The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Preliminary Plat for Five Single Family Lots, Minnewashta Pkwy ............ 1 ... CITY OF . . - ■ -.:A . CHANHASSEN 1 , , . \\ " 690 COULTE • OX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM Actinr, ;.;:y adminktr^tar ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Etriorsetl— "_ u"° IFROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner r4..-.#` _-.� DATE: April 8 , 1988 i.a= .,<.`:" " '` ;,,'' 1 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat for Five Single Family Lots l'` Schwaba-Winchell _. P4/_/ ____ 1 BACKGROUND The City Council deleted the acceptance of findings of fact for I denial for the Schwaba-4Vinchell subdivision from the March 14 , 1988 , meeting at the request of the applicants . The applicants have submitted a revised plat in an attempt to address some of the Council' s concerns . IANALYSIS I Now proposed are five lots to be served by a proposed public street. All of the lots meet the minimum 15, 000 square foot lot area requirement and lot width and lot depth requirement. I Lot 1 has road frontage both on Minnewashta Parkway and a small flag strip abutting the proposed cul-de-sac. Access would be gained to Lot 1 through the flag lot strip. The setbacks for Lot 1 would be the front and rear setback of 30 feet would be I observed Minnewashta Parkway and along the east lot line. Adequate buildable area does remain on the lot for a split level or a rambler house pad; however, the developer should be made I aware that it will be up to the homeowner to construct a home that no variances are necessary. RECOMMENDATION I The City Council has the followin g options :tions : a t- approve, deny or refer the plat back to the Planning Commission . IStaff recommends that the City Council approve the revised preli- minary plat stamped "Received April 4 , 1988" subject to the Ifollowing conditions : 1 . The accessory building on Lot 3 should be removed. 1 2 . The nine conditions recommended in the Engineering memoran- dums dated April 7, 1988 , and January 14, 1988. I Mr. Don Ashworth I April 8 , 1988 Page 2 1 ATTACHMENTS I 1 . Memo from Larry Brown dated April 7 , 1988 , and January 14, 1988 . 2 . City Council minutes dated February 22 , 1988 . 3 . Revised preliminary plat stamped "Received April 4 , 1988" . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i . , 1 ., ' CITY OF .,•A CHANHASSEN' , , . I . „ , r / ,. , - �\ " 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager j' I FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer /-. . IDATE: April 7 , 1988 SUBJ: Schwaba-Winchell Preliminary Plat Review, Update to January 4 , 1988 Memorandum, Planning File No. 88-1 1 Subdivision. I The revised preliminary plat adequately addresses the engineering concerns as stated in my January 14 memo ( included in this report) . 1 Although is is desirable to have Lot 1, Block 1 access the existing driveway to the north, the neighbors have expressed their dissatisfaction of this idea. In light of this we find the Iplan acceptable. The applicant has provided for a 50 ft. right-of-way which is I consistent with the City standards for urban construction. The proposed cul-de-sac shall be constructed to City standards for urban construction. In addition, all private accesses shall be serviced from the internal cul-de-sac. No access onto IMinnewashta Parkway shall be allowed. It is therefore recommended that the preliminary plat for I Schwaba-Winchell dated "Revised March 17 , 1988" , be approved with the eight conditions stated in my previous memo dated January 14 , 1988, along with the following: 1 9 . All private accesses shall be served by the internal cul-de- sac. No private accesses shall be allowed onto Minnewashta Parkway. I IATTACHMENTS: Memo dated January 14 , 1988 I 1 J 1 CITY OF 1- CHANHASSEN JO 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 • MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineered' 1 DATE: January -14,14, 1988 SUBJ: Schwaba-Winchell Preliminary Plan Approval Planning File 88-1 Subdivision 1 The site is located adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway approximately # mile north. of Highway 5 (refer to Attachment #1) . The 2 . 2 acre site is comprised of open field with steep side slopes on the west side of- the property. Sanitary Sewer 1 Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from four sewer services which are stubbed out to the property line. Since the number of proposed lots exceeds the number of existing services , a few lots will be required to share services. Water 1 Municipal water service is available to the site by four water services which also have been stubbed out to the property boun- dary. Water services will also have to be shared as no construc- tion will be allowed on Minnewashta Parkway. Driveways 1 The plans indicate that two driveways are to access Minnewashta Parkway. The northerly driveway possesses adequate site 1 distance. The southerly driveway