The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 06 01CHANHASS~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETI~ JUNE 1, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Barbara Dacy and Jo Ann Olsen APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Oouncilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Council packets and delivery, Oouncilman Geving wanted to discuss the sprinkling ban and Councilman Johnsc~ wanted an update on Westside Baptist Church. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following consent ager~la items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. North Lotus Lake Addition, Herb Blo(mgserg: 1) Resolution %87-5~: Approval of Plans and Specifications 2) Approval of Develolanent Contract b. West Village Heights, Charlie James: 1) Besolution %87-51: Approval of Plans and Specifications c. Approval of Development Contract for Chanhassen Vista 3rd Addition fo Home Energy Check-Up Program, Authorize Chanhassen's Participation in Applicaton for Funding. ge City Council Minutes dated May 11, 1987 City Council Minutes dated May lB, 1987 Planning Co~nission Minutes dated May 13, 1987 All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW OF PARKING PLANS FOR G~RRNWOOD SHORES AND CARVER BEACH PARKS. Mark Koegler: The direction that we received fr~n the Park and Recreation Commission and from the City Park Director was to take a look at two of the park sites, Greenwood Shores and Carver Beach and look at essentially what you would call a phased parking program. The first phase being on an experimenta- tion basi~ A low cost overall approach to see if parking being put back into those parks was workable. If that is proven over the course of this summer, the thinking is we would move into a .second phase probably next year. At that time do a little bit more embellishment to the parking area. Again, assuming City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 it's successful. Let me run through very briefly both of the schemes. I think you're mostly familiar with the Greenwood Shores area. The city lift station down there is a fairly large gravel area. 5here are gates posted, a control entry right not at this point. What we've proposed very simply in Phase 1, there is adequate space right now with the existing gravel base to ad in four parkir~ stalls in that location. Additionally, we have shown a bollard and chain or bollard and cable installation along that portion of the side simply to protect t/he lift station in order to keep that from being blocked off. The expenditure that is involved with that is in the neighborhood of approximately $1,000.00. If for some reason that does not work, it is proven that it is to be removed, all the materials that we've used in the design are salvagable and can he used in other parks so there really is no waste. If the parking in Greenwood Shores proves to be successful, in the 2nd Phase we have looked at kind of a minimal amount of planting. We've done some ornamental, crab apples are on this side to add color interest and to create a little bit of a backdrop and screen from that edge and we've also proposed to expand the bollard and chain system to come around the perimeter of the parking area itself. I'm sure you've noted in your packets the Staff recommendation did include segments of both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The portion of Phase 2 that is being included as a part of the initial construction would be to put an installation of bollards right across the trail entry point here now. That has proven to be a problem with vehicles that are wandering in there that obviously should not be in that area. So the second Phase of the Greenwood Shores, approximately $3,400.00 in cost and again, with the exception of the plantings here that could be transplanted, all materials are removable if at some point in time in the future that is desirable and could be relocated in other parks. Mr. Mayor, I'll defer to you. Do you want to cover Carver Beach very quickly or would you like to focus on this one? Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you cover Carver Beach quickly and then we'll ask questions. Mark Koegler: The same general thinking in the Carver Beach area in terms of the phased approach. In this area right now, I think most of you are familiar with the steps that go down to the park that border on the lake. There is an existing area that's gravel. Approximately in this vicinity there is a grass side of it. Tnere is adequate depth there that in first phase we would come in and put in four parking stalls that would be head in and use the bollard and chains along the sides just simply to define those spaces. We would use some wheel stops across the front and possibly some signs that would indicate that the people should center their vehicles. A very minimal installation. Total cost on that one is about $800.00. If that proves to be successful, the second phase again is somewhat of an embellishment. We're looking at plantings. What we do first of all is we create a couple of planting islands off of either side and we would call for a walkway that would come in and feed from both sides down to the stairway. We've got some Sandy Dogwood and again some Red Splendor Crabs that we're proposing to put in there for color and interest. We would expand then the bollards along this portion just as kind of a safety and a control measure because that is a fairly steep embankment through that portion. The total cost of the second phase improvements of Carver Beach is approximately $2,700.00. ~hat's the proposal then. You have a two tier system. It's a very modest expenditure the first year to see if it City Cbuncil M~ting - June 1, 1987 works. If it works, then you carry it through to tl~ second year. Mayor Hamilton: So what you're saying is the Park and Rec Commission wanted to try this for a year? Is that correct? Mark Koegler: ~hat's my understanding yes. Mayor Hamilton: To see if it works and how will w~ know if it works? Mark Koegler: Presumably it will be monitored by the Park G~mmission, by the City;s police forces and obviously I'm sure by the neighbors. Mayor Hamilton: Jim, did you have anything more specific than that? Do you have any standard on how you saw this proving to be successful? Jim Mady: What we wanted to do is allow some parking inside the park, putting in just a few minimal spots to begin witl~ To try to prevent some of the problems that existed in the past and currently still exist with people driving through the park. What we would like to do is try to monitor it. Probably the best way through the neighborhood input and then also through Public Safety. Try to monitor what kind of response we get. Mayor Hamilton: I guess what I was curious about is, I think it's fine to see if it's going to work but what standards do we have to measure it against? There doesn't seem to be anything in place to say it didn't work or did work. Either way. Jim Mady: I think we're looking mainly for a gut feel on complaints really. If the problems that existed five or so years ago with the number of beer parties that were taking place down at the foot of the, chain was put up across the entrance of both parks to close it off. If people from the outside community come back and start utilizing the park in that way again, that will be deem closing it off again or attempting something else. This is a way of allowing the community to utilize the parks that currently is rather difficult for most of the c~umunity to use. Mayor Hamilton: I wonder Mark if you could go back to the Greenwood Shores and I had a couple of questions on it. Is there adequate roc~ once a car is parked head on t/~re to torn around to leave? It appears as though, when I was down there looking it looks like there is enough room but the way you have the chain and bollards on here, it looks like you probably won't have enough Mark Koegler: qbe limits shown on here as the aggregates, they are approximate. They are fairly close. There is, we feel adequate manuevering room down there to get in and out of. ~here is about 40 feet of depth. Yes, it will take a little bit of maneuvering to get it out but we think for a low scale park facility, there is adequate space. For spaces that are not going to be used intensively. Fortunately, Utica Lane sits up higher so someone can see down there to see if the spaces are occupied before they have to drive all the way down. City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: My prime concern was when a car is in there and they back up. It would seem that we have the space there to swing the chain ar~ bollard to swing it out further so they have adequate room. Why have them bang into it and continually bust them or something? Mark Koegler: In defining the limits, we simply have tried to keep, that is a small park to begin with. We tried to kc~cp everything as tight as possible and not bring in any additional material into the first phase. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it will take additional. I'm just saying let's make room for people so they can get out once they're there without having to drive on the grass. Mark Koegler: We can do that. It may ultimately require a little bit of expansion of the gravel base but that can be accomplished. Mayor Hamilton: Was any consideration given to just putting up four parking spots in there and blacktopping from Utica down and doing the whole lot? Mark Koegler: No there was not and that's really in response to specific direction from the commission which was to look at a temporary situation first to see if it works and there are no complaints then we will move on into the second phase so it was never looked at as being a permanent installation right away. Councilman Boyt: I think you bring up some good points. Maybe Jim or Mark you can tell me what the purpose of that park is? Jim Mady: Right now it's a low usage beachlot. It's two picnic tables down there. It's a neighborhood park. It serves the Gr~nwood Shores neighborhood and lesser extent Chapparal and even some people I would imagine in the Carver Beach area. Councilman Boyt: And it looks like you're looking to put a totlot in? Jim Mady: At our last meeting we recommended to put in a totlot down there. We also looked at the possibility of a volleyball court but decided that just really isn't enough room to put that in at the same time and pretty much abandoned that idea. We though a totlot would go in vet nicely down there for the mothers in the area that are walking down with their kids to the park. Councilman Boyt: Do we have people from the neighborhood here? Mayor Hamilton: Yes we do. Councilman Boyt: Are we going to hear from them? Mayor Hamilton: Yes we will. Councilman Boyt: I would like to reserve a few questions for after we've heard from them. City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Councilman Horn: Do w~ allow boat mooring down there? Jim Mady: No. Mayor Hamilton: There's a floating dock isn't there? Jim Mady: Yes, there is a dock down there. Councilman Horn: Tnere's a dock but there's also a few boats down there. Jim Mady: The boats are on their private property. Councilman Horn: So they're not on this dock? Jim Mady: The one on the far edge of the park is private property. Councilman Geving: I guess I had the same question you did Tom. I would like to see just a couple more feet on the turnaround area. You could move it out to make it a lot easier to turn around. When is that totlot going to be built? Is that this sun, er? Is is part of 1987 funding? Jim Mady: %he recommendation was made in our budget and I believe you approved the budget so I think we sent a recommendation up to you to have it down. We would like to see it this stm~er. Councilman Geving: The other question I have is what have we done with the no parking signs that we have scattered throughout that neighborhood? Have they ~ pulled frc~ the area? Are they still there ~ what does this proposal have to do with the signs that are there? Are we going to change anything? Leave everything as it is. I thought at one time we made a statement that if we were going to close off the parks we didn't want to invest any money in ~. Is that still true? I think Clark made that suggestion this January. Is that still the thinking of the Park and Rec? Jim Mady: I'm not necessarily sure that's the Park thinking. We would like to -."~c all the parks fully utilized and upgrade them. The survey we just had completed recently indicated to us that the community would like to see us put our efforts more toward upgrading present facilities than to expanding new facilities. Councilman Geving: And the connection between this park and Lake Ann park, that trail now is very well used? Jim Mady: Yes. Councilman Geving: People are getting accustomed to come from Greenwood Shores all the way over to Lake Ann and vice versa. Jim Mady: Yes, there has ~n traffic back and forth. Councilman Geving: Very good, that's all I have. City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I think earlier we talked about trying to protect some of the neighbors and the private property to either side of this park as far as putting up some signage. Is that still in the proposal as far as indicating the boundaries of the park? Jim Mady: We discussed it at our last meeting and we would like to see some type of signage put in. I don't believe it was the Park recommendation though. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so that's not part of the cost in this Mark? Mark Koegler: That's correct. It's not in there. I think there was reference in the packet that the Park Commission around this site recommended to leave the volleyball with possible expenitures of some of those funds for signage and things that you're talking about. Councilman Johnson: Even though it's a neighborhood park it's hard to tell where the park ends and the private property begins without some kind of signage or fence or something. The other thing I really don't like on the final plan is handicap accessibility. I can not see that this park is accessible for handicap persons. We've got to up the hill and around the bollards to get to the park. By blocking off the path to the 4-wheel drives, we also seem to be blocking it off to the handicap and I would like to look at that. Mark Koegler: This really focuses on one situation. It doesn't incorporate all of the aspects of the planning that's been done for this Greenwood Park. There are two ways I can respond to that. First of all that this bollards right now are 3 feet apart which is pretty tight. They could be spaced a little wider for wheelchair usage. That may open it up for motorcycles but they can probably get through there anyway. The thing that's not shown is the Park and Recreation Commission right now is working on their trail plan. That plan presently calls for a continuation of that Lake Ann trail with an eventual tie in up to Utica. So we would have an at grade, wheelchair accessible access not only to that park but to the bike path going around Lake Ann so I think it's fairly easy to accommodate that concern. Councilman Johnson: I want to make sure that the people that come down there and park and get out of their car can have access too. Tne first phase, we have wheel stops in Carver Beach but we don't have them over in Greenwood Shores. Why do we feel that we don't ~ to stop the cars? Mark Koegler: The only way I can respond to that is we tried to hold the line on cost in everything. If you've seen the Carver Beach Park, you look out across Lotus Lake from the parking spaces. It's obviously critical that we provide a stop for vehicles there. It's the case so much with this park. It's easy to see where the end of the parking lot is but that could be put in. It's simply a timber being placed there but it was due to the terrain d i f ferences. Councilman Johnson: I still don't understand what all the bollards are for in Phase 1. Is there a chain across the lift station? City Oouncil ~ting - June 1, 1987 Mark Koegler: Yes. Councilman Johnson: ~hy did we run 50 feet up or whatever? Mark Koegler: All we've done there is try to prevent anybody from getting in ar~ parking a vehicle there. Councilman Johnson: By going arour~? Mark Koegler: Yes, by going arour~]. There would be a chain across here and there would be chains extending off in both directions. Just enough to discourage a vehicle. That's a pretty inviting space if you go down there. It's really easy to park another car or two in there easily. Councilman Johnson: Tnat's about 30 feet on either side? Mark Koegler: Across that? It's probably 30 feet deep and it's probably only 14, 15 feet... Councilman Johnson: No, I mean 30 feet of bollards and chain. That's what my scale shows. Mark Koegler: Yes, about that. Councilman Johnson: If we took a few of those off, could we, there seems to be a 4-w~l drive problem in that area. For the same price we could hopefully work to solve some of that problem in Phase 17 Mark Koegler: Yes. It came out of the Park Commission meeting that occasionally that is a problem and there are a couple of ways we talked about to stop them. First of all, we don't want to make a fortress of the park. It defeats the purpose of everything. It destroys the area. ~here was discussion of, th~ chain is here_ The facility would presumably still be chained off after nomal park hours. There is a boulder I believe on this side ar~ there was talk about putting some additional rock in to discourage vehicles from trying to get arour&] when the park is closed. From the comments that at least I heard ar~ I don't have intimate knowledge of when these infractions occurred but apparently it is during off-hours for the most part. At night ar~ so forth so that was discussed. Councilman Johnson: I believe the Park ar~ Rec also discussed and some other folks discussed stepping up the trouble in the area. Mayor Hamilton: There are some residents here ~ho may want to coement. Bruce Arnold, 6850 Utica Circle: I've ~ there almost 12 years now. These gentlemen here, I doubt very much if they live on Utica Lane or any of you and have ~ in bed sleeping nicely at 12:3~-1:0~ at night ar~ have these cars come down with their stereos blaring in them, throwing beer cans in your yard and this gentleman said that this stopped 5 years ago. It hasn't stopped. Maybe the complaints have stopped because nothing was done about it. I think you should think of that and also, the park is there, the swimming beach is City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 there. People walk down with t_heir little kids and they get there. They've been getting there ever since I've lived there. Now to bring four cars or parking places for four cars in there, it doesn't mean that they're going to bring down their little kids to the beach. It means outsiders are going to come in for beer parties and stuff like that and the neighborhood people who bring their little kids down there are going to be out. So think of these things too when you make your vote on this. Four more places isn't going to make that much difference to the park for four cars. Four more cars ain't going to mean nothing to it so why not leave it just like it is. It's not hurting anything. I'm sure there are no complaints because it isn't big enough. If it isn't big enough, go over to Ann or someplace else. Lotus Lake or something else. There's no reason to have to go down there to swim at 10:00-11:00 at night and have their beer parties there and that's just what it's goir~ to invite. Just more ~-~r parties and I'll have more cans in my Irard to pick-up the next day and this does happen in spite of what this gentl~nan said. Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: We've lived there for 10 years. I have two small children. We use the beach extensively. If the sun is out, we are at the beach. We live in probably the farthest lot in the neighborhood. We've walked or ridden our bikes for 10 years down there. It hasn't killed me one bit. I can't see that it's going to kill anybody else one bit to walk down there if they want to use that beach. In the last month the chain has down. I have been down there many days, there have been 5 to 7 cars parked. There is no monitoring. There is no policing. The garbage cans are dumped over. Right now the Satellite is dumped over. One day down there, 5 dogs dumping all over down there. Broken glass all over. Jeeps driving on that paved driveway thing you guys put in from last year. Driving over from Lake Ann to our beach. That's a bike trail for children to ride on. Someone's going to get killed there. You're hauling all kinds of people by putting in parking spots. Somebody's going to drowru There's no lifeguard. There's no policing. Unless you want to put in a lifeguard or put a guy sitting in a little seat up at the top to monitor this, it is not going to work. There is going to be more parties. There is more abuse. It's just not going to work. Just in the last month I've seen that beach go totally downhill because people who don't care about it are driving in there and using it. It's the people who are within waking distance and biking distance who take care of it. We pick up the litter. We don't throw glass around. We don't bring our dogs down. We try to kc~ it nice ar~ that's the way we want it to stay. Councilman Geving: Do you see the presence of our Carver County Police patrolling that area at all? Jan Lash: No. I personally patrol the beach. I walk down there almost everyday in the summer and there are people parked all over where it says no parking and I go down and I say, you know I just saw a squad car up the road and there's no parking. He's going to give you a ticket and they look at me and half the time they give me the finger and they don't move. They don't care. There is no one now taking care of it and I don't see anyway that it's going to be taken care of in the future. City Osuncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 Dick Lash: For once in my life I agree with her on every count but she missed a couple. This fellow here says that 5 years ago we'll see if the problem clears up for 5 years ago. Why the hell would the problem clear up when the god da~m population is about twice... Mayor Hamilton: Can you keep your language the way it ought to be? I would certainly appreciate it. Otherwise, don't make any c~ements. Dick Lash: Your signs won't work. What's going to. keep people from driving arour~ your chains? The signs ar~ the chains will be destroyecL I've seen picnic ~mhles down there in the last 5 years destroyed. Everybody here has seen th~m all destroyed and there was a little bit of worry about handicap. Well, I believe the handicaps are down there right now because a lot of people down there must be blir~ because they're not payirg any attention to the parking signs. ~hey are parking up and down where there is no parking now. That's all I've got. Gerry Maher, 71~1 Utica Lane: I'm directly across from the park. I've lived there for 10 years. I'm not so concerned about the parkirg and what happens with the plans at this particular point is that I think a lot of the people in the neighborhood are very concerned with th broke~ pr~nises that we've had so far. The idea of the park and to expand it as we were explained to by the Park and Rec Commission was to allow more people to use it ar~ to get better usage. Upon discussion that evening it was decided and understood by all the people involved that the area number one, is not in a situation to allow for an extensive use. Because of the type of the road that goes through there and the number of childre~ that go across to the park from the neighborhood. Secondly, the area as it's now designed with the bollards that you have in, has nothing to do with the left hand side of the beach which is really the problem more than anything with the driving vehicles as far as 4-wheel drives, 3-w~.