified is the intent of the ordinance, there is 90 feet. So that particular one I can live with. But I think the major stumbling block here is not the size of the lots but it's whether or not we're going to give a variance to put a private drive in when our ordinances says that there are going to be lots back there accessing a private drive. Barbara Dacy: So your concern is a hardship for the variance to install the private street? Councilman Boyt: A private street rather than a public street and do you 1 feel that these responses address that variance? Barbara Dacy: Our responses only address the lot width issues and not the private street issue. The private street issue is addressed by the City Manager's memorandum. Councilman Boyt: Don, do you remember how you addressed that private street ' issue? Don Ashworth: Yes, what I did was reference the number of projects that we have had around the community where there has been a desire to insure that municipal sewer and water services were provided to a group of homes while in each of those instances there was not either adequate right-of-way or a strong desire to have those as a municipal street. Pleasantview Cove, Pleasantview Court, Teton, Ridge Road are all examples of private streets that serve anywhere from 3 to 6 homes and in each of those instances, the City Council, when faced with the question of whether or not it was desirous of having the utilties improved to service those homes, did in fact allow those to remain as private streets. Councilman Boyt: What you're telling me is that we have in fact given ' variances to the private drive, public street ordinance in the past in each of these instances? Don Ashworth: The question of variance did not arise on those other instances. In each of those, the homes or lots were in place. The question was solely one of whether or not the road would be required to be brought up to a public road standard. Most cases they could not but the City Council did approve allowing them to remain as a private street. We obtained the easements necessary to put in sewer and water. There were no additional lots created in that process as I can recall on any of those streets. Councilman Boyt: Now Gary, are you aware of private drives in the urban area that service 3, 4, 5 houses? Gary Warren: Teton is in the urban area. 23 176 City Council Meeting - June , 1987 Councilman Boyt: And that services 15 how many houses? ' Don Ashworth: All of the examples I gave were in the urban area. They were all completed as an initial position of trying to insure that sewer and water was adequately brought to those parcels. Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that possibly we need to change the private drive part of the ordinance. That if we don't need to change that, then we need to demonstrate that there is in fact a hardship here and that ' i hasn't been addressed by Staff. ;j Councilman Johnson: I talked this over with Staff earlier and there are shared driveways we have an ordinance on. When you share a driveway with 3 other people accessing a street. This is a private street which is separate than a shared driveway. i1Councilman Boyt: I believe the ordinance says there are no private streets i allowed. Barbara Dacy: That's the issue that the Council is dealing with. Whether or not to grant that. Another example is the Bluff Creek subdivision. That proposed street entering that subdivision is a private street and Council authorized a private street to be installed in that case. You are in essence looking for a variance to install a private street rather than a public street. ' Councilman Johnson: I have to agree with Bill in that case if there is a variance involved. I was of the understanding that there wasn't a variance involved here and that private streets were authorized but if they are not ' authorized by our ordinance than we would have to provide hardship again on the private street issue and the hardship only addresses the lot width I believe. ' Barbara Dacy: I guess if you wanted to consider the Manager's comments as reasons or basis. If you don't agree there is a need for a private street, then it has to be installed to public standards. Don Ashworth: I don't think I stated my point very well. In each of the previous cases the City Council's decision to allow a private street only ' occurred because the homes already existed in those instances. An exception there would be Bluff Creek and that was during a period of time where the City Council made a conscious decision to allow that to be a private street but in ' each of the other instances, the streets were put in because there was not adequate right-of-way or other factors which did not allow for the public street so Pleasantview Cove and Pleasantview Court, etc. were each of the homes were there. We allowed those to be private streets because the homes ' were already there. Mayor Hamilton: This is the same situation. The homes are already there. ' Councilman Boyt: But we're creating another lot which will have a home on it that is not there now. We're creating a situation. If they were not creating ' 24 , 177 II City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 17 1 a lot than this could be a private drive accessed by three houses and it is currently. In creating a lot, what they are asking for is either the ability to have a private street, which requires a variance, or the ability to have four houses on a private drive and that requires a variance. I would like to get them out of here and on their way. My concern is that I really feel we need to be consistent and we need to demonstrate a hardship if we're going to grant a variance. That's my point. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have absolutely no problem with having a private drive there. Those houses have been there for quite some time and I don't have a problem granting a variance to them. It's cleaning up the situation in a small neighborhood that is of a great benefit to the City in my opinion. I guess I just don't get so terribly hung up on showing an absolutely, specific hardship. Variances are part of an overall ordinance and it's a process that is there to be used and I think here is a grand opportunity to use that to accomplish a good for the community. Roger, do you have any comments on this? The legalities of it? - Roger Knutson: I apologize. The og packet did not reach me until I arrived here this evening so I have not read this report. To grant a variance you have to find a hardship. I don't know enough or anything about the facts to know whether there is or is not a hardship. Don referred to something about not having enough right-of-way for a public street. If that is the case, then that's sufficient. Mayor Hamilton: Has there been a legal definition of what a hardship is? I think everybody may have their own definition of that. Certainly somewhere along the line some court must have decided what in fact it is. Roger Knutson: State Statutes define it, the courts have defined it from time to time. It's easy to tell you it's already been decided. It's harder to apply the law to individual sets of facts. Economics alone are not a hardship. You have to show that something is unique about the property that allows you that. If you do not grant the variance... Barbara Dacy: Can I clarify one thing for the Council? I ran up and got the II survey that was done on June 4, 1981. It cites that the number of dwelling units to be served by this beachlot is 35. At the time and/or the date this survey was taken, it didn't record any docks or boats moored at that location so I think we just have to assume that any number of lots beyond the 35 would be an intensification. Councilman Horn: Or if there were docks or boats moored? ' Barbara Dacy: Depending on what kind of a year it was in 1981, they may not have installed the dock yet at that point. They could have gone out a month after and there could be 50 boats there. Councilman Horn: There's one other thing I would like clarified too. I would like to get a map of what Auditor's Subdivision #2 consists of because I think of what we do with beachlots. We confine it to a particular neighborhood cluster. If you look at the addresses that are represented on i 25 178 I . City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 this, they are scattered across three or four different streets which to me is ' not what I feel is the intent of the beachlot and I would like clarification on what Auditor's Subdivision #2 represents. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Gary a question. We commented last week about ' replacing the sewer because it's a 4 inch sewer and you thought 8 inch would be more adequate or something. ' Gary Warren: 8 inches is the accepted minimum standard for maintenance. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so I'm still curious when you have six homes using a 4 inch service does that mean that there is not going to be anybody else on ' there? Assuming there are six homes using it. It seems like an 8 inch might be rather excessive. ' Gary Warren: Again, it's from the ability to access the sewer line with full guage cleaning equipment. 8 inches is the minimum standard that we put in for connecting. The cost difference in the pipe since it's a plastic pipe is ' minimal. Councilman Geving: The developer has agreed to do that. Mayor Hamilton: Right, I just wanted to ask that question. It seems kind of ludicrous to have an 8 inch pipe to serve 6 homes. Councilman Geving: It's bringing it up to city standards though. ' Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request #87-22 of 3.15 acres into five single family lots on 7423-7425 Frontier Trail with the following conditions: 1. All utility improvements shall conform to city standards and shall be constructed along Lotus Court. 2. The applicant will be required to construct the cul-de-sac connection ' to Frontier Trail, including the portion on City property. 3. Outlot A shall accommodate a driveway easement for access to the existing home to the north of the outlot. 4. Lotus Court shall be a private street and the City Engineer shall approve of the proposed street standards. ' 5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement ' for completion of the improvements as noted. 6. Location of the home on Lot 3 shall be done in such a manner to direct storm water runoff in a non-erosive manner and proper erosion control measures shall be taken during construction. 26 179 II City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 � 7. Grading and erosion control plans for street and utility construction shall be submitted to City Engineer prior to submittal of development contract. ' Councilman Geving, Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Horn voted in favor and Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Councilman Boyt: I just want to make the point one more time that a hardship has not been shown and I think we're in jeopardy when we don't take the time ' to show a hardship. Councilman Johnson: Again, I'm making my opposition only on hardship for the street. I think with a little work we can show the hardship on the street. Hopefully, we'll go ahead and do that so we don't set a future precedent. Councilman Boyt: Would you be able to put together some sort of hardship on the street? Barbara Dacy: As part of the findings for approval, is it possible that the basis for the approval of the private street could be incorporated into the Minutes specifying the reasons why they approved the private street? Roger Knutson: We can look at it and bring it back if you would like. Mayor Hamilton: That wasn't part of the motion but you can do it as something on the side if you want to. Councilman Horn: I think it's important in situations like this that the Council doesn't get an opportunity to review these before we have to make a decision. It's very uncomfortable to be in that situation. SADDLEBROOK FIRST ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. ' Jo Ann Olsen: We are recommending approval of the final plat. It meets with what was approved in the preliminary plat. The only problem that we pointed - II out was that Lot 11, Block 7, the structure would be within that 75 foot wetland setback and they would have to go through the variance process. Rick Murray: I think Jo Ann has done very well in the Staff Report. She does say in here Lot 11 would only need a variance if we decided to build a 50 foot home on it. There are a lot of other style homes that can possibly be built on a lot situation. When and if you want to discuss the wetlands, I got a real problem with that being called a wetland but I guess we've been over with Staff several times to make sure that all the numbers of lots in that area. Although we feel the true wetland is actually down around the fence line. ' 1—: Councilman Geving: Does it show on our wetland map? Rick Murray: Yes, it does. It's a Type I. It's uncontrolled by the DNR but it does show. To be honest with you, I sat on the wetlands committee. When 27 '