has an obstructed view to the south. Corrective grading of the berm along the northwest side of Lot 4 , Block 1 will be required to improve these site distan- ces. Removalsof the oak tree at the north property corner may be required dependent upon the success of the corrective grading. Drainage 1 The natural drainage pattern is characterized by overland sheet flow with the high point existing on the west half of Lot 3 , 1 11 IF Planning Commission ' January 14 , 1988 Page 2 ' Block 1 . The drainage flows radially outward from this point. The plans do not propose any major changes to the existing drainage pattern. A 15-inch diameter culvert will be required underneath the northerly proposed driveway for Lots 1 and 2 . Grading and Erosion Control ' An acceptable grading drainage and erosion control plan will need to be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Recommended Conditions ' 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties . 2 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the watershed district, DNR and other appropriate regulatory ' agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 3 . Construction on Lake Minnewashta Parkway shall be prohibited. 4 . Lots that are required to share a singular sanitary sewer service will be required to provide a 6-inch cleanout on each branch of the service located between the house and the wye ( refer to Attachment #2) . 5 . Lots required to share a singular water stub will be required to provide a curb at the wye and on each branch of the wye ( refer to Attachment #3 ) . 6 . An acceptable grading plan shall be provided by the developer ' for the corrective sight distance grading of Lots 4 and 5 prior to the issuance of building permits . 7 . A 15-inch diameter culvert will be required underneath the northerly proposed driveway. 8 . A grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each lot will be required as part of the building permit application process . Attachments : 1 . Map 2 . Sanitary Sewer Service 3 . Water Service 4 . Plans I 1 J y Iit ,t,k fG P - • e I s' //Z /_��_ao/ _ '7l 4. ' �S //v65 1 I �\ c....\ , , , -.... k 41 . . , / :------_-,-_-•g__ --/ , .:- , \. ....i,../ �' ,� Ira ''" ,c• ' Ql a / i \ 1 I/ I _ - \,7 , ,/ 9ni1ti/„7 // .� 4\1 dal°�/. / /,'w / 01n / N.• 1 it; - 'N .,1%., a �� ! '¢r.ie ��'�/ ! i ......../...�' f L '- N. .4%0 0•„12 /� 1N) � �r '\ (� �. /i 1.,4 j' / /�\ f a ■ I / 6—. . ....---4',,C;.....s.._.-- /4" ,..))/(1 , ,,,7-••••• /. Z , 9,•/, ` \ �\ ` 4 1 f"' / 'C I I .1N, I N \\\\\ / ''.'"4C:10\°-,', I 11 ' \ c) -5' a i6. / ' 4; , -.). , , ' i I I 1 IN "c. ''''r, .\" A • ' / 6 " cz_Eisc.isi-o tYr- Aku(- -:- 4)ity:I.ilillif„mi, rdit, fg:-; ' / tatve,14.G. MAW ----„ - WyMil ,? ., I 1 1 t •V . ,gio- .tdi■ •46.,p I' ' ; , it 1 \ l \ kA\ ' . R �. I \ 1 ' ' i\ -1.,C1 \6. �p°Q�5 FX/ST"N4 ,SEWED ScRV/Cc i t , \\ n,� o/ �/ x', I 1 \c �. CLEAA1-our 1 L • ` Z16 '/6 . qt. \ , - •1 9�GZ�( - TYPICaL I 4 ' .3E"RV/CL •,ETA/t_.- /s, r ,i 1 ,--)7.-7-,. - _4. ,"' ,'! • ; ' !'G, r A 7AC tM fN7' 2 - .jANITi*12 v s Eu-442.• I ( - t- - tpr;_ic.-'it, -- • r- . { . • , . .41„ OE',/C)0 6 Fii S *4 /6t vy I - i . / N. • / G\ ' 1 ti I _ ' . tti n ' III IL -Pj / Mss �\ \N \ i AA X� ! // / i 'row' �; f . / / °•� 81 ��1:I ' / 9N/ls/rJ •, I `�---- :`.\ 0 ��1/i A'bg i. j/, j�� / I. �; ;) i a '�Z/�� bra 4,v / / ' . 6J low 1 �—o ■g -��, ,_ .4 (IV yr'en„ ,�,, ... �‘...,--\ / • h1 I��. =� _ - - ', �� • ��.,j `_ • / 4, 11 X3 / '��t.,,,. . . - s a\ 11 �� , 6. 8 �,s `_ _,, d , , ,� / , ....1X-7.--- I! \ 1 1 \ .\ , \\',N,l\, \ \' a \\\ ,e:p , ^^4 , CURB 8 6); /I I l �4 , A aaVE o l � �/A/f /tE11 0 4ier}/ `1 ,/ P�ob/INN \\\\ I I 1 ,I.N ,,,,, 4 I - �t,t 1 N -6,- oe-.. ,.: ' il ,( i 1 \\ \� !';` ___ Cu .BOX 3 v I R8' f ( TURAIL"..42 (:)1St ..... 49E LC Vt/) { ! \ i \IV\\\ .° :\ *' \\ ' ,I , 1(//S I•46- ll \ \ ' \ 6 ' -,1`?.°431 I �, ` CURB sox '_ t `` '` Il ‘';')/r-/,'• ``- ABOVE A'/N/SNE/7 \ 1 T LII6 \ 6, i/6f6� C �ADcJ \ , / / • ' - I •T YP/C/s,(..• WA T - 1 .S eI4.✓/C C l''' ''i ; I , / ' ic', AntA d#itic��r 3 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 °J 5. The applicant shall II pp provide a detailed grading and erosion control plan 1 for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. 6. The applicant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sand beach II is installed. All voted in favor and motion carried. II Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as I possible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and I'd be happy to work with you on it also. If you don't want to request it, I will. I think it's something we should be reviewing and getting on with. I Robert Pierce: I'll call them tomorrow. SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, II SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS. II Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The parcel is II outlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Commission discussion focused on