~_l recreational vehicles ar~ motorcycles. The park f~r a long time we were told a lamar ago would be policed more than it was. Several people called up an~ nothing was dor~ about it. Beyond that we were told at the last Park and Rec meeting about 6 weeks ago or so that Lori was told at that meeting to make sure that the chain was put up the following day. Directed to do so. It was put up last week. Now, the other thing is that they said they could direct the public safety to patrol the area more. We were told that last year. Nothing was done about it. What's to say it's going to happen now? Under the present circumstances, we get people who park directly in front of no parking signs. %~ey park on-our yards. I've come home at night, 4:0~ in the afternoon and had people parking in my driveway. If we're going to get more use out of the park, you put four cars down there so four people in the neighborhood can park. For the most part, none of the people in the neighborhood are really upset with the walking. It's a recreational park. Why not walk down there to take advantage of it? Under the circumstances, if you start expanding the park, you're going to bring in more traffic. The possibilities of more traffic problems as far as kids running back and forth to the park are going to be increased substantially and I think it's going to create a safety hazard. Those people that say you can see fr(~n the top of Utica Lane down into the parking area are quite misleading because although I may he short, if I stan~ at the top where the chain is, you would have to drive into the area right now to where the chain is to be able to look down City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 into the area. Now you're talking about a car backing out of an area that has a very good traffic pattern both left and right through a circle that although the s~ should be reduced in that area, for the most part is not. You increase that traffic, you increase the chances of people backing up and causing problems. Why they have bollards on the right hand side right now, if I may show you, which I can't understand for the life of me. This right now is about a 3 foot drop down to this parking area. What purpose do these bollards serve? Who is going to park down here and how is anybody going to get in here in the first place? This drop right down here has rocks through this area and this drop down here is a substantial task for even a 4-wheel drive or a motorcycle. These hollards are a total waste of money through here. More to the point, these trees as we were told at the Park and Rec meeting are supposed to serve to see that people don't park along this area. If we have people parking right here now in front of a no parking sign, we have people parking here on this side of the street and over here, why aren't they going to park all the way down this line. What you're asking us to do now to take our time again for a year for which we've already done at this point and make calls to the City Hall. Make calls to the public safety and say we have four cars parked down there. 20 minutes later they show up and for the most part they don't issue very many tickets if you look on the record. What they do is say, you're not supposed to park there. They move their cars. Very seldom do they ticket the people. How are they going to learn not to park there? As I said, it really comes down to broken promises and I think that is just what this is going to be and it's more hassle for the people in the neighborhood. That is a neighborhood park, enjoy it. Wendy Folsom, 7050 Utica Lane: My main concern is the safety of the area. I do feel that the entrance to the park is not conducive to safety. I had an experience just tonight on my way home from work. There were five boys on bicycles, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old coming up from the swimming beach. Taey had swam I suppose 2-3 hours this afternoon. It was hot and humid and they were tired and as they come up the hill on the bicycle, I did because I live in the neighborhood and I am very well aware of the park there, am aware of all the bicycles and all the children in my neighborhood, had my foot on the brake all the way down bo my house. The boys were coming up pumping on their bicycles like this right in the middle of the road. Two on each side and one right in the middle. Don Chmiel, 7100 Tecumseh Lane: I guess everyone has addressed much of the issues except for a couple that I see. For the period of time as we have said the chain has been down since last winter, kids with vehicles coming in and out of that bigger park, more specifically now when it's dry, have been spinning wheels, doing wheelies within there, 3-wheelers and 4-wheelers and so oru That creates a problem within the neighborhood with dust in itself. If you would care to come over to my house and sit on the deck which overlooks that complete full area you're more than welcome to because you can see on a weekend exactly what happens. Tne other part that I wanted to address was that there are approximately 76 homes within the Grc~n~ wood Shores area. In addition to that it's utilized by Chaparral with a lot of people walking from their area down to the park. When someone says that park is not being utilized as it should, I beg to differ with that opinion. 0nly because I do know how full that particular area is. I've been down there and I've 10 City Council ~ting - June 1, 1987 discussed with different people who have driven cars down there as to whether or not they are from Chanhassen ar~ about 98% of those who were there and did park were not from towr~ One of the other points is, as we're talking distance of parking to where the no parking signs are located, if you were to walk from Lake Ann Park down to the beach, it would be just about 50 feet less in distance than it would be in parking in Greenwood Shores area from a no parking sign to walk down to the beach in Greenwood Shores. So there isn't the distance that really becomes a problem. I think it's something that is there. We do see what's there. We know the distances and the other aspect is the safety and I've seen this happeD. With the gates being closed, the gates have never been closed at 10:00 when that particular chain was dowru The other question as others addressed, how the enforcement be done. With the kids too with their bicycles, with the incline as you go down into the area, most of the kids leave their bicycles at the top of that hill because they don't want to pump back up. Cars coming out of there do not have the visibility nor is it clear for them to see. I guess those are the concerns that I have. Thank you. Jeff Farmakus, 7100 Utica Lane: I live next door to the park. I'm often the one to call the police in the middle of the night whe~ parties are going on. For the most part, I think everything has ~ touched upon here. I don't r~ to repeat it. There are few things that I would like to mentioD. One is the level of communication that has evolved. I read several of the Minutes from your meeting in January. The distance differences have ~ touched upon. I believe it was mentioned that there was no parking on Utica within two blocks was the distance give~. It's less than a quarter of a block. It's three house blocks on either side of the entrance. I also think if you're going to consider solutions to the park based on aesthetics anyway, that when you look at a plan that you =~_ how it relates to the rest of the surrour~ing areas. They do, for instance, on landscaping in a home you certainly want to u~. how the landscaping relates to the rest of the area. A lot of misconceptions I think in the discussion of the Greenwood Shores and how parking would relate to it centered around basically how many parking spots you could get in there when in fact the useable part of the parking lot is about 45 by 50 yards, or excuse me the beach area itself. If you look beyond the ridge where there is a parking lot available now and which has bc=n expanded last year when they came in and put in additional fill, that's really all that's left in a park area that's supposedly suppose to be, I believe if there were to build a development now the size of Greenwood Shores that you would allow 4 acres I believe. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure. Jeff Farmakus: Anyway, my point is you have 70 some homes which basically have a neighborhood park now that's about 45 by 50 yards and to make half of that existing acreage a parking lot seems unnecessary to me based on the parking that's available there now. I will mention one other thing, there is no signage nor has there ever been, telling people where there is parking available and I think maybe that's something to be considered also. It. certainly would be much cheaper than the option plans here and would still allow for a concentrated access. 11 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Councilman Geving: Jeff, I would like to ask you a question. When you call in to the City and report a violation in the area, what kind of response do you get? Jeff Farmakus: Primarily my response has been very good. I will say however that where they do come, they usually just ask the people to leave and they leave. I have called in personally 2 DWI's and people bringing their cars down there, particularly in the winter. They drive up on Jerry's property has a steep incline and they love to drive their cars up there and come back down again. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the area. In the Minutes that went on in that meeting, from your earlier meeting, it was pretty obvious and in talking to the Park Commission, that there were some misconceptions as to what the situation really was in the park. Also, the damage the park has received from allowing ice fishing down there. Some of things that have not been taken into consideration is that people continue to ice fish and drive into the park when there is no snow there or if they drive through, they literally tear up the ground. There are big ruts everywhere along the ridge there and you can see by coming there, the actual track marks. Not necessarily in the wintertime... Councilman Geving: You've answered my question. I was more concerned about the response by our patrols. Jeff Farmakus: Tney have been very good but they really do not enforce your rules other than asking them to leave and I guess my answer to that is they have been good when they have been called. We called on a person who was camping. They came down but didn't do anything about it because they couldn't find him so they left the tent up I believe for almost a month. They eventually, he built an open air fire during the dry period that we had down there and they did come down and he left in the morning except he left all his litter including his shoes and clothes laying around the beach. Jan Lash: I don't know exactly what a totlot is. What all are you talking about putting in as far as a totlot? Jim Mady: Typically a totlot consists of a couple of swings, a slide', monkey bars, that type of set-up. We haven't determined exactly the piece of equipment. Jan Lash: Where would you be planning on locating that? Jim Mady: The recommendation was there is a slight knoll just off from the trail coming in from Lake Ann. When you're coming on that trail coning into the park, it would be off to the right side so it would be away from the parking area and up from the beach. Jan Lash: On the weekends, it does have a tendency to get kind of crowded. People come ar~ they have big blankets and everybody is laying around. I just can't see where there is enough room for it myself and I have small children. They probably would like it but when I'm down there, I like to know that they're in the water so I can keep my eye on the water and I don't have to be looking behind at one that's on monkey bars and one that's in the water. Kids 12 City Council ~ting - June 1, 1987 are all over everywhere going to get hurt instead of just in the lake going to get hurt. I personally don't see the r~ for a totlot down there. Gerry Maher: One of the things that was brought up at the Park and Rec meeting was that under the circumstances people that live across from a beach in many respects want to e~joy it and y~t try to hold back maybe that it gets to be very public ar~ used by many people. I, myself, we have people that park in our driveways, neighbors and everything else, and kids put their bikes in the yard that live in the area so it doesn't matter, as I said before, it's easy to park there. One of the things that creates a problem at this point, as a homeowner, what you're asking for a year, which is an idea or a projection of the Park and Bec Board or you people at this particular point, that we're going to become much better policeman than you were in the past. So you put a burden on us that really as a homeowner shouldn't be asked of us under the circumstances. We're there to enjoy the park. We pay our taxes ams use it but what you're going to ask us to do and in Jeff's case probably even more so than myself, although I have the same problem across from it, that we're going to be calling the police with the addition of that being opened which has already ~ proven in the last three months since it has ~ open that there are going to be substantially more cars down there than the four cars ar~ we're going to have to call the police that much more oftem. So at the e~d of the year then you're going to say, okay, now that we've spent x amount of dollars calling the police waiting for t/m~n to show up. You've got to give them your name, put it on record and go through all of that, that's the burden you put on four or five of the people who live close by it and I don't think it's a very fair thing to do. Councilman Boyt: I think there are several issues that have certainly ~_n brought up and I'm glad to ~ such a nice turn out here to discuss this issue. It's certainly important. The idea of neighborhood parks. I wish you people would go to the Park and Rec Commission ar~] tell them you want neighborhood parks in Chanhasse~u What I've seen in reading the Minutes is pretty consistently saying we're not in a park deficient area when theI~re talking about your area or whe~ they're talking about the areas around this location and therefore we're not adding parkspace. By not having that space it prevents other neighborhoods from having your feeling about a park or having your access to a park. We have a great many people here who have no way of walking to a park. They have to get into a car ar~ go there_ I think as you've indicated, your park, and I hope you do feel it's your park, gets abused and this is not going to help it. It may make it worse. It may not make it worse. Listening to your description, it sounds like it's pretty bad already in terms of the abuse the park has take~u Being a member in a lake lot association, we have all kinds of problems and we have a private park so I'm afraid Jerry that a lot of responsibility does fall on your shoulders living in that area to call attention to problems that occur. I think you've ~ calling attention to problems that oocur. We have a dilemma. We can't have a public park without having public access so I think the question falls onto the~ what is public access? Is 76 or 72 homes sufficient pressure to put on that particular park? So I think in looking at how do we police or protect your park or neighborhood ar~ your kids? How do we have access to a park that is a public park and do those things together? I'm wondering, o~e of your neighbors came in not long ago, maybe six months ago, and asked to have the no 13 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 parking signs taken down. I'm wondering if that is a reasonable compromise to this situation. To take down the no parking signs on the public street and to see if we can't spend that money that would go into the bollards and chains creating some sort of entrance that could be closed. You shake your head that that's not possible. Mayor Hamilton: Is there someway we can not have a debate I guess. I realize you want to make some comments but Bill's creating a debate here and I don't think we want to do that. That's not the purpose here. I think we've covered all the issues and we need to get ahead with deciding what we're going to do. Councilman Boyt: Well, it is and I would propose that we solve this problem by taking down the no parking signs and not building parking. Councilman Horn: My original intention in bringing this up was that I had no intention of setting this up as a expansion of the park. My concern was spending money on an area that we had closed off and it's still my contention that we shouldn't spend money and then close an area off. I think that has happened in this case. I think it's been masked as a safety issue on the corner but if you look at the area, the no parking signs runs far beyond the corner of Utica. Tney run up on Tecumseh and several other streets adjacent to it so it's an obvious attempt to close off access in my opinion. I have no problem with that as long as we don't spend money down there. I think if they want a private park that's only good for pedestrian access, that's fine as long as it fits in the park plan but I can't see spending public money for that kind of a park. Also, on th~ Carver Beach Park, I was a little concerned when I looked at Phase 2 because it appears to me that we're using about a third of the available space over there. It seems to me that if this area works out, which it should now because we do have the other public access on the lake, this does not have to be the prime public access point which caused the problem in the first place. People would drive down to the Carver Beach boat launching area and bring their trailers up to here. It seems to me that if things go well in Phase 1, we can expand this parking room and expand it beyond four spaces. This is a great park area for people to come and picnic. In fact I used to use it for that until they closed it off so I have a problem with the Phase 2 portion of the Carver Beach Park also. Councilman Johnson: I think we have to become very hard core on our enforcement down there and I think we need to start issuing tickets. If somebody is breaking the law, we r~_~ to cite them. I think this can work. Four parking spots is not much. I know it's more than is there now. If there are cars parking in no parking spaces, I would like our officers to immediately ticket them. There is no warning. Everybody that has a drivers license can theoretically read. I would like to see a lot of tickets issued. I think we can teach some folks real quickly that we mean business out here. I agree with Clark on Phase 2 of Carver Beach. We may want to look into expanding that after Phase 1. Councilman Geving: I guess I was a little bit surprised tonight to hear that we are having problems in this particular park and have had some problems for some time. We thought we were going to resolve a lot of this a few years ago with the no parking signs. I like to use the lakes as much as anybody and 14 91 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 have found that I had to park my own car way up by Carol Watson's home just to walk to the park, We have a real problem policing all the parks in the City. There are times when we need the citizens to call in complaints. We ~ the citizens to advise us when there is a problem in your area because you live there and you know what's going on and I encourage Jeff to continue to do what you've ~ doing ar~ we'll try to beef up the patrol in that area ar~ will try to get the Carver County people down there and look at that from time to time. We'll make sure that that happens. I%n not really sure that our direction to the Park and Bec people back in January meant that we were going to expand this with a bollard and chain ar~ four parking spots. I hadn't really thought that this was going to come out of all this until tonight when I saw these plans over the weekend and started reading my notes and I realized we may be creating more of a problem than we're trying to solve. I guess I would be in favor of leaving those ~o parking signs up. Doing a lot more patrolling than we apparently have been doing and not expand this park at this tim~ Not expand it at all until we get the area under control. I would just as soon take these plans ar~ put them on hold and if we have a good summer and things seem to be coming aloog fine with the policing aspect, maybe we can bring it back again next year but for this particular park, I think we ought to place our plans on hold and not expand it. Mayor Hamilton: I think ever since I've been here I don't have a particular problem with neighborhood parks and it seems to me that it is a park that is being used by the community. If you have 70 some homes there, we have 3.some people per home, that's 200 some people have access to the park. If I want to go to that park, I hop on my bicycle and I can ride over there the same as anybody else in the community can or you can drive over as Dale has dor~ and park up on the hill up by Don's house or further up and walk dowru I don't have any problems sperling money on a park that is or could be classified as a neighborhood park. After all, it's still the cites taxpayers that are using that park and that's why it was developed in the first place. So consequently, I would like to see us, I'll agree with Dale and I'll even go a step further and say that I would like to see all the parking taken out of there and just have access so we can get to the lift station, so our city truck can get in there and close the park completely to outside vehicles other than the city's and to use the space that's being used for parking now perhaps for a totlot type of facility or swings or whatever else we can put in there and leave it for the neighborhood. If somebody else wants to use the park, they can walk over from Lake AnD. They can ride their bike. They can walk. They can do whatever else they want to get there so I think that becomes a viable way to use the park and I think it serves a very good purpose at that point. Wendy Folsom: When we first moved down there about 10 years ago, the squad car used to go by our house several times a week to the point where I said to my husbar~, I think we moved into a neighborhood that has to be watched a lot. There must be a lot of problems. I've r~ver ~ the police go by the house so much. Taen we had an opportunity about a year later, we don't see the police very ofte~ or have a ~ to talk to them very ofte~ but our cars were broken into because of a beer party on Memorial Day weekend, the first year we had ~ there, and I said to him, do you have a lot of problems in this neighborhood? I see you a lot. He said, no we don't because it's such a 15 City (~ouncil Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 pleasant neighborhood we like to drive by here. Last year we had an automobile accident, they hit a bicycle last year and it was the first time I got to speak to the policeman for a long time and I said to him, you know, I haven't seen you around as much as I did when I first moved in here almost 10 years ago. He said, that's true. We can't. Chanhassen has grown so much that we don't have time to come down in here as much as would like to. Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. I think all of you realize that Chanhassen is growing and the demands for patrol are much greater than what they used to be. Even though we continue to put on more patrolmen and have additional hours of patrol people on the road, it continues to be a problem and it's going to be as we continue to grow but we continue to try to address that problem and to take care of all those types of activities. Councilman Horn: In regards to the Minutes from the Park and Rec meeting, I was disturbed to find out that people had been using that as a boat launching area. Apparently people take their trailers down there and launch their boats with their garden tractors. That's not the intent of this park. I was also disturbed, it was very obvious that there was all kinds of 3-wheeler tracks down there. ~nat's totally unrelated to the no parking signs. It's totally unrelated to whether we have this chain up or not. To me that park is being ruined by those kinds of things and regardless of what we do tonight, that has got to be patrolled. I don't think these no parking signs are even relevant to that issue but the park is being torn up. ~here is litter all over everywhere. You walk between there and Lake Ann and there are cans everywhere. You see evidence of tracks and they're not 4-wheelers. Those are dirt bikes and things that go in there and I can't believe those come from outside the city. Those are from inside the city and that has to be cleaned up. I go along with all your recommendations on this except for spending money down there. I don't think we should put that totlot in. We should keep it chained as you say. Keep the no parking signs there and we don't sper~ any more money on equipment but we do enforce it. Mayor Hamilton: Just to finish my comments because I want to say something about Carver Beach too, I do like the plans for Carver Beach. It is an entirely different beach. Again, the access to that is very poor. It's a hilly area. I think four parking spaces at that particular beach would be good just for the people who live there because it's a difficult beach to get to. ~ne streets are not good there and it's difficult to ride your bike or even walk in that neighborhood so four parking spots in the Carver Beach area I think would be a positive thing to see how it works out because we've had problems there in the past also. Councilman Boyt: I agree that it looks like we may need to look at this in phases and maybe the phase to look at is to get the park cleaned up and safe and secure. As you've pointed out Tom, a lot of people do use the park in the neighborhood. I've got to tell you that eventually I would like to see that park opened up to people in Chanhassen as a whole but I think your issue is an important one so let's see if we can get it policed and stop what's happening there that' s inappropriate. 16 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Jeff Farmakes: The present chain has enough slack where you restrict access and you can easily pull it up and drive a car underneath it and that's what happens when people accessed it before. You've got to tighten that chain. Put a second lower chain im You would also be restricting access to these 4- wheelers and dirt bikes. Mayor Hamilton: What we should do is put a gate on there similar to what we have at the South Lotus Lake access now so ~ gate can swing shut and our city people can just open it and you can't lift it up or dowru You have to have a key or a lock to get in. That would be much more secure. Councilman Geving: Could I add to your motion Mr. Mayor. I want to go back to Greenwood Shores. I want to pick up an iten~ You mentioned three items. I want to add a fourth one that there be no boat launching. That we direct Staff to meet with Carver County police patrol and have that area patrolled regularly. That somehow we r._~ to clean up the debris. Whether we hire it done or have the Boy Scouts do it or s~ne other means. Then finally, the last one that you had I think should be in the Minutes as a motion and that is to instruct Staff to look at the gate ar~ devise a new gate system instead of that chain and I would like to add to your motion those three other ccmm~_=nts. Mayor Hamilton: I'll add ~ charging the one to say that the policing of the area should be done through Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director of the City and it should be an enforceable type of enforcement where if there are violations, there will be tickets issued and we would like to see the reports back for review. Either here or at the Public Safety Commission so we know that it is being taken care of and the problem is hopefully being solved. Mayor Hamiltxm moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Gr~wood Shores Beach not have any parking at it. That the no parking signs on the streets remain as they are. Access to that beach be available only to City personnel to work at the lift station and it remain a neighborhood park. There be no boat launching at Gr,~.-------~wood Shores. Staff should meet with Jim Chaffee to patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City Council or Public Safety Commission receive reports for review and that Staff be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into Greenwood Shores Park. Also, that the Carver Beach Park have four parking stalls installed as depicted on the plan with the chain and bollard system as outlined by Mark Koegler. All voted in favor and motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to make one comment. I agree with the plaru If you look at the recommendation which would be the rural recreational beachlot portion of the recommendation as suggested to the Council by the city staff, I was not comfortable with the last sentence. Rural recreational beachlots. I would like to strike "any future lots resulting from subdivision shall obtain permission to use the recreational beachlot fr~n the Homeowners 17 94 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Association." Tne reason for that is if there are additional homeowners once the subdivision takes place, I think that should cc~e to the Planning Commission or to the Park and Rec Commission or to ourselves for review to find out how many there are that are planning on using it. I don't think we want to suddenly find outselves doubling and tripling the use. councilman Boyt: I agree with that. I kind of like the flexibility. I think it might be a way of answering the question without having to get into that much supervision and that is that we've already indicated that those lots can not be subdivided until the MUSA line goes through at which time that will become an urban area. I think it should then fall into the urban recreational beachlot which would grandfather in people who were in the 50 original lots but additional lots would have to conform to that urban standard. I think that's what we would end up doing anyway. Mayor Hamilton: Somehow we would need to let those people know what the rules are so as the subdivision takes place, if they are going to he a part of it, what rules they need to live by and I think we may be out of it at that point but I would want to make sure that they do, through the Association, become aware of what the rules are and how it effects their particular property. Pat Swenson: May I assume that these lots will be within the original subdivision? Councilman Geving: Yes. Because they word subdivision throughout this. Pat Swenson: That's right but we've seen variations of subdivisions before and I just want to make sure that there isn't going to be somebody across the street trying to get in on this. Mayor Hamilton: That's why I wanted to strike the last sentence from the rural beachlot so it clearly states that nobody from outside can be assumed to be a part. Councilman Geving: If you feel more comfortable about that, we could write that in as the intent in our Minutes tonight. The Minutes do get carried over for a number of years and that is out intent that it does not include anyone who is not in the subdivision. Councilman Johnson: I think we mayhave a problem converting from rural subdivision beachlot to an urban recreational beachlot in that the standard for urban says that at least 80% of the dwelling units be within 1,000 feet. Mayor Hamilton: But those that are existing will be grandfathered in. Councilman Johnson: Tnose existing will be grandfathered. Okay, then you go to 1,000 feet, who gets the other 20%? You see what I mean? The standard, what distance do you use in that conversion to say okay, you are outside that but he says within the 1,000 feet you still have 80% so you can have 20% of it outside the 1,000 feet. How do we divy up that 20% that's within the definition? 18 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: It's probably going to be on a first built, first... Councilman Johnson: Another method to do it would be to, if you take 108% by the ratios of 88 is equal to 1,088 feet, 188% would be equal to 1,258 feet so any lot more than 1,258 feet away would not be eligible for that beachlot. Councilman Boyt: Jay, I would prefer to not change the urban recreational beachlot definition. Councilman Johnson: No, this would be under the rule. You would keep the urban as 88% but what Ihn saying is you've got a subdivision here that's 2,000 feet cl_~-cp. You're going to convert that from a rural subdivision to an urban subdivision. At 1,888 feet you now have a non-conforming beachlot because 88% of the homes within that new subdivision that's been resubdivided, are no longer within 1,8~8 feet of the beachlot. So the beachlot is no longer conforming to our Ordinance. A simple conversion won't work. Mayor Hamilton: It's a grandfathered thing. We don't know when that's going to happen. It may not even be the year 2880. Councilman Johnson: Are we intending that everybo~ within the existing subdivision, even if it's 2,888 feet deep, when they subdivide all those lots, are we intending that this will be on a case, the way I see it, if we convert it and grandfather it, the 1,888 feet no longer counts. It's whatever the confines of that subdivision are at that time. If all tt~se lots are subdivided into two lots, everybody in that subdivision gets to go into the beachlot. Councilman Geving: You don't ever take away a person's rights that the~ve already got. You wouldn't dem~y them of that right. Councilman Johnson: But the guy who has a lot 2,888 feet away, he subdivides his lot. The guy who be subdivides it to, be is still within the same subdivision that has a beachlot. Councilman Geving: He would only be able to subdivide if the whole thing now becomes within the MUSA line and then the whole thing is opened up as an urban subdivision. It's not urban recreational beachlot. Mayor Hamilton: I think we may be talking about a moot thing here because the way this particular development is going to take place, I suspect that it may never be subdivided. Councilman Johnson: This isn't for one particular subdivision. Mayor Hamilton: Well, it was certainly directed at one particular one and there may be others with the same type of thing but it's highly unlikely at this point since there is no land 'left around the lakes in the City to build on. 19 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend Article V, Section 9 (11) as follows: K. A recreational beachlot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean those beachlots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the Omuprehensive Plan. Urban Recreational Beachlot: At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beachlot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beachlot. Rural Recreational Beachlot: A maximum of 50 dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beachlot. Upon extension of the MUSA line into a rural area, the urban recreational beachlot standard will apply. Also, to amend the definition of recreational beachlot as follows: Land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 101 AND CR 14, GEORGE NELSON. Jo Ann Olsen: Tne beachlot proposal includes a sand blanket, removal dock, a canoe rack, siltation basin and volleyball court. The Planning Commission did approve the Conditional Use Permit for the recreational beachlot. With this they changed condition 6 to read that tb~ walkway shall be bituminous to siltation basin and from the basin to the lake it shall be made of any coarse material. They changed that from gravel and they added number 7 and 8 saying that a homeowners association must be created to maintain and police the recreational beachlot. Number 8 stated that should a siltation basin be required by Staff the exact location and design of the siltation basin shall be submitted. Since the Planning Commission meeting the Watershed District has also reviewed this and they have recommended that instead of the flume that is being proposed, there is a little lip to the pathway to direct the drainage to the siltation basin, they are stating that that will not work so they are recommending a storm sewer pipe down to the siltation basin. The applicant then stated that they would prefer to have a coarse material, gravel material for the whole path going down to the lake. Staff and the Watershed District, again would prefer that that remain bituminous just to prevent any erosion and washout from any drainage. We are recommending again, that the piping be installed and the path remain bituminous. So you would be adding that as number 9 and then number 10, we would like to add that the applicant must receive a DNR and Watershed District permit. 20 97 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Wayne Tauer: I'm from Pioneer Engineering responsible for the beachlot design so to speak. As Jo Ann pointed out, originally we had a bituminous walkway that went down there and the reason we made it bituminous originally was to handle the water tham came off the street which was above up on the bluff. We had it sloped all one direction with a curve on one side so essentially what it made was a V so that the water stayed in that V ar~ ran down into the siltation basin. That was a good design without a pipe being provided for the ditch run-off fr~ the street above. Since that time Bob Obermeyer fr~m the Watershed District suggested that we put a storm sewer pipe from the ditch on down to the lake or siltation basin if that's required and I guess we agreed with that. We're going to put a small pipe to handle that water. With that beirg the case, we would prefer that a coarse gravel or crushed rock or something of that effect to be provided on the walkway just basically because I don't believe it's going to create erosioru In fact I think if we left it bituminous it may make a little bit more erosion because anytime that you have a hard surface area, that water will collect ar~ run to the edge of that hard surface and at that point it will then start concentrating and eroding the edges. That's very common I think if you watc/~ any roadway ar~ you see where the water ends, that's where the erosion starts usually. I think if we have a crushed rock or s~ething coarse and porous we would eliminate probably most of the erosion. It's pebbly. It breaks up the e~ergy of the water. It's not moving fast. It just kind of mills around and then sheets off. I think really we can avoid more erosion by leaving it a coarse material of some nature. Also, just looking a little bit, I have kids. Thinking of what they would do. There is a 6~ foot drop from the street on down to the beachlot. I just imagine that as being one heck of a ride on a skateboard. In and out of the trees, so just thinking about that a little bit, maybe you would consider with going with crushed rock program. Those little wheels don't w~rk very well on that kind of stuff. Bicycles maybe they can get down but if we keep the hard surface away, I think we w~uld do better. Councilman Johnson: On the storm sewer pipe, generally those run pretty straight down the hill. Wayne Tauer: I think we're going to have to site it. We're going to have to go out there and we're going to look at the trees. It's going to be a plastic pipe in the sense that it's going to be a PVC pipe. It's not going to be a concrete pipe and they have elbows easily installed and we can meander it down through the trees and it may or may not follow that particular pattern. Councilman Johnson: What I don't want is a clear cut of trees straight down there. Councilman Johnson: Good. I like the concept there. Looking over, there was a lot of talk about the Satellite ~ whether a satellite was r~ed in the volleyball court. Is that all trees so we'll have to be cutting a hole for the volleyball court? Wayne Tauer: No. ~nat is open and that's why it's a place to pick. 21 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Is the beach area an open area? Wayne Tauer: Yes and that's why we placed that there. Councilman Johnson: The siltation basin area... Wayne Tauer: That is not necessarily open. In fact, that's not necessarily needed. We're not sure yet. That's still an option. Councilman Johnson: I have a concern. I don't know how to handle it here with the lack of a Satellite but you can't put a Satellite down there because you can't service it down there and I just know children well enough to know that they're not going back up this path ar~] back to mom and dad's house half a mile away. Wayne Tauer: How do the other beachlots serve this? Councilman Johnson: They have a problem too. Some have car access, some don't. It's something that's kind of beyond us. In general it looks like a good plan. I tend to agree with you on the rock. Gary, what's your opinion on the rock versus asphalt on the trail going down? Gary Warren: I guess Bob Obermeyer and I have sort of been on both ends of the issue here. We've had, as you recall I'm sure, several roads in the city here that are gravel roads where we continue to have to maintain them. Sunset Trail is an example where gravel does pose a problem and Mr. Tauer's comment, we do have a 60 foot drop here that we're having to deal with and I think that yes, there are problems with skateboards on the cement. ~nere's a trade-off there. I prefer the bituminous trail just from a protection of erosion standpoint. Councilman Johnson: With the meandering of the trail and stuff is different than a County Road that's straight down the side of a hill with ditches along the side that's collecting drainage from lots and stuff so I'm not convinced about bituminous but if you are, I'll go with you because you're the City Engineer. George Nelson: Your point is well taken Gary but I think that this is a foot path that you're going to walking down. It's not going to get pulverized like a road would. On a gravel road you drive on it...and I don't think that's the same here. Gary Warren: Actually the lines and the aggregate are what actually solidify and the more loose gravel you have, the more susceptible it is to erosion so that almost contradicts what you're saying. George Nelson: For myself, I wasn't thinking of gravel, I was thinking of something more coarse. Pea gravel or crushed rock. Something that isn't conducive to wheels. Councilman Geving: I justhave two comments. Item 8 in our recommendation asks for a siltation basin. I would like to add a statement onto the end of 22 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 that recommeoded item that the siltation basin plans should be sent to the City Engineer for review. It just says that they shall be sut~uit~ but I want it to go to Gary and let them look at it specifically. ~ on item 7, we have a recommendation, a homeowners association must be created to maintain and police the recreational beachlot. I for the life of me don't know how we can enforce that. It's a very good recommendation but I don't know how we can force a developer to build this recreational, homeowners asociation maintain the recreational beachlot. I know it's very essential. Very important to making sure this all fits and it works together but I don't know what the vehicle is. Do you know Barb and how w~ can enforce this to happen? Barbara Dacy: Whether you call it a homeowners association or a group of property owners, the intent from the Planning Oommission's standpoint was that it be enforced by the people who live in the subdivision. Whether the developer chooses to create covenants ar~ typical documents for the homeowners association, that would be his perogative. If he wanted to change the cor~ition to say a hc~m~m~ers association or group of property owners. Councilman (~eving: I have difficgl, ty with the recommendation because we can't enforce it. We can't really enforce a developer's covenants. We can request