two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if Iyou will. One was lot size and the second one was access and that could be I divided into three issues. Driveways versus an internal street. Potential II 1— variance request and third, the maple tree that's located in the property. I'd like to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single family zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. I There are a number of adjacent property owners in the area that were requesting that the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so that the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more comparable to the lot II sizes existing in the area. The Planning Commission discussed this at length and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion, there was no action taken on this particular item. However, the Council should be aware that the proposal does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning ' Ordinance. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as required by the Zoning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their properties or some time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided, II the same requirements would be imposed. Councilman Hoyt: How big are those lots? II Barbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre and a half in size and maybe some of the property owners are here and could verify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was I whether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto • Minnewashta Parkway which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector. We asked the City Attorney to respond to that issue discussed by II the Planning Commission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence his opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access from "individual lots" meaning if there were 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be prohibited. However, since the proposed driveways are shared, that does not I II I City Council Meeting February 22, 1988 II constitute direct access onto these lots. To answer that question, the variance request to the ordinance is not necessary as proposed by the applicants to share a driveway. The other issue was whether or not there should be two shared driveways or creation of an internal street. The I applicant went back and prepared a sketch plan of a lot pattern of the area if it were to be served by an internal street. We would still potentially have the possibility of getting 5 lots from this proposed lot pattern, however, Lot 1 at the top here would need a lot depth requirement and secondly, it would I need a variance for a flag lot. As to the engineering issues and traffic issues, regarding an internal street versus driveway accesses, whenever you can minimize conflict points along a major collector such as Minnewashta Parkway, I that is a desirable objective. In this option, you do eliminate one driveway access. It should be noted that the proposed street is located in roughly the same location as the driveway as proposed for the southerly shared driveway between Lot 3 and Lot 4 in the first ro II p posal. There was considerable concern about whether or not the maple tree, located along the proposed lot line of Lot 4 would have to be removed. The Engineering Department has provided recommendations that despite the driveway being located there or the internal I street, that a grading plan should be submitted to address the sight distance in that area. Specifically, at least 180 feet of sight distance should be achieved. If you like, Larry Brown, the Assistant Engineer to address those I issues in more detail, he can do so. In any case, the Planning Commission's motion was a tied motion so in essense they took no formal action on the request and passed this item to the Council with their noted concerns. As far as the traffic issues are concerned, staff's recommendation would be that the k II internal street option does minimize conflict points and is a more desirable street pattern. However, the Council should be aware that that does dictate [ _ some lot layout problems for Lot 1. Finally, if the Council is to approve this 1 proposed option, with the internal street, it is recommended that the plat be revised and sent back to the Planning Commission so the full street and utility detail can be worked out on this option. If the other option, if the Council I chooses to act on, the application as proposed, either approve it as presented and staff sincludedasomewrecommended You can conditions or secondly, you can deny the application for 5 lots and 2 shared driveways. Would you like Larry to address anything further on the street Iversus the driveway? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think we should see that, unless nobody wants to. IICouncilman Geving: The only thing I was concerned about, can we save the maple tree under your plan? Do you have information on that? Secondly, I think I I recall a very deep drainage ditch that runs along the road right about at that point. Right near the road bed. I think that still exists there and the water comes across from Lake St. Joe. That's somewhere in that vicinity. t- IGary Warren: No, that's further north. It's kind of a high spot. Councilman Geving: Okay, then I guess the only issue is the tree for me. IILarry Brown: The issue of the tree, we went out and took some measurements. Some minor modifications may be possible around the tree. It's a very touchy 6 area whether they can achieve the 180 foot sight distance without removing the II tree. There is one smaller tree around it that may be removed that might improve the situation but again, it's so tight that it's going to have to be II City Council_Meeting - February 22, 1988 field , verified. Councilman Geving: Is this a public safety issue or is it an engineering ' issue? Larry Brown: It's a traffic engineering issue guided by the standards from , Minnesota Department of Transportation, you must obtain 180 feet of sight distance. Due to the conditions of the curve located just south of that property, I did bump the engineering estimate down to 30 mph as the posted 11 speed would be 35 mph. Mayor Hamilton: Is the developer here? Do you have any comments you would like to make? Ellie Schwaba: As far as the tree is concerned, our intention was never to take down the tree. I live in the neighborhood myself on Red Cedar Point and I love that tree and I walk by there and we're going to do everything in our power to keep that tree there. As far as the subdivision itself is concerned, when we originally worked with our surveyor, he put together a subdivision that we felt would comply with all the ordinances which consisted of a lot size requirement of 15,000 feet. Mr. Knutson's interpretation of the access to the road, which we feel we concur with. All the requirements for the setbacks and the depth of the lots. We feel that we comply with all those ordinances so we would prefer to go with our original plan based on the fact that it does comply in every way that we can see. There are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is, if we have to put in a cul-de-sac, we are incurring an extraordinary amount of additional costs as well as bringing the sewer up into that cul-de-sac. It would increase the cost of the lots and then we feel it becomes prohibitive because of the price we're paying for the property, with these additional costs, would make it very difficult for us to proceed in a logical manner. So we feel like we'd like to proceed with the original plan that we brought in to you based on the fact that it does concur with the Ordinance. Marilyn Larson: We live just directly close by there and I feel that five lots would be a very crowded situation. I do agree with it would be much better to have it more in line with some of the other areas in the area. It just seems very crowded and it's just a matter of preference living close or right next to it that it would just seem like houses right on top of each other. Kind of houses right on top of us too. So that's just where we're at. Jim Borchart: I live directly east of the property. In your Zoning, under purposes, it says to protect commercial, industrial and institution areas from an intrusion of incompatible uses. When you have homes surrounding that all in excess of 1 acre, when you get to one-third acre lots, I don't feel that's a compatible use. Also, Lot 1 on there, I can not find, when I read your ordinance, I can't find the 150 foot depth. I read it and I've had other people read it. I believe it's Lot 4 does not have enough roadway frontage. Also, Mr. Heatherington and I have measured. There are no stakes on the property and we come up with the fact that the existing house that's left does not meet, it depends upon which way you're measuring up because of the lines, either sideyard or frontyard setbacks. We come up with it needs 3 variances L. with the existing plan there. The other plan we have not had enough time to analyze. ' I f 4` '! !r V r� City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 II Jerry Barber: I'd like to comment too. I live in the same area. ' I don't think it's compatible. That's my concern is that I've made a huge investment I and I would like to see whatever is decided here to be compatible with that. I think that's fair. If these people want to use that property and divide it up similar to the useage that the rest of are using, then I think that makes Isense. If not, then I think it should be looked at. Earl Heatherington: I own the property that goes around the east and north end I of the Fisher property. I'm just going to ask you Councilmembers a question, did you happen to receive a copy of the letter that I wrote? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it's in the packet. IIEarl Heaterington: I felt strongly enough about this issue that I came back from Ft. Meyers, Florida Saturday to be here tonight. I don't take it lightly II that an obvious attempt is being made on the 2.19 acres of the Fisher property to cut it up into oblique lots in an obvious mercenary attempt to make money. The 15,000 square feet may or may not be right relative to the developer's request but I think it goes beyond that. They may be found to meeting the I minimum requirements but are we going to judge what happens to people's lives, the places that they live, are we going to allow a mercenary attempt to cut up a piece of property into strange looking lots just because it meets the I ordinance and gives them the go ahead to build buildings on those lots? I don't think so. According to my friend Mr. Borchart who lives next door, someone in the City mentioned that, well if we don't give them the ability to I go ahead and build, they'll sue us if they meet the minimum requirement. I say that's fine. Let them sue. I think we're going to have to stand up for what we know to be right and if the consequences are a lawsuit, so be it. This isn't right. Five lots on that property is too many lots. If you gentlemen I would take the time to go out and look at it personally and pace it off and look at it, you would see that I'm correct in that assessment. I hope you'll read my letter. It's written with good gentlemenly intent. I have no II objection to the people using the property but I think it should be used in a way that's compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. If it isn't, what we're doing here is a sham. Thank you. IMayor Hamilton: Anyone else? Okay, Bill you had a question of the neighbors. Councilman Boyt: I do and Mr. Heaterington may be the person to answer it. I II gather that at the Planning Commission the developers were asked to contact the neighbors about a possible road access and apparently they're attempts to do that were rebuffed. I hear you saying you would like to have larger lots in I spite of the City ordinances limited ability to give you that and yet you're unwilling to talk to them about something they could use to maybe get something t- you could use. IJim Borchart: Could I reply to that? Councilman Boyt: If you're one of the neighbors. IJim Borchart: Yes. The cul-de-sac would come within 10 feet of my front door. I have a very large house. A very nice house. I just finished it. My taxes [:: II are staggering. How would you feel about it? Under the law, you would have to buy my entire property. Are you willing to spend that kind of money to have II City Council.Meeting - February 22; 1988 1 these five lots in there? Councilman Boyt: I'm not the developer and I happen to agree with you that it , is unfortunate when 15,000 square foot lots directly abut upon larger lots. Having gone through that in the last year, I know first hand how you probably feel. Unfortunately, the ordinance is written in 15,000 square foot lots. As with the gentleman earlier this evening, the proper approach is probably to change the ordinance if we don't like it but once the ordinance is written, that's really what we have to live with. As far as other comments on this particular item, I don't like the accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. I think that anybody that thinks the traffic goes 30 mph on Minnewashta Parkway hasn't been out there. Larry, if we're doing our estimates on required distances by 30 mph speed limit, we're asking for future trouble. Even though our Attorney says that this manages to meet the intent of our limited access onto a major arterial, I don't believe it does. It may meet the letter of the law, but it surely doesn't meet the spirit of the law. I would add to that the further opinion that proposal 6 with the cul-de-sac and the long flag lot looks impossible to me. If the person who owned the long flag lot driveway wanted to go north, they would virtually have to make a U-turn to get onto Minnewashta Parkway. To do that is certainly inappropriate. I feel that the safety considerations involved with this development necessitate that it have fewer lots and a better access system. Those are my comments. Councilman Horn: My question is to the Attorney. Do we have any basis to deny this request if we feel that there may be a safety issue or that it isn't compatible with the neighborhood or we feel that it's allowing too many accesses onto a major collector? Elliott Knetsch: Yes, those are all concerns that are legitimately addressed in the review of subdivisions. Councilman Horn: So they don't have to require a variance for us to have legitimate reasons to deny it? 1 Elliott Knetsch: That's right. Councilman Horn: It seems to me that there's another alternative here that we , haven't seen and that is to put a cul-de-sac with four lots. I'm very concerned about the number of accesses onto the road. We've continually sat here as a body and complained about the number of accesses Eden Prairie has put on TH 101 and we've been always conscience about eliminating as many accesses as we can. I would strongly support having one access from any subdivision. I don't know if this not being a PUD limits our right to do that but I think in all cases, we have to try and minimize that number. I do feel that this is incompatible with the area. I don't know how far we can push that but it appears to me that if we had 4 lots instead of 5, we'd solve all the problems. It would make it more compatible even though it isn't still up to the standards of the neighborhood. It would also give us a good roadway system with a good cul-de-sac and one access. Councilman Geving: Is it possible Clark that you could describe how that four L lot configuration would look? Could we have you do that Barb? Councilman Horn: If you look at the lot, and just eliminate the flag. „a a;-). City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 II Councilman Geving: Did this ever come up at the Planning Commission? Either a I:- proposal or a suggestion. Barbara Dacy: This option was generated by the Planning Cannission discussion. 1 Three of the Commissioners felt that there should be an internal street. After the Commission action, we asked the applicant to put together a sketch plan. If it were to be four lots, I think what you would have to see is a I rearrangement of the lot lines something like this. This lot would probably be removed and the lot lines reconfigured to have four lots. Maybe for ease for tonight, you could just imagine it without that. 1 Councilman Geving: And the average size of the lots would go up to what? Barbara Dacy: You would be redistributing about 18,000 square feet over the 4 Ilots so each lot would probably increase 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Councilman Geving: Could I ask the Attorney? I'd like to know from the II Attorney's opinion, if what Clark is proposing here would stand up in the basis of Findings? That this is based on safety considerations, one access onto Lake Minnewashta Parkway for example. Give us your opinion on this particular item. I Elliott Knetsch: I guess that's one thing that can be looked at. I think that's a very legitimate point and a strong consideration when you look at a subdivision on a street like Minnewashta. So that in conjunction with other II findings could very well support what you may do. In addition, you can get back to the driveway access and Roger has indicated that a Court may not, or I guess he says probably would not be upheld but you just don't know those II things. There certainly are legitimate arguments to be made that the kind of shared access is not the true intent of this ordinance and it really does say that that kind of group access is not allowed so I think that things are not always real clear cut and I think that the Council has already identified all IIthe issues of concern. It's difficult to say how a Court would react to it. Councilman Geving: Barbara, if we were to act on this tonight as a I recommendations from the Council to go with a configuration something like is being described here with four lots and a cul-de-sac which was not the request obviously, it's a revised request, then you're saying this would go back to the Planning Commission with our recommendation and they would rework it? Barbara Dacy: Right. Staff's recommendation was that the Council motion would read that the plat be revised to reflect four lots, creation of a street and IIprepare a plat based on that and have that reviewed by the Planning Commission. Councilman Boyt: I would propose Dale that maybe rather than do that, although I that may be where we're heading, is to send this to the Attorney for a clear definition of what we are in fact capable of doing. I agree with the direction but we're cutting some new ground here and I'd like to know how firm it is. II Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have the same concerns as the others. I think it's in compatible with the neighborhood specifically. Anytime you're putting on [E: more drives onto Minnewashta, I certainly have a concern for that particular II area. I _ City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 jr- Elliott Knetsch: We could certainly look at that and give that opinion if 1 necessary. I might suggest we ask the applicant if they have any objection to II the proposed revision of going back before the Planning Commission. Ellie Schwaba: We're on a time schedule as most developers are and we'll... A couple of things of consideration for us is one, the purchase price we're II paying for the property prohibits us doing a cul-de-sac and having four lots. When we originally met with the Planning Department, our intention was to comply with the ordinances and we feel, based on the 15,000+ square feet on II each of these lots, we are complying with these ordinances. Kevin Winchell: And they said that we did comply with all the lots from the very start. Their recommendations from the planning department right away was ' to approve our original plans the way they are. We're adding one additional drive is all that we're adding. There is already a driveway there. We've been told by the City Attorney, from his letter in the packet, we're not in II violation of the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anybody is saying that you're violating the II ordinance. I haven't heard anybody say that. • Ellie Schwaba: We're not asking for a variance. We're not asking for any variances. 