the developer to put that kind of covenant in to each lot that he's selling. That there will he a homeowners association created but I don't believe from our standpoint that we could ever enforce this. Mayor Hamilton: We did it through taxes. If somebody has to pay taxes on that piece of property, if you're going to have an association, as long as the developer isn't going to pay it, the association collectively pays it. You have to pay the taxes on the property so I would think that the developer would want to make sure that the homeowners association is formed so they can pay the taxes because be doesn't want to and that's how you also enforce the maintenance of it through that group that's paying the taxes. Barbara Dacy: We have in the past, we have made it a condition in our development contracts. Councilman Geving: I ur~erstand that but I just know that when you say must. It's likely it will happen by itself because someone is going to take charge of that. Probably the first homeowner that buys there is going to be the president of that homers association and it goes on from there. Barbara Dacy: I think the other intent also, if there is a problem that occurs down the road, that the City can have the papers on file that says the bxa~eowners are responsible enforcement of that. Councilman Horn: How loog is this lot? How much lakeshore is it? Wayne Tauer: 295 feet. It meets all standards by the way. Councilman Horn: My concern is not that. My concern is that maybe it should have been on the previous issue, we have made exceDtions to the o~edock rule in our urban secti~ Do those same rules apply to the rural section and this one does only apply to one dock? 23 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: You have to have 400 feet to have a second dock. Councilman Boyt: One, I would like to make a comment. I would certainly like somebody to re-examine this issue of Satellites. I would think that if a homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep, they should be able to make the decision about whether or not they want to maintain and upkeep a Satellite. I think it's ridiculous for the city to make that decision when we're saying to the homeowners you are responsible for the area. I would like to have that examined. My position is supporting Staff on this trail situation. Unless somebody can make a stronger case about bituminous one way or the other, I'll support that. Mayor Hamilton: I did want to comment on bituminous. I guess I feel that the way our world is going, everything will be blacktop before long and with the path like that, I would much prefer to see it be something that water can soak into and run off of and slow down. We've been concerned in the past about the force that water generates as it's running down a hill and going into the siltation basin and if you have rock it's going to slow it down. I'm sure there's going to be some erosion but I think that's easily controlled and they can go back in and scrap the rocks back in the path if that's what they need to do but bituminous is so permanent and I think it just creates more problems with run-off. I just don't like it. We need to have our ground water reservoirs regenerated and the more you use blacktops, less the opportunity is to do that. Items 4 and 5 I felt were ordinance requirements anyway. I'm always surprised to see them in here. I just thought it would be covered by ordinance right? It didn't seem to be needed in specific recommendations since it's already covered by ordinance. Councilman Geving: I think though Tom, the reason that they're in there is sometimes it helps the developer to know exactly what they can do. Mayor Hamilton: We can call it to their attention but I thought it was just a double, we're stating it again. It's already part of what the requirements are. Otherwise, I think it's a good plan and I like the develo~x~ent. Councilman Boyt: I would like to amend the motion to include bituminous. Mayor Hamilton: I will not change mymotion. Councilman Boyt: You don't have to. Is there a second to the amendment? Councilman Johnson: A little argument over bituminous and coarse material. I think we should leave it to our City Engineer and professionals in the field of erosion control, Watershed District and the professionals rather than a gut feeling of the Council in this case. Mayor Hamilton: If Gary had said that he would favor some type of a coarse material rather than bituminous that would be fine with me but he said he was in favor of bituminous and I am not. That's the reason for my motion. Councilman Johnson: I'm against your motion for that reason and if your motion doesn ' t pass... 24 101 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 986-4 for a recreational beachlot subject to th~ following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and tree removal plan. 2. The applicant shall receive any required permits from the DNR (dock/sand blanket). 3. No clear cutting shall be penmitted other than for the walkway. 4. The recreational beachlot shall be permitted one dock with a maximum storage of three boats overnight. 5. The recreational beachlot shall be permitted one canoe rack with a maximu~ storage of 6 watercraft stored on the rack. 6. The walkway shall be a permeable substance to the siltation basin am] from the basin to the lake it shall be made of any coarse material. 7. A homeowners association must be created to maintain and police the recreational beachlot. 8. Should a siltation basin be required by Staff, the exact location ar~ design of the siltation basin shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review. 9. That a piping system be installed from the road to the siltation basin. 1~. The applicant must receive DNR and Watershed District permits. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed ~ the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ~r.r~W CONTRACTOR'S YARD AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT, PATRICK AND NANCY BLOOD. Councilman Johnson: Are the applicants here? Does this include truck washing? Sanitation ar~ the washout of the garbage trucks? Is that done at your facility? I know when I was a sanitary engineer for the Army we required our garbage trucks to be washed out I forget what the frequency was. Patrick Blood: Honestly, yes. There would be two as of now. Admiral has gone to a lot smaller truck so t~ can be washed in car washes which we normally do. The two bigger trucks, the insides are not washed out. Only the outside. The insides are left alone. So it would be the same as washing the outside of your car. That's the best I can answer your question. Councilman Johnson: So we will have a water flow from here although it will not be too huge. How many trucks are we talking? 25 102 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Patrick Blood: We're talking at the present right now, two large trucks and two 350 Ford pick-ups with retriever backends which we intend to go totally, not totally but to the residential service is the smaller trucks. Councilman Johnson: The present uses in the BF area precludes car washes I believe. Barbara Dacy: That ' s correct. Councilman Johnson: Before we get too far along, while a contractor's yard is allowable, I would like to be able to compare on the water usage. What group it loads, the grease, oil, whatever contaminants would be coming off the dirt, asphalts. What those pollution loads would be to the surrounding areas if we don't have the sanitary sewer for it. We've got two different options here. One is just a conditional use adding contractor's yard which is separate. I'm not sure whether your particular operation would be appropriate within the BF until I find out more about the water side of it. What water pollution we can expect from there. How we would handle that. Barbara Dacy: The way the applicant and Staff discussed about this process was they needed to have a determination from the City as to whether or not a use such as a contractor's yard would be amended into the district. If approved tonight, we would have to file specific conditional use permit application and submit that data and information that you requested because as you said, the conditional use permit is on a site specific basis but tonight's, I know this applicant is making this application on behelf of his individual use but the council has to think of a contractor's yard in the generic sense of the term as defined by our ordinance. Whether or not you feel it is appropriate in that district. If you feel that it is not. Councilman Johnson: With the one mile radius problem, this district is only a mile or two long? Barbara Dacy: It does meet the radius distance from other contractor's yards. Councilman Johnson: I have no problem personally with putting contractor's yard in this area properly shielded although I would have to add a condition (i) that water usage be minimized and I really don't have a number to put on that. Maybe we should put a number on that but that the water usage needs to be looked at and we need to have an idea of what kind of pollutants we're getting into here because we're in a very environmentally sensitive area. Patrick Blood: I can assure the Council that it would be no more than washing, if you had your own dump truck or garbage truck, it would be totally just the outsides. Any pollutants from the insides will not be entered into it whatsoever. Councilman Johnson: If you're going to repair something on the inside, do you wash it out? Mayor Hamilton: I think we're starting to get specific and we're not dealing with a specific thing. We're looking at a contractor's yard being allowed in 26 1.0S City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 a BFdistrict. Councilman Johnson: Contractor's yards, we have several of them that I'm wondering if R & W out there if they wash their trucks. Mayor Hamilton: Yes they do. Barbara Dacy: ~he issue that you're raising would be perfectly within the Council's review of the conditional use permit application. Mayor Hamilton: On a specific basis. Councilman Johnson: We're here more than rheA-2. I would like to add I, a caution on the water useage as I to the A-H conditions. Councilman Boyt: I would really like to have had, our areas are fairly small, I would have liked to have the people surrour~ting those areas and currently in them notified that we were considering changing the use in the area. That' s my only comment. Mayor Hamilton: At this point there isn't any application for anything going into the area so we can still ser~ them a copy of what has ~_n changed in that district so they can be aware if an applicant comes in. Councilman Boyt: I agree Tom but just tb~ very use, although this looks like a compatible use, in the future I would like to see them notified that their neighbor, we're conceivably approving a neighbor that they might not have planned for and it might make sense to notify them. Councilman Johnson: Who was notified to the public hearing? Barbara Dacy: It was a public hearing. Property owners within the district were not notified because the applicant would have to file a conditional use permit application at that time. Councilman Johnson: So we're doing a zoning ordinance amendment within the whole district and the people within the district were not notified that we're redoing a change to their zoning ordinance. I think that's a problem. I agree with you. I had that down as a no~e here, I missed it. Barbara Dacy: If the Council wishes to eshle the matter, that's certainly an option. Councilman Johnson: I think the people who own property adjacent to there should have their opinion heard at some point. They were not notified, I don' t know what our rules say about that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the zoning ordinance amendment to allow contractor's yards as conditional uses in the Business Fringe District. Councilman Boyt, Councilman Johnson and Councilman Horn voted in favor of tabling the item and Councilman Geving and Mayor Hamilton opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. 27 104 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Because the area around the BF district was zoned A-2 and that does allow contractor's yards as a conditional use, I obviously made the wrong assumption and did not notify those property owners. That was the reason. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we can have it back on for the 15th. Councilman Horn: I think as a matter of choice, whenever there is a zoning change that affects anybody, they should be notified. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO PERMIT TELEPHONE SWITCH BUILDINGS AS EITHER PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF UTILITY SERVICES TO INCLUDE UTILITY BUILDINGS. Jo Ann Olsen: Staff recommended that the utility building be allowed as a permitted use in all districts. The Planning Commission preferred that they be a conditional use permit. Again, Staff is recommending either a conditional use permit or as a permitted use. The difference is that the Council and Commissions do not get to review it if it's a permitted use. Councilman Geving: I believe we have a responsibility to look at all zoning ordinance amendments that affect people and property and that I don't think we want to let something like this be handled by Staff. Not that they're not capable of doing it and I feel that this kind of decision is important to know what is going on in the community. What is being proposed as a building facility and I want to know how big it is. Where it's located. What it's going to do for us. For that reason, I believe the Staff can do their staff work, pass it onto the council and we'll make the decision whether or not we want to include it as a conditional use in the city. Otherwise, I have no other problem with the application. I just feel it has to come before the Council. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: I agree. In other words, we're agreeing with the Planning Commission. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a couple things that they look at. One being a comparable sized lots. I see they are proposing to put it on a very small lot. l?~ey need a very small piece of ground. I was thinking about the neighborhood continuity. It would be nice to have it on whatever sized lot is being sold residentially in that area and that we look at possibly a combined use like we have with the well station over in the park nearby here. Other t/man that, I agree with the public review. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow telephone equipment buildings as a conditional use in all residential and commercial districts with the following conditions: l. Tne site must provide landscaping as required in Article VIII, Landscaping and Tree R~noval Regulations. 28 105 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 2. The driveway surface shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, dust free, durable surfacing material and concrete curb. 3. The applicant shall receive access permit from the regulating party. 4. The building shall meet all setbacks of the district in which it is located. 5. The equipment building shall be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5 ACRES INTO TWO 2.5 ACRE SINGr.R FAMILY LOTS, 75~ WEST 96TH STREET, GEORGIA JEURISSEN. Jo Ann Olsen: T~e Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision. We have received the soil consultant's report which did approve of the treatment sites. The Planning Commission approved it with the Staff's recommendations. A couple of the commissioners were uncomfortable with approving the lot split because of the variance and they also wanted us to look closer at the lot line adjustment- After Staff has looked at it closely, we four~ that if we did adjust it, we wourz] up with even more variances or else an unbuildable area so we have essentially changed our mind am~ have gone back to what the applicant is proposing and keeping it at that. Also, we have looked closer to the 201 service area and we are reviewing it to see if the applicant could possibly extend it. We have not received that information from Virginia Harris as of yet but we still are more comfortable with having the applicant provide his own individual septic system because we are not sure that he would be able to connect to the 201 service. We are recomme~ding approval without the applicant adjusting the lot line and providing driveway easements. If it can be determined that the 201 system can be extended, then that applicant could connect to that. Otherwise, he would have to provide their own individual sewage treatment syst~u. Councilman Boyt: I have one concern and that is we have a lot here that basically is not subdividable. Ihn concerned that when we grant this variance we are saying to anyone that has a non-sutxlividable lot, come and take a shot at it. I don't see this qualifying under a hardship. Mayor Hamilton: Why isn't it subdivi~le in your opinion? Councilman Boyt: Because you don't have 400 feet of property. Jo Ann Olsen: It came in under the old ordinance. Councilman Boyt: You don't have 360 feet of frontage. Jo Ann Olsen: Right, I just wanted to make that clear. Councilman Boyt: It's not there ar~ I think we have quite a few lots out 29 106 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 there that as they stand now are fine but they can't be divided under our current ordinance and I think if we approve this we're opening the door to approve anyone who c~mes in and wants to subdivide. Councilman Horn: I'm a little disturbed by doing a lot of variances in here myself. I haven't decided yet whether you've convinced me to vote against this request but the whole purpose of this is to allow large lot areas. Some people want to break a chunk off to be subdivided, I feel uncomfortable with this. Councilman Geving: I think the only thing that I'm really concerned with here, we do have a 5 acre piece of property that can be split into two single family lots. It's true that there isn't sufficient frontage on the street to meet our ordinance and a variance would be required but I guess I'm more concerned about the drainage in the 96th Street area. It's been a problem for many years and there is no question in my mind after reading Virginia Harris' letter of January 9th, I don't believe she has changed her opinion of that Jo Ann and I don't believe we're waiting for any more new infon~ation. Jo Ann Olsen: We want to define the definition of the service area. Councilman Geving: But let me tell you, if there is any risk at all of losing our grant because we pull some stupid move and grant a variance, that wouldn't be very wise as far as the Council is concerned. I think I'm reading Virginia Harris very well in her January 9th memo. It says, don't do it. So I believe this lot split could be made. A variance is required. I do feel we need to have a drainage report and I was under the impression that that would be available tonight. Is that true? There is a need for a drainage report. It was mentioned in the Staff Report I believe. Jo Ann Olsen: The consultant's report? Councilman Geving: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: That' s in there. Councilman Geving: Okay, and you're satisfied with that? Jo Ann Olsen: It's not the drainage report. Gary Warren: Resource Engineering report. Councilman Geving: Did you have any problem with that Jo Ann? This is addressed to you. Jo Ann Olsen: No. They approved it and I have no problem with it. The first sites came in within a drainage area and they have moved them out of that drainage area so there is no problem. Councilman Geving: I really don't have a problem with this and as far as the access to the second lot across an easement, I think that can be worked out but again I'm more concerned about the sewer than anything on 96th Street. 30 107 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I have a problem with the hardship side of this. Obviously Staff thinks there must be a hardship since they are recommending approval but they have not stated such. It sure would be easier if we had a paragraph as part of the recommended motion that described how Staff felt that this was a hardship and therefore meets those 4 or 5, depending upon which ordinance we're looking at, specifications. I believe one of ~ is that it's consistent with the neighborhood. Well, this neighborhood, almost every lot doesn't meet the 180 foot from what I understand. 150 foot. I went out there and it's hard to tell 180. Most of the lots are 150 foot from what I understand out there and what we would be creating here is one that's even under that, 120 foot. If we had gone to the position of moving the lot line to where it was 150 to where it came the same as the rest of the neighborhood, I would be a lot more likely to approve this. At 120 foot I have a problem with it. 150, she'll still have s~me sideyarcL I don't think we'll ever see a continued resubdivision of any of the lots up t~e except maybe for the back b~] f broken off because of the placement of the houses when I drove down the street today and looked at it. I think there are some topographical reasons for it ar~ everything but they're not laid out ar~ I would have a real hard time sitting down right now and making a motion for approval that stated what the hardship was in such terms that that can not be used as precedence for anybody else to make a split. If Staff thinks they can do that in two weeks, I would like to table it and bring it back to us in two weeks with the hardship shown because our ordinance is very explicit as to what is required. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have any comments, lb in favor of it. I think it would work out just fine. Chuck Worm: I'm the one who is wanting to build on that lot. There are a couple of things. One with that 201 syste~u That 5 acre parcel there was a part of ~ 201 system when they put it in there. Now, just because we draw a line through it, then that means my 2 1/2 acres is no longer a part of that 201 system? Councilman Geving: That' s right. Chuck Worm: I was told that any house or if anyone else was to subdivide in the rows and the present house is there, that they could run a line up through there and hook into that line. We're not extending the line. I want to hook up to it. Just because I'm on the end, we're not extending the main line or anything like that. It would be just like any other line that would be running right to the house right to the line. Councilman Geving: But I think what you don't unders~ is that the 201 system was for existing homes with failing systems. You do not have either of those conditions. An existing home or a failing sewer system and that's the purpose of the 201 and why it was a federal grant. Chuck Worm: There was a house that was built two years ago and there's another one that's going to be built eventually. 