1 Kevin Winchell: Then why do we have to study it more? Mayor Hamilton: You haven't been listening to the concerns we have then I 1 guess. Kevin Winchell: I have been listening to them. II Mayor Hamilton: Then you should be aware of why we have some concerns and why we think it should be looked at further. It's not compatible with the II neighborhood. We do have entrances onto Minnewashta that we're concerned about and we also feel, based on what I'm hearing, that the Council would prefer to see a cul-de-sac in there in some way rather than the way you're proposing it. II Councilman Horn: If you read the Planning Commission Minutes, they recommended exactly the same thing. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to respond Barb to the comments that were made? II Barbara Dacy: The Planning staff's original recommendation was for approval for the original plan to the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission II meeting, that's when the discussion came up about the private driveways versus the internal street. Again, back to the applicant, the issue here is more of II the safety issue of two shared driveways versus one internal street and the applicant has a couple of options. I think the Council has asked them their time schedule for going back to the Planning Commission on a revised plat. The other option the applicant could request that the Council act on the proposed application. Would that be correct? II Elliott Knetsch: That's correct. II II L City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 1 Barbara Dacy: If I'm interpretting the Council's comments, they are asking you ' what you would like the Council to act on this evening. [- Councilman Boyt: While you're thinking about that, if I read the Minutes correctly, the Planning Commission recommended denial. ' Mayor Hamilton: It was a tie. Councilman Boyt: Which means it fails. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. The motion was to deny however, and it tied. The motion was made to deny it and it was a tie vote so the motion to deny failed. Councilman Boyt: Thank you for clarifying that. Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask the City Engineer, if the cul-de-sac were to be built, would it be built at the urban standards? Gary Warren: Unless Council chose otherwise we would enforce our standard urban section. Councilman Geving: And what's the size of that cul-de-sac? 60 feet? Gary Warren: 50 foot radius. 28 foot wide back to back. Councilman Geving: Surmountable concrete curb? Okay. 1 Ellie Schwaba: We calculated it out, based on our five lot printer with the cul-de-sac and without the cul-de-sac and the total square foot differential of the lots and that difference was 12,000 square feet but we would be lessening the size of the lots by putting in the cul-de-sac. The neighbors are concerned about the size of the lots but we're reducing that by making a cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: We're not getting the question answered that we're looking ' for. Councilman Geving: I don't think I was so concerned about increasing the size ' of the lot as I was looking at the safety issue of the one access on the parkway. Even though there's a trade-off in the amount of land that would be given up to create the cul-de-sac, we would still meet the requirements of 15,000 square foot minimums on the other four. Isn't that correct Barbara? ' Barbara Dacy: Right. ' Councilman Geving: So we meet the standard. We meet the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Elliott could state again, or Bill, to the developers the options that we're looking for more clearly. We're asking them how they want to proceed. Perhaps you could restate that. Elliott Knetsch: Your options here tonight is to ask the Council to vote on ' your subdivision as proposed. They would either vote to approve or deny. The other option which I think, apparently the sense of the Council would be that • City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 you go back to the Planning Commission with a reconfiguration or further study of the internal traffic option and what are the public safety issues of access onto Minnewashta. So, it's really in the applicant's hands. You can ask the Council to vote tonight or you could agree to go back before the Planning Commission and then back to the Council. Ellie Schwaba: There was another option mentioned earlier about having the 1 City Attorney review the ordinance again. Elliott Knetsch: I guess that review, if the Council's inclined to make a decision or if you ask then to make their decision tonight, it would be more of a sense of the Council in that they would direct staff to prepare findings consistent with either approval or denial depending on which way they go. Once they've given us that direction or staff, our office would prepare a specific Findings. The Council would have their reasons to support their position on paper in front of them and they could then determine whether, the decision wouldn't actually be made until they had those Findings in front of then. That would entail review by the City Attorney's office and other staff. .Ellie Schwaba: So there would be no decision made tonight from the City? Elliott Knetsch: Well, you'd get a sense of which direction they're going to though by what they direct staff to do but they won't be bound by that decision because they're not actually making it tonight. It would be made at the next Council meeting. Mayor Hamilton: The motion would be made to approve or deny it based on the Findings of Fact. That would be the motion. Somebody is going to propose a motion to either approve it or deny it based on the Findings of Fact by the staff and the City Attorney's office. That would then come back to the Council at another meeting for us to review again and to reaffirm our vote either to deny or approve. What would your choice be? I guess we're giving you an opportunity here to take part in the decision. We need to move on. 1 Kevin Winchell: I guess we would probably have you decide on the Findings of Fact and at the next Council meeting to vote on it according to what that Findings of Fact would say. , Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the Subdivision Request #88-1 subsequent to Findings of Fact by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and motion carried. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of the adjacent property owners, could I just make a clarification? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Barbara Dacy: Lot 1, the question about the lot depth, the Council has changed the lot depth requirement from 150 to 125 feet. Lot 1 as proposed did meet that. The other concern was the 90 feet. It's easily overlooked but that Lot 4 did have 90 feet. There was 8 1/2 feet that is on the plan so that lot does have 90 feet. There were some other concerns about setbacks and the plat not ' - 1 I .4, ;._ ` City Council Meeting - February 22; 1988 II showing those. The survey that we have on file in our office does show the II- II setbacks and their proposed building pad did meet all those setbacks. I just wanted that clarified for them. IIEXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Barbara Dacy: I talked to the applicant before the meeting and they would I request that the motion, if approved, that the time would be April 1, 1988. Supposedly the owner of the Murphy Building has given than until April 1st. ICouncilman Geving: April 1, 1989? Barbara Dacy: 1988. ICouncilman Geving: I was going to give you a year's extension. Roy Swander: The landlord has given us his approval to stay until April 1. I However, we're finding difficulty finding a building to accomodate our size within the area, in our price range and for possibly one year. It's very possible, as things look now, that we could be in a building within a year on I our own property. We've had preliminary approval from a bonding company to provide the financing. We're exploring the different designs and contractors to build and all those terrible details but provided that we have nothing that would stop us over the coarse of the year, it looks possible that a building I could be erected on this site and we could be in that building within a year. So it's been mentioned that the City has some vacant buildings that we might be able to occupy for temporary period of time. IIMayor Hamilton: Once the Lutheran Church moves out of the old St. Hubert's church, that will be empty but that won't be until over a year probably or this fall. You were looking for property at one time up on TH 41 or did you Ipurchase the property or something? Roy Swander: We have a contract for 10 acres there that we've signed. IIMayor Hamilton: So you're still pursuing that. I just thought that might not have fallen through. IRoy Swander: We have purchased that property on a Contract for Deed and the bonding program would include the property and so on. I Councilman Geving: I'm confused by your extension request though. When I looked at this, I immediately said well, we'll just grant them another year and I know that's impractical because Murphy doesn't want you there for a year I but give us a period of time in which we can extend this that would be reasonable. Mayor Hamilton: Realistic time so you don't have to come back. IICouncilman Geving: Realistic so this is the end of it. If you say 6 weeks or 67 2 months or 6 months. 1 Roy Swander: To be in Mr. Murphy's building? 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 .9. I Lomeli 1 1 1