31 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Geving: Those are the two conditions that I read into the grant proposal. That those were existing syst~ns that were failing. Mayor Hamilton: Is that true? Was that criteria for hooking up to the 2017 Jo Ann Olsen: It was a designated area and what Virginia said, a lot along 96th, if they ever were new homes, they could hook up to it but she said you could not exter~ the line and that's what the Planning Commission asked us to look into further. If this would be considered extending the line. Gary Warren: The service area was a question that for federal grants they are very definite on how they establish the service area. Documents that we're waiting for from Virginia Harris were the grant paperwork so we could interpret how they define the service area and that did just come today in the mail so I haven't had a chance to look at it. Mayor Hamilton: You should share that with Mr. Worm so it is clear to him what the rules are. It's not our rules that we're going by federal rules. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Bolt seconded to table the request to subdivide 5 acres into 2.5 acre single family lots at 750 West 96th Street for two weeks until Staff can show the hardship that justifies the variance. All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 15 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED EAST OF CHANHASSENVISTAAND TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES JUST NORTH OF FRONTIER TRAIL ON LOTUS LAKE, S~RE SUBDIVISION, HI~Y CORPORATION. Barbara Dacy: This drawing depicts the original sketch plan that was sutxnitted to the City Council in 1984 and as you can read in your report and the Minutes, there were concerns with this subdivision primarily with the design and the construction of the ring road. ~ne other concern that impacts the consideration tonight is that the Commission and Council wanted the developer to investigate increasing the lot depths and separationbetween existing homes and the proposed roadway. In your packet are three sets of plans. The plans that are dated April showing street and subdivision design with the extension of Bighorn Drive proceeding in kind of dogleg fashion to the southeast. Ail lots meet the frontage and lot area requirements. However, for the cul-de-sac at the end of Bighorn Drive, a very high retaining wall will be. created and a significant amount of disruption to the topography. Therefore, a developer suh~nitted a revised plan creating flag lots at the end of this cul-de-sac. So because of the topographical constraints in this area, Staff is recommending approval of lot width variances for these two lots. The plan that's dated May 27th in your packet reflects the most recent plan submitted by the applicant concerning grading and drainage. There were a number of concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting regarding one, the lift station capacity. Two, the erosion control along the creek as well as lake and the design of the siltation basin in the northeast part of the site. The Watershed District has conducted preliminary staff evaluations since the Planning Commission meeting and subject to Council approval tonight, will go to the Watershed District on Wednesday night. However, consulting 32 109 City Oouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 with their engineer, Staff is recommending charges to the Planning Commission's action on some of the conditions. You will note that the Commission recommended suhnission of specific grading ar~ building plans along the southern tier of the lots to ensure that drainage from these lots will not impact the properties on the south. I would like to extend that condition on all of the lots and specifically requiring along the northern tier of lots that durirg construction of the h~es that silt fences be placed at least feet of the foundation and construction work. They are also recommending that that exter~ alorg the lake lots. Our Zoning Ordinance does provide for restrictions for grading along the lake lots. However, this additional condition will ensure proper construction practices. The other matter was regarding the capacity of the lift station. The City Engineer has advised us that there is adequate capacity at this lift station in the northeast corner of the site. We also evaluated whether or not the sewer could be hooked up to the south. However, grade elevations would not permit that, Third was a concern regarding the design capacity of the siltation basin. The Watershed District alleviated a concern. It is however sized for the 100 year storm event ar~ the developer has su~mit~ detailed plans to the Watershed District. Tb~ proposed conditions is to require complianoe with all the Watershed District requirements. ~he Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the conditions listed in the Staff l~rt. Staff is recommending the amendment of it was condition 7 to have that grading building plan restriction apply to all lots. Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear and maybe Gary is going to give us a separate report, but I would like to hear more about the maintenance work that is required on the lift station down there now. Gary Warren: The lift station question is Carver Beach lift station which is one of our major stations in that area. We just completed maintenance on the statioD. We have had some problems in the past, Covers that were wearing due to some capitating pumps. We just completed improvements of that. Elevated the pumps and the water valves to address that proble~u The station has had problems in the past, for example lightning strike power outages on a couple occasions knocked the station out, Because of the elevation of the station is has a shallow wet well so that when we lose power to the station, we have a very short response time. Maybe half an hour we have to get there with our auxiliary pumping and I think our maintenance people are getting better at that but we also have installed lightning attesters to hopefully eliminate the lightning problem. The capacity of the station, there are two 88 horse power pumps. They are rated at 650 gallons per minute. The readings currently that I just reviewed show that each pump was pumping 86 gallons a day so there is more than enough capacity. One of those would basically handle the total flow for the city at it's current rate so there's no problem of the pumping capacity of the station. It's more occasionally acts of god if you will. We are looking at and have in the past but I think now we should get a little bit more interest in gettirg a telemetry system hooked into that system so we can get an automatic alarm and get our people out there for power outages or whatever. This is a real key station to us and it should be done. Does that address your question? 33 110 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Boyt: Well, it certainly made a good dent in it. It might be the very time to put in telemetry actually. We might even have somebody that would help us with the cost. The question I have though, as I was reading the notes, one of the residents indicated that she thought we had been down there was it 100 times? How many times would you say we've gone to that lift station over the last year or so? Did you get any feel for that? Gary Warren: It hasn't been as bad as of late as it had been in the past from what Jerry Boucheau has told me. We are more conscientious about the station. In fact we just hired a utility man tohelp augment our staff here so we can go through better rotation of our crews on a weekend basis so I think the problems of the past we've been taking steps forward with each one and I think we have th~ in a lot better control at this point. Councilman Geving: I have reviewed this, I'm looking at a concern about making sure that all of the lots that abut Frontier Trail are of at least the same size as Frontier Trail and I believe that they are reasonably close. I think there are about six lots on Frontier Trail and the developer is showing roughly seven lots on that same length of property to the north. I was very interested in a couple of comments. For example, regarding the lakeshore lots, number 11 and 13, would seem to me that the developer could have done a little bit better job of giving more lakeshore property to Lot 14 for example. I'm looking at the revised sheet. There were two of them. I thought they could get more lakeshore frontage by evening out some of the other lots. I think that also was a recommendation of the other people. I was interested too in this area that we changed a little bit now to Bighorn Drive coming down there. What the elevation of that roadway would be Gary, somewhere I saw in there that it was 7% would be the incline needed to approach your access from Bighorn. Was that approximately correct? Barbara Dacy: The road grade for Bighorn Drive was 6%. As you proceed east from the Carver Beach Road it goes down to 5%. Councilman Geving: But if we were to take the BighornDrive as we now see it out there and drop it down to this development, are we talking 6%? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Geving: Would you comment on that Gary? Would you say that this is your preferred route or access to this development? Gary Warren: I think the discussion that we had in the Staff Report as far as the feasibility toCarver Beach Road indicated that there was some question as far as it is concerned but I think Bighorn Drive has as good an access as we would be able to provide from Carver Beach Road and I can see the obstacles to getting the Bighorn Drive connection made less than having to deal with Carver Beach Road because of the easement situation. Councilman Geving: So the basic recommendation is to let's do a feasibility study and work that out on both of the accesses. Not deal with that at this time. 34 111 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Gary Warren: No, a separate condition is to make the connection to Bighorn Drive but to evaluate whether the Carver Beach Road connection was necessary or feasible. Councilman Geving: It bothers me a lot though. We just built this subdivisi~ We made a little cul-de-sac at the end of Chan Vista with Bighorn Drive and now we are already the first night after that extension has been made and ~ pavement is down, we're discussing the addition of 27 more homes that will have access through this whole development and of course, if they get there they can turn and go south towards the Frontier Trail. It kinds of opens up a whole bag of worms that we hadn't anticipated even as short as a month or so ago. We may have done it four years ago in 1983 or 1984 Clark but I don't think we really got it to the point where a developer came in and said this is what I would like to do. I remember seeing some of these sketches. Barbara Dacy: One point to consider is that the property is, without the extension of Bighorn Drive and the extension of Carver Beaoh Road, almost landlocked. It has the lake on one side and the grade, as Gary was referring to, the grade is very much steeper frc~ the end of Carver Beach Road to where the Bighorn Drive cul-de-sac exists now. ~be Comprehensive Plan does site this area as a ~ for potential traffic connectio~ With the extension from Bighorn Drive, direct access will be provided to Kerber Blvd.. Councilman Geving: How about water and sewer in that area Gary? Do we have capacity to handle the sewage here? Gary Warren: I guess I was trying to address that with Bill's question. The Carver Beaoh pump station that is located to the north of where this would flow to services this general service area and it was designed based on this area being there. That pump stations bas more than the capacity to accommodate the full development of that area. We just ~ to make sure that a telemetry system or whatever~ that we stay on top of the power outage situation. Councilman Geving: Then I just have a concern, this is probably one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the city and it's close enough where can see it. I walk occasionally and I guess this is an area that we would watch very carefully for the cutting of trees and mowing down of vegetation so that would be one of the concerns that I would like to build into the approval. Gary Warren: The applicant is not planning to do any mass grading per se. He is just planning to grade to get the road in and leave the individual lot grading and tree removal to a per lot basis. As Barb commented, Staff was recommending that he submit per lot basis his plan for drainage, erosion control and tree re~oval. Councilman Johnson: I have a little problem with all the flag lots and everything. I realize this is really going to be a tough area to develop. One thing I'm really disappointed on is the lack of information. These two sheets is it ar~ this is the replacement for the second sheet? 35 112 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Barbara Dacy: You should have the plat sheet, the grading and drainage sheet and the utility sheet as well as 8 1/2 x 11 discussion on the vegetation and erosion control and a colored map on the cutting. I put all of them together myself. Councilman Johnson: I was going through our Subdivision Ordinance here looking through. Does their drainage plan include the direction and the rate of run-off? Barbara Dacy: I believe I also provided drainage calculations also attached in your packets and those have ~n submitted to the Watershed District. Gary Warren: It does show direction. Councilman Johnson: In Section 5.2.6 we have topographic data within the property be subdivided 100 feet beyond the property border. They have 50 feet in some places and some places they might be on the border. All areas of the subdivision platted with silt grading 25% should be clearly indicated. I see no areas indicated as being over 25% so I must assume there is no 25% on here? Is there a floodplane area around or is there any woods? There seems to be a cornfield we're working in because there is no wooded area indicated that I can find on these maps. Barbara Dacy: In the upper left hand corner, it says all land is forested and it is not within the floodplane area. Councilman Johnson: Okay, I missed that. Are there any proposed protective covenants? Barbara Dacy: Yes, those are included in his discussion. Councilman Johnson: I had trouble finding the finished grade. The only place it's going to be graded I guess is going to right here on the street and then the free form. I guess I'm not as bad off as I thought on this one. Why do we have a nice square sedimentation basin? I thought at the last one, we were talking these nice free form and s~mething that looked nice and now we have a square pond in the middle of a lot. You're going to have to clearcut that area I would guess in order to put the sedimentation basin in so the front of the guy's lot is going to he a nice square pond. Is there something we can do there? Gary Warren: What you're looking at here is basically a concept and the actual form will be established in the planning and specifications so I would think that it has to blend in with the existing topo for example which very easily can get more of a contoured edge to the site. The specific plan and profile will be in the plans and specifications. Councilman Johnson: I wish we could figure out s(xae other way for Lots 16 and 17. Barbara Dacy: Are you referring to the flag lots? 36 113 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Yes. Barbara Dacy: If there is ever a justification for a variance, it's in this case. Under that one option you get an 18 to 2~ foot retainir~ wall~ Councilman Johnson: Yes, the other option I didn't like either. I guess I've tried very bard to poke some holes in here and haven't ~ very successful at it. Everyone seems to be doing a pretty good job. Mayor Hamilton: Would the developer like to make sc~e comnents? Jim Fenning: Perhaps it would be best if I made comments in response to anyone' s comments. Phyllis Pope, 62~ Carver Beach Road: My concern is that there are some properties that should not be developed. I realize that we don't have an ordinance that covers things like that but we have either 15 acres or 13.2. There seems to be a discrepency on this plans as to how much there is but that is very unique in Chanhassen. I don't think there is anything else like it on Lotus Lake and I don't know of anythir&~ else in tt~ City that's like it. It's a hardwood forest. Very old trees. Lots of diversity in plants, birds, animals that are ther~ This is all going to be gor~. This plan has ~ characterized by a lot of people as being an excellent plan chiefly it seems to me because the developer isn't going to do clearcutting. But the ultimate end of this plan will just another housing development in Chanhassen which we already have a lot of and by putting in a road, driveway, houses and ultimately lawns, the entire character of the property is going to be lost. True, trees are going to tried to be saved but as people who have built houses in wooded areas in our neighborhood know that when grading occurs, there are sensitive type of trees that can not stand their roots being touched by grading and they die. Maybe not right away but eventually this happens. The song by Judy Collins, paved paradise ar~ you put up a parking lot comes to my mind when I see this development. I realize we're not having a parking lot there but the ultimate end of this development will be that we no looger have a beautiful hardwood forest on a lake. That's all I have to say. Jeff Kleiner, 655 Carver Beach Road: With clearcutting and that, I work construction and I know for a fact that when they come in to put in your roads and utilities and that that they are going to have to have cement trucks and everything coming in there. The easiest way to get in there is to cut everything dowr~ I've grubbed a forest over in Ridgedale to put up that hotel they put UP over there and all we do is we cut down the trees so they can come in, bulldoze it over and here you might try to save some but I see it really a a hard ooe to save. Also, why don't you just make this a park? Have it instead of the Carver Beach additioD. Make it a part of your parks. That way it would eliminate all of your erosion. You won't have to worry about your pumphouse overflowing all the time ar~ that pump truck wouldn't be driving up and down my frontyard all the time. Roger Smith, 606 Carver Beach Road: I have the property abutting the northwest portion of the lot. I've got a couple of comments. I live directly across the creek. The property borders mine. I have a new house built there 37 114 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 with a lot of windows overlooking that creek. One of the things I would like to have the Council take consideration is to look at the first four or five lots, Lots 1 through about 5. Take a look at that you'll see that there are some very, very steep banks along there. I've lived in that house of mine since 1980 and I have the other side of the creek and I have watched both sides of that creek go down at 2 to 4 feet a year. Both sides without any development there. You can see the trees going down which is just natural with no homes there. So I would like that consideration to be done. Also, on about Lots 4 or 5, there is an underground spring directly across from my house. Straight south from my house. That's probably 150 to 200 feet from my house so it's got to be back in the middle of Lot 4 here. It's very obvious. It drains all year round. It keeps that creek open. There has got to be some consideration there in putting a house on that piece of property because as you dig down you've got an underground stream right there. In addition, Lots 11 and 12, I think some of us that have been down there long enough will see that that's very, very low ground. If you're going to get a house in there you're going to have to be building, I would say build up 11 and 12. Basically when you build up you have to have some major consideration on the run-off going over in the property directly north from there. My concerns are basically the same as the people who talked ahead of me. The fact that the run-off and drainage will have a problem on that creek. I've seen it without houses and I can show you the trees going down without any houses down there. Big trees. Large oaks. The other thing is, I have a driveway. I put a driveway up through my property and I know how those big oaks are, how sensitive those roots are. You get within 6 or 8 feet of those and they're gone. I'm losing mine all over the place within 6 or 8 feet of my roots and I can't imagine with 90 foot wide lots the type of houses they're talking about putting in there, that you're not going to have a major disruption of trees. If not now, 2 or 3 years down the road. Jim Fenning: With me tonight is Joe Finnley, he's my attorney and he'll respond to any questions you may have regarding covenants or that type of thing. The comments regarding the lot frontages, we can adjust that between now and final plat approval but will maintain the 20,000 square feet and if you want more frontages we can easily adjust that. That's no problem. The grading, the colored areas are the areas where, when we're doing the grading and installing utilities, the red is the cutting areas where we will be taking trees out and green is the fill area. Those are the only areas we anticipate taking any trees out during the development time. As houses are built, obviously trees will be removed. The run-off, we anticipate that there will be no more water running off this site at any greater volume than has occurred in it's natural state. Partly because we will be taking the water from here and along here and directing it into the storm water run-off pond. I can answer any questions you may have. Mayor Hamilton: Can you address the question Roger had about Lot 4, apparently there is a spring on Lot 4? Were you aware of that or how would you handle that? Jim Fenning: I think I'm aware of it. It seems to me it's a very small spring. I will make sure that when a house is built on there that we'll take adequate precautions to make sure that it's taken into account and the house 38 115 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 is built accordingly. Mayor Hamilton: How do you handle a spring like that? Have you had that in the past? Jim Fenning: I don't know. I'll go to my engineer and have him, if we have a problem1, I'll solve it. Councilman (~eving: I'm looking at an old map and one of the original drawings it looked like the original Lot number whatever is now Lot 18 or 19 and I questioned at that time it looked like it was a very low area in the north part of it in the original lot. It was old Lot 16 fr(m~ this sketch. I would say it's new Lot 20. Where would the house be placed on that particular lot. That is 95~, I see that is a real high number there. How would you make access to LOt 117 HOw are you going to get in there and that elevation by the way is 911 at the lot line. Where are you going to build that house pad? It looks pretty low to me. Jim Fenning: The house is above the 100 year storm. It's above the ordinary high ar~ there will be no dar~er of flooding. The driveway will come in along a wall of the holding pond to serve that house. Councilman Geving: Will we get in there just right alor~side that holding Jim Fenning: Yes. Councilman Johnson: It's too bad that quite a few years ago we didn't do Clark's suggestion on preserving forest~ That's something we better look at on the south side of town because we kind of lost most of it up here on the north. I don't have a whole lot more. It's a darn hard area to work with. The only comment I have is one of the conditions when we say 15 or 2~ feet. We might as well just say 20 feet. It doesn't make any difference on that recommendation for the silt fences. Councilman Boyt: The big part of the property that you're developing is logged off not long ago and so a lot of the growth that's in there that makes that look like a very attractive forest is fairly small. Given our existing ordinance, you can go in and cut all those down except the ones along the beachfront. Would you be open to putting something in your covenant that would encourage people to leave that undergrowth? Jim Fenning: We have or will have as a part of our Restrictive Covenant that all trees 4 feet up, 4 inches in diameter... Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for interrupting you but I think that's part of our ordinance and I don't think that's going to handle a great proportion of the trees out there. It will save the ones that weren't logged out of there but it isn't going to do anything for a lot of what makes that look like a green area. 39 116 City Council ~eting - June 1, 1987 Jim Fenning: Tnat isn't part of your ordinance. No, it isn't. That is a stipulation we're putting in. I hesitate to be more restrictive than that. I just believe that property owners have rights, people who build there. Councilman Boyt: One other thing I would like you to include. I think there is a lot that can be done with active planting to stop erosion if that's what the intent of the planting is. There are many plants out there that have extensive root systems that will lock that soil in place. You've heard that that's quite a concern in several areas of this property. Will you put that into your covenants? Or will you just do that? That the areas subject to extensive erosion will be planted with plants to minimize that? Jim Fenning: At the time we grade and when we're done grading, we will see then and stop the erosion and will insure, we can make that a part of the Covenant. I guess I would like to have Joe speak to that. Joe Finnley: I don't have any objection to Jim reaching some agreement with the City about something that seems good. I don't think it should be in a declaration. That's a recorded instrument. There is going to be some agreement with the City, either the development agreement or landscape plans or something that we submit and they approve that I think by the intial portion of this portion in our development as we hand it off. To the extent Jim and the City agree on something, I think it would be more appropriate to have them in that kind of document than in a declaration or Covenant Restriction because he has a little different purpose. Councilman Boyt: Do you agree with the intent? Barbara Dacy: Just for clarification, you're referring to planting along the slope toward the creekbed? Councilman Boyt: Any areas where there is an extensive drop-off. I think Mr. Smith has made a very good point about the effect of erosion. Mayor Hamilton: That could be one of the conditions I believe that once the grading is complete then it not only be sccded or sodded but also planted with materials that would minimize erosion. Barbara Dacy: Maybe Gary with plans and specs review, through that process. Joe Finnley: It's not going to be on the graded area. Mayor Hamilton: All I'm saying is, whatever Bill is talking about and he would have to clarify that, could be a condition is what I'm saying. Councilman Boyt: I'm comfortable with that. I don't have anything for Mr. Finnley. I have some other comments I would like to make but not to the developer. Jim Fenning: It is not my intention to go in and work on the banks of the creek because of the amount of destruction that would involve to the property. 40 .. - City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 117 Councilman Boyt: This is sort of a pro-active stance I guess lb asking you to take. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any other questions you want to ask? Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of major concerns. I think they are very major and one of them is, as you know, Frontier Trail is and I guess will continue to be an issue for me. We're putting 27 more h~nes in here ar~ we're preparing to allow those homes to go down Frontier Trail. We're creating, and Barbara Dacy said, we're cresting a cul-de-sac that's 1,000 to 1,20~ feet long. I haven't checked those figures out. That concerns me and I know it concerns other members of the Council. I don't think we should be putting more traffic onto Frontier Trail. I think it makes sense to give these people some sort of an outlet but golly, it doesn't make sense to put that traffic onto Frontier Trail. That's one major concern. The drainage pond, you're convinced Gary that that's appropriately sized? Gary Warren: He sized it for the 1~0 year storm which is consistent with our requirements for run-off and the Watershed District is also looking at his calculations. Councilman Boyt: When we get storms that are like you had last summer or last spring and fall, that pond is not going to overflow? Gary Warren: If they are over the 1~ year storm, ye~ they will because it's not designed to handle anything higher than a 100 year store. Councilman Boyt: What are we going to do? Gary Warren: There is a spillway designed here that will allow th~ excess to overflow out to the creek area. Councilman Boyt: We have a trail easement that goes the creek behind Chan Vista, is that correct to your knowledge? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And we're not asking for a trail easement up the creek as it goes through this develoIznent? Barbara Dacy: No, just up along Carver Beach Road. Councilman Boyt: We put the creek behind Chan Vista in a pipe and buried it. We're not doing that in this develo[~m~nt? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Could you tell me why w~'re not doing that here? Barbara Dacy: Gary can help me out on that but one of the reasons of pipe improvement was for it's direction to the pond at the rear of Triple Crown Estates. That pond serves to retain much of the uplar~ drainage from the 41 118 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Triple Crown, Chan Vista and over in Saddlebrook and Chapparel. From what I understand from the Watershed District, that there will be, during a 100 year storm, no more than 2 feet along the creek and City Staff felt that it would be more disruptive to pipe this part of the creek rather than leave it as is. Councilman Boyt: Gary, I would, just one more time, like to really encourage you to do whatever you have to do to keep that pump station from overflowing. Gary Warren: We'll proceed forward. I think it's important that everybody undersatnd also when they see trucks gong to the pump station, which we do everyday, it's not because we have a problem. We visit our pump stations everyday frcm a routine maintenance standpoint. Councilman Horn: I would like to get a little bit of clarification on how long ago this area was logged. Jim Fenning: From what I understand there was storm back in the mid 60's that took down major large trees and maybe that's where the confusion is. Roger Smith: There was, prior to Mr. Fenning's purchase of the property, the prior owners hired some people to come out there to clear the elm trees, the dead elms. Tne City had x'ed them and they individually hired and the guy got a little confused and took all the hardwood and left the dead elms. Councilman Horn: I guess I would like to see, obviously there are certain types of trees that are 4 inches that I wouldn't be so concerned about but I have a little problem cutting down 4 inch oaks. Especially in an area that's beir~ reforested. I think you know we're going to be very sensitive to this whole thing. We don't have a lot of native woods area. I don't know how much of this is left. It's hard to tell from what we have here. I see a real compromise here in keeping the road width narrow to preserve trees and also having a long cul-de-sac which would dictate to us that we should keep it as wide as possible. I think we need to compromise in that area. Other than that, you're saying the right words for what I would expect on this type of site and I would hope that our Staff follows up and makes sure that it is complied with. Councilman Johnson: Down between Lots 24 and 25, there seems to be the natural drainage area. It looks like we got a lot of area draining into that area and have some real drainage problems on the house at Lot 24 there. I would almost be tempted to say it would be better to spread out where you had more room for the drainage and somehow spread out over there so you don't build right in the middle of the existing drainageway. I don't know how you do that. It is kind of disheartning to see that our standard says 90 feet and most of these lots are pretty darn close to that. There are a few 100's tossed in but it's pretty much to minimum standards except for the 20,000 which is well above minimum standards but a lot of the 20,000 foot area is the creek and stuff. I think we need to take a look at whether Lot 24 is going to have a problem or not with all the water drainage. Gary Warren: Each lot will, we are requiring in the Staff I%eport conditions to sukmit a drainage and grading plan so that will be looked at specifically. 42 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Were there any soil borings taken out here? Jim Fenning: Just sc~e very shallow ones. Councilman Johnson: Would this be one that you would want to see if you could put, if you've got to dig 30 feet to get rid of the muck that's been in that drainage basin over the years, it's going to be tough to build a foundation in there. What are you going to do with the trees that are cut down? Jim Fenning: They will be hauled off the site. I%n not sure who is going to do the work yet. Mayor Hamilton: I certainly like the plan a lot better than the previous one for this same property. I think it takes into account the use Of the lar~ a whole lot better. It just lays out better but I think as long as you take into consideration some of ~ conerns that you have heard here this evening and deal with those in a manner that you've been saying you will, it looks to me to be a good development. I didn't have any other questions. The~ve all Helen Loebl: Is Bighorn Drive going to be connected then into the Chan Vista? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. The way it's proposed it will be. Councilman Geving: There's a rec~m~dation for a feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: That's for Carver Beach. Gary Warren: Staff is supporting the connection of Bighorn Drive to the Chan vista link and the feasibility should be done to evaluate also whether the Carver Beach Road connection should be made to that addition. Mayor Hamilton: So we'll have an opportunity to look at that again from both directions. Gary Warren: If the Council wishes. We were recommending that Bighorn Drive would be the major way in. Mayor Hamilton: I agree. I think that's the most logical way to go but the Carver Beach connection should certainly be looked at feasibility wise. Councilman Boyt: Tom, are we looking at Carver Beach as an alternative or is Carver Beach then going to be connected into Bighorn Drive as well? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what the feasibility study will tell us. Councilman Boyt: I would like to propose and certainly have the Council, at least some members of the Council saying in the last six months that that would not happen, I would like to save the City some money and not do that feasibility study. If we have to connect Bighorn Drive through to the cul-de- sac, that's 27 more homes onto Frontier. If we hook up Carver Beach Road, we're talking about a major connection and maybe that would help some of us 43 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 along Frontier Trail, although I don't happen to be directly along it, if we just stopped that consideration of Carver Beach Road connection. Mayor Hamilton: Can you answer that? Do you think it's something that needs to be done or should we do the feasibility study? What's your opinion? Gary Warren: I think again that it was to us obvious that the main connection would be Bighorn Drive and that the other issues which weren't as clearcut to us were just the practicality of punching Carver Beach Road through. Additional easements would be needed and the benefitting properties. Those questions were why we were saying it was a questionable one. I think it can survive on it's own without the carver Beach Road connection. Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that from a planning standpoint Barb? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it can survive on it's own. However, Staff felt that it was an important connection that should be investigated. Councilman Johnson: From a public safety point of view we're talking the back door for people and carver Beach is as bad of a cul-de-sac area, even worse than Frontier was. carver Beach is probably one of the worse places for our firemen to get into and while this road going down will be a great grade and will not be a very good road, it's not very good on the other side either. I've always been for having good emergency response. I still would like to personally see the feasibility study done even though my friends on Frontier Trail probaby don't think me a friend anymore. I think from a public safety, the people on Carver Beach, we have to look at it. We're responsible for that. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you Jay. I think it's probably something we should at least take a look at. Councilman Geving: It doesn't cost us anything. It only costs us money if we implement the suggestions of the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: I should have mentioned this earlier that number 9 did not agree with the City Engineer's 3. That there is part of a sentence left out of it. I'm wondering if what was left out was that it talks about Soil Conservation Service but it doesn't talk about, and the Watershed District requirements were left out of 9. Mayor Hamilton: Can I go back to 8 for a moment Clark and say that with the heavy load of work that the Staff has at the present time, I would like to see that say, within budget rather than being done in-house so we could have someone help Gary. Councilman Horn: I'm not sure that we really ~ to specify that. Mayor Hamilton: Well, your motion specified in-house and Gary just doesn't have the horsepower to do it right now. 44 121 City Council ~ting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I would like to know if under erosion controls, what you are meaning there is Type II erosio~ control? Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to specify that, that's fine. Councilman Boyt: I wanted to specify Type II. Joe Finnley: Just to clarify there is a modification on Number 4 to include all hardwood trees? Councilman Horn: Other than hardwood trees. Mayor Hamilton: We don't want you to cut down the hardwood trees if it can possibly be avoided. Councilman Johnson: We're not talking about where the streets are being built. We're talking about the house lots. Councilman (~eving: We're talking about clearcutting th/an down. Councilman Horn: Not building pads or roads. Joe Finnley: Sc~ething this tall. Councilman Horn: We're talking 4 inches in diameter if it's that tall. Joe Finnley: (kb, you're modifying ours. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Subdivision ~87- 20 subject to the plat stamped "Received May 7, 1987", the grading and drainage plan stamped '~eceived May 27, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. . . . Lots 16 ~ 17 shall share a driveway. Realign Lots 21 and 22 as shown in At~ $kl. Retention of drainage and utility easement through the northern area of Lots 1 through 11. Clearcutting of a lot shall not be permitted. Selective cutting of vegetation to allow the placement of a h~ne shall be permissible. Selective cutting includes removal of vegetation up to four inches in diameter as measured four feet above the ground surface. However, any size hardwood trees must be excluded from any typical grubbing activity unless approved by the City E~3ineer prior to removal. Sukmission of a detailed tree removal and grading plan. Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement. 45 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 . Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be suk~nitted in conjunction with building permit applications for each lot in the subdivision. All lots shall be required to provide erosion control within 15 to 20 feet of the building pad. The drainage plans for all lots shall ensure that drainage is maintained away from the Sunrise Ridge subdivision. . A feasibility study should be prepared within budget to evaluate the Carver Beach Road connection to Bighorn Drive. . A Type II erosion control plan shall be prepared incorporating the recommendations of the Soil Conservation Service in their March 6, 1987 letter and the Watershed District and those be submitted for approval prior to construction. 10. All utility improvements shall conform to City standards for urban construction. 11. Tne 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. 12. Submittal of an acceptable final drainage plan for review by the City, Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all applicable conditions. 13. An appropriate easement shall be dedicated to preserve the creek area frcm encroac~ent by abutting property owners. 14. Any existing assessments on the property shall be accommodated into the redistribution consistent with City standards. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I need a little clarification of 4. In the last second here, I think it's Clark's intent and I would like him to tell me if it is or not, that the cutting of hardwood trees be avoided. Whether they are four inches or two inches or whatever they are, that the City Engineer go out there and say yes, we have to cut that one and anything short of that, because of the unique nature of this forest. Councilman Horn: That's right. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.7 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, L(XI~TED ON YOSEMITE AVENUE APPROXIMATELY ~r4 MILE NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, CREEK RUN SUBDIVISION, ROBERT ENGSTROM AND ASSOCIATES. Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission approved the subdivision request for the Staff's conditions. There were some concerns about the flag lots, Lot 6, and the fact that Lot 3, although it met all the requirements, would have to 46 128 City Oouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 be serviced via an easement over Lot 2 and 4. Also, Lot 9 did not meet the 90 feet at the 30 foot setback. Another concern was the cul-de-sac island and the applicant has slides to show what the cul-de-sac island looks like and how they would be maintained. Staff still would prefer that the cul-de-sac island not be permitted. Again, from the maintenance problem. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the proposed conditions 1 through 9. Councilman Johnson: I don't like this one at all personally. To be more specific, I don't like Lots 3, 6 or 9. Has there ~ much activity on this property before or is this the first plan we've seen? It's kind of a rough first shot? Did we get a sketch plan or are we goirg straight to preliminary plat? Barbara Dacy: It's not required. Councilman Johnson: Do you feel that the preliminary plat application is totally complete? Jo Ann Olsen: It was complete enough for us to make a thorough review. ~here are some items on the list they will have to comply with. Councilman Johnson: Why do we feel justified that Lot 3 can be by itself over there with a private drive? Jo Ann Olsen: It meets the requirements. It has the street frontage and it has the square footage. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't really have the street frontage, it has the creek frontage. Where technically it may have the street frontage, that's where the driveway should be and in this case, there is no real frontage to that lot to Yosemite in a practical sense of the word. Technically, yes. The lot is up against it. Unfortunately, Yosemite is getting closer and closer to that lot all the time. I would think that somebody could go back to the drawing board and come up with a much better plan than this. When you look at the easement on Lot 8, as far as the drainage easement, is there buildable area left on Lot 8? Depending on what contour line you go to for the drainage, you end up with 60 foot buildable area which is bearly buildable I guess. I don't know how far you're going to go to with your drainage easement there. The whole plan shows me that they didn't take a lot of consideration, Lot 9 would have ~ very easily combined with Lot 10 and they would have met our ordinance with Lot 9 and 10 without makirg a flag lot out of it. Jo Ann Olsen: One of our conditions is that it shall conform and have the 90 foot frontage. Councilman Johnson: Sure, but I'm just citing that as another example of I don't think a whole lot of time has gone into this whole subdivision. I don't know, maybe the developer can show me or tell me that he's tried four or five different things and this is the best that he can cc~e up with. I really believe that somebody on the Planning Commission was right when they said stuffing te~ lots into this area is at least one lot too many. I think we have a real nice little subdivision here of nine lots. 47 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Barbara Dacy: Basically you are saying that, technically a variance is required for Lot 6. If the Council chooses not to approve that variance, then Lot 5 and 6 are literally combined and you have the nine lot subdivision. Councilman Johnson: I would like to see a little rearrangment where Lot 3 doesn't have to share a driveway. Barbara Dacy: Okay, so you want a separate flag handletip to 3 or do you want direct access of Lot 3 to the cul-de-sac? Councilman Johnson: I'm wondering if you rearrange the whole area, whether they can get nine lots where they all come into the 90 foot frontage in here. I don't know. I haven't seen a hardship here. The land is small. ~ne hardship is the smallness of the land and trying to put too many lots on the land. Tnat's the hardship. That' s all I ' ve got to say. I'm against this. Councilman Geving: I kind of agree that when we're dealirg with a raw piece of land and there aren't really too many constraints, the developer should be able to meet all of our requirements. You're starting from zero. There are no constraints here. It's just a piece of land. I can see where there shouldn't be any variances at all. I don't believe we should have to make any adjustments because of that. Otherwise I agree that the property is developable and if they could avoid the variances, I would be in favor of it. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Engstrom, did you want to answer any of their comments or show us what you have? Robert Engstrom: I think you fellows missed that there are some constraints of this site. Councilman Geving: ~hat are they? Robert Engstrom: ~ne City of Chanhassen has a city sewer and water line that runs through the property in this location so that location is fixed. There is a ravine that comes along here that has some nice natural trees in here. There is a drainage situatioru There are a number of other factors that went into preparation of this plan. I've been doing this for a long time. I can go into it for hours but what I would like to do if possible is just briefly show you the site itself so you understand what we're working with as far as the site is concerned. Then, in terms of addressing a couple of those issues as far as an island in the center of the cul-de-sac, I would like to show you some of the things I've done in the past and also s~ne of the things I%n doing right now so you have an understanding of what we're trying to do. It's a little bit frustrating just trying to do a good job on a site that's got a lot of potential and we have the capability of doing probably a better subdivision than most people in the metropolitan area because we have a built in marketing capability with a couple of the finest sales people in the Twin Cities so we have the ability to exercise architectural control and site placement on the lots and so on. So in preparation of a plan like this, we're not only thinking in terms of the site plan and whether, the point about 9 or 10, it's not a big thing. We'll move the lot for 9 and 10, we just wanted to get a little bit more latitude on LOt 10 because we were going to put a berm and 48 125 City Oouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 some plantings along Yosemite so that we could create a little nicer atmos~ere for the poeple going throug~u So we're just trying to do a good job~ I can show you a couple plans that confom with your ordinance but don't do nearly as nice a job as far as the landscaping. At this point in the meeting Mr. E~3strom presented a slide presentation on his development and islands in cul-de-sacs. Robert E~3strom: What I did on this particular subdivision is basically look at alternatives and we examined the possibilities of bringing roads in from different directions and so on but with the existing trees aloog the ravine and along this entrance in here, this constraint right in here, and with the existing sewer ar~ water here, this was the logical way of doing it. We could bring a road in over here and I can show you a sketch like that that comes in along Lot 3. Comes right around and circles over here with a cul-de-sac here, nothing to it. It conforms to the ordinance in all respects but not as good a solution, believe me. Councilman Johnson: It would cost you a bundle to build a road like that unless you put a bridge in. Robert Engstrom: Yes, it's a way of doing it. What we're trying to do is put together a subdivisio~u It's not a completely wooded site by any means. You have an open area but there have been some evergreens that have been planted. We expect to move a lot of those trees. Move some over here next to the road. Move some along Lot 9 and lq and make them attractive so move them along the lot line between 9 and lq am~ just try to create what would be a nice little subdivision. The Planning (k)mmission, some of them thought so too. It didn't sound like the Planning (k~mission approved it but t~ did, 4 to 2. Councilman Boyt: First, I would agree with the two commission members, I think it's Conrad and Erhart who voted against it. I would interpret what they said was that there was one too many lots in here. Now I recognize that these appear to meet many of our standards. I think we could eliminate some of the problems if we did something with 5 and 6 and then use some of that, maybe if we've got to have 3 up there, maybe we make 3 a flag lot because of the difficulty in the terrain behind it but I would like to see one less lot in t/~ develo~nent. That's my comment. I have a couple questions that I guess are aimed more at the rest of the Council and possibly the Staff here. It would seem to me, especially based on the presentation we just saw, but even prior to that, that islands in the cul-de-sac look like a really nice idea. I live on a cul-de-sac. I know first ham~ what they do when they plow it. I know that they just love to get a run across that cul-de-sac am] pile it in my frontyard but I can understand their saying it's more difficult. Obviously. Anytime you're going around a circle, it's got to be difficult. Especially after a volume of snow out there but a lot of times when it snows just a couple inches, the truck comes in and goes around the outside of the cul-de-sac, leaves all the snow in the middle and goes off. They are obviously in a hurry but if they can do it, they've already demonstrated they have the capabilities. Maybe a little different with trees ar~ that in there. I would like to see us amend the ordinance to allow islar~]s in cul-de-sacs. Maybe we make it a conditional thing but I think we should encourage it. The 49 126 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 other concern I have is on the 90 foot width at 30 feet. It's my understanding that the intent was to say that where the house is to be built, which is typically at 30 foot setback, we want 90 feet in width. I think this gentleman has 90 feet or in excess everywhere he's going to place a house and I wasn't here for the history of how we got to 90 feet at 30 but I would think that the guiding principal was so there would be sufficient width at the house that we should adjust that ordinance to read that way. Those are my comnents. Councilman Horn: I think by eliminating one lot we can eliminate any of the flag lots and have access to the cul-de-sac area and I have no problem with an island in the cul-de-sac. I think we should be able to handle our snowplow well enough to take care of that. Councilman Geving: It seems to me I remember this lot 3, a long time ago, when there was a proposal to build a bridge from Yosemite across to get to that lot. That was never built apparently. There was a proposal I remember probably around 1978 to do that and now it's coming back again and I think if we could avoid that somehow by not allowing that as a separate access we would be better off. I r~member that ditch through there. How deep is it? Councilman Boyt: 18 feet. From the top of the ridge to the bottom. Councilman Geving: I remember that particular ditch and we did discuss development of this when we were going to do some upgrading of Yosemite. I don't have any problem with that cul-de-sac with an island in it. I think we've got sufficient room here. It sounds like some very creative things there that were shown. We always have a problem with the maintenance and what you showed us tonight was pretty much maintenance free kind of thing where you put in a lot of rocks ar~ some conifers and there isn't a whole lot of brush or any other thing that will really grow up there. Where we've had problems is where we try to put in a real nice grass and people forget to mow it and that always seems to be where we fall down on that. But I don't believe there should be any variances in this plan if we can work that out and just eliminate one lot. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I think eliminating one lot in here, I'm not sure if we'll get down to not having any flag lot but I don't have a real hard problem with a couple flag lots. I can justify that easier than a lot without access to a street. The intent of street frontage is access to a street. I notice that Jerry is here, he's head of our street maintenance, I don't know if he had any input about snowplowing. Jerry Schlenk: I think the islands are pretty but they are a maintenance problem and they are also, in the winter time, they are a problem for tbs people living in that cul-de-sac. There's no place to put the snow. He's showing six driveways coming off that cul-de-sac. You come around there and you're going to pile everything into the driveways. We try not to plow in driveways. We plow where the hydrants are, mailboxes, anyplace but in the driveway and they are a problem. You can not turn. Mayor Hamilton: Oh come on. You can turn a truck around that cul-de-sac. 50 127 City Oouncil Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Jerry Schlenk: The people who are going to suffer, it's not going to be the developer, he'll get a lot of complaint~ about it but it will be the people in those houses. Mayor Hamilton: I can't believe you would getany more complaints than the people living on the streets. You drive down the street, you plow them into their driveway. Jerry Schlenk: They're used to it. Mayor Hamilton: The people on the cul-de-sacs will get used to it too. Jerry Schlenk: You go to Burnsville ar~ they have a $9~,0~.0~ budget just for the use of those vehicles. Councilman Johnson: As we're talking, I notice that being specific on the ordinance, the 9~ foot frontage on Lot 5 is not exactly at the 30 foot setback. You kind of put 30 foot on one side and 6~ on the other and they came out with 90 foot. If we're really keeping track, both Lots 5 ar~ 6 r~ a variance. I really believe the intent of our ordinance, with the frontage is accessible frontage ar~ that 3 should, if it's not stated in our ordinance we ~ to do something about it where they can't claim lot frontage for a landlocked facility there. I meant to mention to Gary, Yosemite is a slight mudslide and we're losing part of the street out there into this creek. We lost about a foot of it. Gary Warren: We've got telephone poles also. A leaner so to speak and it's ~ our intention to possibly put a culvert there. We were going to look to what this developer, as part of his grading, could put a culvert in there to help that road stablized. Councilman Johnson: Up towards Lot 2, Lot 3, I was up there today and we're getting sc~e sliding and there's s~ne that looks like it's about to go. They tried to stablize it with asphalt which doesn't work. Mayor Hamilton: My only comments are, if reducing one lot will make the project go, I'm in favor of that. I have no problem with an easement however to access LOt 3. That's one of the reasons easements exist is to handle situations such as this. It appears to me that the developer has done the best job be can with the land that be has to access it and to meet the ordinance requirements. (bviously he has met and ex--ed ordinance requirements in the lot sizes. If he agreed to reduce one lot that would he great but it's going to be tough to expect that when he's already met the ordinance requirements. I do like the islar~s. I would like to try some islands in some cul-de-sacs to see how they work. I think they would be well accepted ar~ people would enjoy them. I just don't believe that there's going to be that much problem trying to plow arour~] them. Gary Warren: Could I just ask a question of the developer? The photos that you showed us of islands, what diameter radius of those islands, what diameter cul-de-sacs were given? Do you have any criteria that you follow? 51 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Robert Engstrom: I talked to Jerry earlier and there is a good point on let's say a 10 foot diameter cul-de-sac. If all you have is a landpost and sod all the way around it's not much so generally what we try to do is we try to get at least a 20 foot diameter. Some get to be somewhat less than that. There are some with 15 foot diameter at points. In a couple cases they are more than that. One, where all the evergreens are in the center, that's a 120 foot diameter cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have something else you wanted to show us? Robert Engstrom: What I'm trying to figure out is, as I look, with all due respect, I see some of the other subdivisions going here that are okay I guess but could be done a little bit better and I see lots that are a lot smaller than what we're proposing. This is 4.7 acres and 15,000 square foot lots or more. These are pretty big lots so what I'm trying to do is figure out your rationale for saying take out one lot. What we want to do, we want to do something that's a little bit better and if you take some of that and you plow it back into the land in terms of rocks and stone and evergreens, what have you, you can do a much better job. I realize that maybe you have a PUD section to take care of that sort of situation where you want to make sure but I would be willing to put a certain amount of landscaping and entrance stuff and so on in our development contract if necessary because that's what we intend to do. But I just want to show you. I've been doing this for a long time. It isn't too hard to figure out on this size plat the different combinations. It would be possible to squeeze 11 lots out of this subdivision and still conform with the ordinance. Councilman Horn: Without variances? Robert Engstrom: Without variances. Councilman Horn: Then why do we need t~ here? Mayor Hamilton: He's going to show you another way of laying this out. Here's 10 that meets the ordinance requir~ents. Robert Engstrom: Now here is a layout that has 10 lots that would meet your ordinance I think in every respect. In terms of square footage. In terms of your 90 feet which I agree with you. Whoever came up with 90 feet at the setback line certainly meant at the building line but even here I think we're 90 feet at the 30 foot setback line. But it means coming in with an entrance that comes over that creek. It means taking out trees in there and putting in a culvert and it's not nearly as interesting a plat. I think you fellas would agree with that. Less there be any misunderstanding, it was never intended that we would access Lot 3 off of Yosemite. ~nat that was to be an easement situation or if you prefer, a flag lot condition. Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that I know all these things boil down to economics at some point. That with nine lots you get an even nicer development. What's your feeling about that? 52 129 City~ouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 Robert Emgstrom: Not really because 9 and 10 is where we would lose a lot of space because you have constraints with the sewer and water line cc~ir~ through there and that's where we need to go in and spend a lot of money. Councilman Boyt: If you leave 9 and 1~ alone and look at 6 and 5 ar~ 4 am~ possibly 3 and do those and come down to three lots instead of four lots, it looks you could have a nice development that deals with some of the City's concerns. Granted in many ways you can fit in what our ordinance says but like you say, there is more to it. There is the matter of fitting with the topography and the matter of fitting with the kind of developmemt you want to have ~ it looks as though a nice balance would be to adjust those three or four lots. Four down to three. When you do that, I can do that. I can take this thing and swing it around too ar~ what you do is you plow into this ravine is what you do. I think I can conform to the ordinance just by doing it this way. This was just a tough sketch but with 10 lots I can conform to the ordinance and make it this way but I don't think it's as good a layout as what we proposed. Councilman Horn: What about what we sketched for nine lots? Mayor Hamilton: I think he's shown that he can subdivide this several different ways and meet our ordinance requirements and get 10 lots. What he's saying is that the way be's proposing it ar~ the what he's asking for approval tonight is the way he's laid it out here because be feels that the best in his judgment .as a planner and developer, that's the best way to lay out the property to save the smenities of the property and to have a nice develoImmm~t. Councilman Horn: And to have an extra lot. Councilman Geving: I still don't like it. Mayor Hamilton: Why do you say there's an extra lot? Me meets the ordinanoe requirements. The smallest lot is 15,MMM square feet. Me's not proposing lots less than that and that's what our ordinance calls for. Councilman Horn: He's got a flag lot ar~ an easement. Councilman Ueving: He's got two variances. Mayor Hamilton: ~hat's wrong with an easement? Councilman Boyt: What we're looking at is a piece of property that doesn't have existing building structures om there to dictate an easement. We get back into this issue of demonstrate a hardship that demands that easement. I ur~ers~nd, what you're saying is you can put in an awfully nice development this way and you're asking us to grant easements which we have to look at from the standpoint of being consistent with other developers to come in and say, we gave it to his fellow, I want you to give it to me. It seems as though we can trade off of it here. Have nine lots instead of ten and be more comfortable possibly with dealing with these easements because we're still going to ~ easements. 53 180 City Council Meeting - JUne 1, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Engstrom, what you're hearing the Council say or some of the members is they don't care if it's the best plan but meet the ordinance requirements. Councilman Johnson: Could you go back to your plan with the ten lots that meets the ordinance but is a poor plan in your respect. Robert Engstrom: It's not as good. Councilman Johnson: You've eliminated most of your flag lots. NUmber 2, it should have some street frontage. I don't have a lot of problems with flag lots personally. I actually like that plan better than this plan. You get some width into number 3 I guess it is there where it has some actual street frontage for him to put his driveway on his own lot so if the neighbor starts arguing five years from now, they don't go out and get lawyers over who has assessments. We've got this going on down on the south side right now. Some people arguing over easements. Over what their easement says because the guy wants them to do some other work. What I'm saying is if you can come back with a reasonable ten lot. Right now, looking at what you gave me, I would say go to a nine lot and we might to come up to where there is almost no variance at all. In fact, it looks like they pretty well did it. Robert Engstrom: You understand that the difference between Lot 9 and 10 on the previous plat was one that we, to make everyone happy we would do that so the only variance really was on Lot 6. Councilman Johnson: And 5. Councilman Horn: And 2. Councilman Johnson: Lot 5 does not have 90 feet of frontage the 30 foot setback. You use 60 foot on one side of the setback and 30 on the other side on Lot 5 and as far as I'm concerned, instead of following the setback following the curve, if you take 30 feet back along the lot line. Maybe the city planners disagree with me but it looks like the setback line was drawn to correspond with the 90 foot pad not with the 30 foot setback. Barbara Dacy: Tne line that they're showing, to get geometrical here, is the cord of the arc so when we take that curve of the cul-de-sac and measure a straight line, they are showing it as 90 feet. If you take 30 feet off of each lot line and draw straight across, it's going to be just shy of that. Councilman Geving: I think Mr. Engstrom, what I'm gathering from the Council here is if you're willing to accept nine lots in the configuration that several Council members have suggested by combining 5 and 6, you might have a plat that will get approved. Robert Engstrom: That's not a big deal but I didn't come in with 11 and 12 lots with the idea of cutting down to 10. We just came in with our best plat and we talked to the Staff and so on in the process and I though we came in with what was a pretty well thought out plan. Now, the plan that I'm showing you right here. 54 13] City Council ~ting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Geving: I like that plan better than this one. Robert Engstrom: The only disadvantage of this plan is the fact that Lot 8, the building area becomes very tight if you're going to save the trees, will never be. That is a consideratioru But if you like, what I'll do is go back ar~ we'll study this real carefully ar~ see if we can make this configuration work and come back to you in what, two weeks? Would that be an acceptable procedure? Mayor Hamilton: Do they have to go to the Planning Commission first then Barbara? Barbara Dacy: No, unless you specifically direct them to. Robert Engstrom: This is our business and Chanhasse~ has a lot of other land so I would like to go in here and do a good job on this site and then you'll know the next time we c~me in here this is the type of job we're capable of doing. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the request to subdivide 4.7 acres into lB single family lots located on Yosemite Avenue approximately 1/4 mile north of Lake Lucy Road until the next City Council meeting so the developer can c~ne back with a reconfiguratio~u All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.15 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7423-7425 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS COURT SUBDMSION, LOTUS REALTY SERVICF~. Councilman Geving: Is this new information here tonight? Barbara Dacy: Yes, this is the applicant's sulxnit~ regarding the street issue. Councilman Geving: Is this new information that could have been given to us? Jo Ann Olsen: He just gave it to us. Councilman Geving: We complained about this last week. We complained about getting information the very night. We can't discuss this at the very last minute. Mayor Hamilton: Brad, did you want to present your thoughts here. Brad Johnson: It takes a little bit of history to understand or for me to make clear to you I guess. Basically you've all read the very brief discussion we had about this last time in the Minutes but basically about a year ago a fellows home ~ down here making this possible to happen. At that time I had just moved into Lot 2 as is on here, or a couple years ago and I started talking with my neighbors, the Ellsworths, Debby and Ken and then Bill Kirkvold concerning the potential of improving the street. O~e of the problems that we've had there for a long time is that there really is no 55 132 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 consistent access and nice planned street. Also, one of the problems that we had when we had the fire, we discovered there really was no access back into the houses and whoever was there fighting can remember that evening I'm sure. I wasn't there but my kids were so what we did, when we negotiated with the current owner of the property and thought possibly we could buy it at a reasonable price and not end up economically what you would call a good deal. Mr. Kirkvold is going to build a home and this is how we're financing it, he's going to sell his house and build a home on Lot 3 and that's how we can make sure that we can put together the transaction and then Lot 2 we'll sell in the future with either a spec home or we have some people who are interested in building a house on it. ~ne real objective however is not to make a subdivision out of this but to straighten out the neighborhood. The reason we're adding the extra lot is to make it economically viable to do a lot of things that we plan to do. Also, have it under our control. This is a rare chance for five homes that are currently serviced off one street and we got everyone to agree that we should try to accomplish something and clean it up. In about a year from now after everyone has gone their separate Ways, I don't think we would be able to accomplish that. Some of the subtleties of this particular plat is that currently there is a house just to the north of Lot 4 that is serviced by the easement across here and the sewer comes in here and it's basically landlocked. It has a 10 foot frontyard. It has a lake lot so what we've added in here is an outlot that potentially can be sold to the new owners of that property so they in fact will have a frontyard and put garages in and kind of clean up that partic61ar area. That's why that outlot is in there. That does cause variance r_~s because we're taking away from of the room. You certainly would not do a subdivision this way except we have to build around the existing homes that are there. The plan is to change this particular driveway potentially from going in like this and coming straight in off of a cul-de-sac and then another driveway would come in here. There are setback variances on two new lots where we don't reach the 90 foot wide setback. We do reach it where we build on. We plan on building more back into the walkout lots back in the back and there is plenty of room in the back. There are a number of trees on the property that we're trying to save. These are very old maple trees that have bc-~n~ there for a long time, we're just trying to put the houses in between the maple trees and still keep the setback requirement. The subdivisions I've done in the past, people have permitted a 90 foot setback at the point the house was going to be built so I wasn't concerned about that. The other thing that we discovered though kind of on the way to discussion with the Planning Commission is that we met with Gary Warren and Barb Dacy and they indicated that for various reasons, nobody is quite sure what type of sewer and water we have in our road. We know there is water ar~ we know there's sewer out there are no advils available so even though all our homes are connected, the request of the staff was that we consider putting in all new utilities as we were doing this. That increased the budget and I'm sorry I delivered this but I just got this information late last week ar~ we were trying to figure out how we were going to present this and that's part of my presentation but basically we had an original budget that he neighborhood had met and discussed that we thought about $15,000.00 to accomplish the goal. ~ne City proposal, if we do it exactly as the Staff has recommended would cost around $33,000.00. It's different if you're spreading that across a lot of lots but basically these are services that we currently have except for the road. We think a potential solution would be more in the 56 133 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 order, that we agree with the City that if in fact there is a problem and everybody seems to agree there is, with the current utility service into our area, whether we do it or not. In other words, there are no fire hydrants. No clean outs. We're not even sure there is sufficient water pressure. We hired Mr. E~gelhardt as a consultant and he said really what happens, to figure all this out is to dig it all up and at that point you might as well put in new. Is that right? So what we have come to the conclusion is that we can't really afford in this particular packet to assess the four or five people that are participating fulling and that's what the middle one is. We are interested in doing the sanitary sewer and water. Then another variance that we would ~, at least for a while, is that we would set up the necessary right-of-way for a standard city street that was on our original proposal but instead of putting in the full width of the road at 28 feet and the~ using the base material ar~ blacktop, I think you use about 6 inches of blacktop in that area? They said we could use 3 inches and cut the cost down from $12,00~.~0, with curb and gutter, currently there are no curb and gutters in our area, saving about $7,000.~0 so I have presented here basically a city proposal which is in accordance with all basic standards of planning. We're requesting that we have a private road and I juggled and misspelled some words, it's just off the printer today but basically looked at each of the proposals of the Staff and Planning Oommission have had in 1 through lq and try to address what we think is possible financially at this particular time. I think the key element here though is not so much the cost except we probably can't get it done at the total cost that w~ might have to do, that we are attempting as a neighborhood to improve a street that currently is basically unsafe. The approach to the street is unsafe probably. There is a lot of erosion every year. We have to replace the road but not to the tune of $30,000.00. Our original plan was just to go in ar~ not solve any of the problems, the access of the lot to the north, right now everything is serviced by easements. It's kind of a mess everytime somebody sells because you have this big amount of documentation. ~he only other element of the program is that in the process Gary went over and looked at out site and noticed that the beachlot road and one of the roads off of Lot 2 both dump onto Frontier Trail. We have discussed with the Staff that we vacate this particular road here but we like to talk with them a little bit more and try and figure out a solution on the beachlot road for a couple of reasons. We are not the total ownership of the beachlot. There are another 22 families that have to be involved in that kind of decision and it's not used that muclL That was another surprise to us that that was included in our proposal so that's primarily where it is. There are some variances in here. We think it's improve our property. We think it's an opportunity for the city and ourselves to have a nice looking subdivision on the lake and it's not a classic subdivision in that we can't change where our houses are located.- We try to build in ar~ around our houses. My particular house, I told a couple of guys I'll change the house and move it so it faces the other direction but I think that's a lot of money. It happens to go on the backyard where our windows and stuff happen to he here and if we kept bringing in the lot line like you normally would on a cul-de- sac, it would run right through the patio in order to make everything work as far as the variance. This lot here, I believe is 25,~0 square feet which is 5,000 square feet more than is necessary. 57 134 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Bill Kirkvold: I live at 7423 Frontier Trail which is shown as Lot 10 on the sketch of the original subdivision. I feel like I'm kind of a co-developer here with Brad in terms of this thing although I'm really not but anyhow, I've lived there for 10 years and we like the neighborhood but when Brad and I started talking about potentially buying a piece of property that formerly belonged to Pete Linsmeyer. I was interested. In fact I was thinking about building a bigger house and the opportunity for lakeshore intrigued me but in looking at it, we in the neighborhood had thought of it more in terms of a neighborhood improvement project than we had in terms of a subdivision. I think we have to look at what we had for an existing road which is an easement that, as Brad mentioned, has been subject to erosion and problems in the past. We got an opportunity here to make a significant improvement there. Really the basis of the project to a larger extent is the aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and it really comes down to a matter of how much can you afford in terms of just improving the aesthetics of your neighborhood. As Brad said, we started out talking in terms of $15,000.00 as being an affordable number. When you start looking at the total package that meets all the city ordinances, you're over $30,000.00 and I think that's getting beyond the point where people are going to be willing to participate in a project. But as Brad said, I think we have a unique opportunity here that may not occur again in the foreseeable future. We've got unanimous agreement among the people in the neighborhood that we should go in and do an improvement like this. If we don't do it now, I think we're going to be stuck with essentially with we have today for a long time to c~me. Pat Swenson: Do I understand that you're just connecting the established beach or are you going to establish a beachlot of your own? Bill Kirk~old: No, one of these lots is a lakeshore lot. Tne other lot will be off the lake. Mayor Hamilton: There's lakeshore there now. Pat Swenson: Yes, but as a beachlot? Mayor Hamilton: Lot 12 is a beachlot that's there. That has nothing to do with that. This property would be subdivided into two lots. One of them would have the lakeshore property and other one would not have lakeshore property. I guess there are a couple things I would like to clarify. One is, the easiest one seems to be the access to Lot 12. I'm not sure why that got thrown into this project. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with subdividing the property and trying to improve the neighborhood there. That seems to be a separate issue to me. Then the sewer and water, these homes are obviously connected to sewer and water currently and it's kind of beyond me why we can't locate sewer and water and use what's existing without having to force them to put in all new sewer and water. ~nere must be some way of finding out what's there, where it's located. Schoell and Madsen or somebody must have the drawings that indicate that and if they don't, there's got to be s~me way to find out. Gary Warren: The best that we know, and I guess this relates to the fire, we went out there to locate the water shut-offs and that was the problem. We had 58 135 City Oouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 to actually excavate just to locate those. The area is only serviced by a 2 inch watermain the best we can tell and likewise a 4 inch sewer. From a maintenance standpoint it's very difficult to clean a 4 inch sewer. Our minimum diameter sewers are an 8 inch diameter with a manhole (x~ it so I guess we're talking about serviceability and as Brad mentioned here, this is a chance to upgrade a very difficult syste~ Maybe we've ~ lucky that we haven't had sewer plugs or anything up there. Our reaction from a service- ability standpoint and from some standards star, point was to make those reco~maldations. Mayor Hamilton: When they were put in originally they must have met city standards. It couldn't have put in that long ago because those homes aren't that old. They are reaso~hly new homes. You're positive that that's the size of pipe that's in there? Gary Warren: That's what Gerry Boucheau, he's the best resource that I have. Mayor Hamilton: Why would Gerry Boucheau be a better source than Schoell and Madsen who probably did the engineering on it? Gary Warren: Schoell and Madsen, I guess the person who did the work there is no longer with the firm and the records as far as whether this was done under public improvenent or not, they are pretty sket~. Mayor Hamilton: It just ~ like there must be a better alternative. It sour~s like we don't really know what's there and there must he some way to find that out. To use the existing, I would think if we put a manhole at the top by the cul-de-sac ar~ connected the new homes to that and connected that to the existing sewer would probably help the problem a lot if there is a problem. Warren: The existing sewer is a 4 inch diameter sewer. Mayor Hamilton: You're sure of that? It se~ms that you're not sure of that. Gary Warren: I'm saying that's what I've been told by Gerry Boucheau. Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I'm wondering why Gerry Boucheau would know that that's a 4 inch sewer. Councilman Geving: I guess I look at this as an opportunity for the homeowners of this area here to improve their particular lot ar~ also at the same time create a sellable lot for the future. My question to the Council is of what benefit would this be to the City? Ail the benefit is derived by the homeowners and if the upgrading is recommended or requested by the homeowners as a development plot, I believe it should be based upon city standards ar~ brought up to city standards. If there is a 2 inch pipe there now for water and 4 inch sewer pipe and does not meet our standards, I think it should be brought up to standards. If they are intending to put in streets at this time, I think in line with all the other streets that we're putting in the community, it should also be brought up to a city standard. I do have some questions however on Lot 12. I~n very familiar with Lot 12 and it should not 59 136 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 have been brought into this issue. Lot 12 goes back as long as I've been a councilmember and for the staff's purposes I think it should be excluded from any further consideration except for one thing. That any construction that's done on this site shouldn't have any impact on drainge or sedimentation or anything else that would affect what goes into Lot 12. We've done a lot of work on Lot 12. We've spent a lot of money on that and I wouldn't want to see us do anything foolish at this time and not put up the necessary erosion control measures to avoid that. I don't see any hardship in this case for a variance as requested by the developers. I don't believe that there should be a variance given. I find conflict with the Planning Commission's comments on Page 4 of our Staff Report. In their first item they said that the street should be a public street with an island in the cul-de-sac turnaround and I don't understand that because we just had another issue when they recommended vehemently against a cul-de-sac with an island and now they're recommending in this one. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission was in favor of an island in both cases. Councilman Geving: Were they in favor in both cases? Excuse me. After I read tonight and heard the discussion of Mr. Engstrom, I believe we can handle cul-de-sacs with islands so I don't have that as an issue but I did feel that there was an inconsistency there and maybe I'm wrong. My comments then have to do with the DNR letter and I would like to have you refer to that. ~ne Department of Natural Resources letter dated May 6, 1987. Lotus Court setback requirement should be enforced. Is that the way you see it Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: Right ar~ what they are also pointing out is that the ordinary high water mark, that the 20,000 square feet of lot area should be measured frc~ above the ordinary high water mark. Councilman Geving: So the question is then, is this a public street or a private street and I maintain that it should be a public street. It should be maintained by the City. It's the only way I think we can handle this. I don't care if there's an island in there or not. Jerry may have a little problem with that. Jerry Schlenk: I don't care. It's the people along the road there that will care. Councilman Geving: Tnere was a couple of other issues. No impact on Lot 12. No clearcutting. I know there are some nice trees in there and I think that was brought out in the Staff R~port. And I'll repeat my comments here for the record, no hardship is shown to me as requested for the variance. I believe the sewer and water and fire hydrants should be installed and that the street should be brought up to urban street standards and a cul-de-sac should also meet city standards for a cul-de-sac. I have no other comments. Councilman Johnson: I see it as, I'm going to be the broken record when I go and pull the subdivision ordinance. I'm not going to bother going through it all but there is only one page here. There's no grading plans. There's no erosion control plans, etc., etc., etc.. It's not a complete preliminary 60 137' City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 plat. It's hard for me to approve a one page preliminary plat that doesn't contain everything our ordinance says it's supposed to have on it. It would be nice to ~_~ the other things. ~he erosion control plans and the grading and everything else. It looks like we are making a nice little group of houses here. I think there is some hardship on some of the lots. I think Lot 4 you consider that a hardship with the existing house. I think we could be a little more creative and move some lot lines and get a lot closer. With the topography ar~ everything, I think they're doing pretty good. Maybe Brad ~s to lose a little more backya d and Bill ~s to gain a little more frontage. I would rather see the difference between 80 and 90 foot than a 52 to 90 foot. I would like to see the full preliminary plat as required by our subdivision ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I think you r~ to remember that we're dealing really with Lots 2 and 3 that are vacant and just being dividecL Everything else exists ar~ there is an attempt to improve the neighborhood by putting a road in better than what currently exists amd by doing that and meeting city standards, you then create the hardship of not having the proper amount of frontage so it's not like it's vacant land where you're going to just move lines around helter skelter to try amd accomplish what it is you are trying to accomplish but you're dealing really with only two lots out of this proposed subdivision where there is any room for movement. Councilman Horn: I believe there is one concern that I have regarding outlot 12. It appears to me that unless Lot 2 will not be part of that association, we are really intensifying the use of outlot 12 which as I understar~ it is under a conditional use permit which would have to come in for reconsideration. I suspect this is not the only intensification of outlot 12 that should come in for this but that outlot association doesn't seem to bother with that amd that disturbs me. I guess I~ not saying that that's not an issue in this case. I think we have an opportunity here to clean up the traffic situation and we have a com~itional use permit that's being intensified, that would be our time to request that. So I do disagree with that. As far as trying to fit it into some of the existing conditions, I do think that this makes an improvement in the overall layout of the area and I think we should find a way to accommodate'it, lb really confused about this whole sewer and water issue. I don't know how you can lose your system like that. If it truly is a undersized system and isn't to city standards, then that means one thing to me. If we just can't find the location of it and we're going to go in and dig it all up so we know where it is, than I have a real problem with that. I can't comprehend that happening. So that's my concern I guess on this issue. Councilman Boyt: I think it gets back to what we were just talking about and I would like to have us look at the ordinanoe on the 90 foot width at the 30 foot setback and consider changing that to 90 feet at the building pad. I don't know what we lose by doing that but I would really like to know what our options are. I suspect that this might make it if we were looking at an ordinance that said 90 feet at the building pad. Is that true? Pretty close. Okay, then the other thing that I asked and I didn't have a chance to ask this of Staff, I was curious since this involves really what looks to me to be .the 61 138 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 splitting of one lot, why does this have to come in under a subdivision scrutiny? Jo Ann Olsen: It still has to come in with a preliminary plat to meet subdivision standards. Councilmah Boyt: Anytime a person splits their lots they have to come in? Jo Ann Olsen: Unless it's a perfect split meeting the meets and bounds, then they can do that just with City Council approval. Otherwise, they have to go through the subdivision process. Councilman Boyt: If not for that, this wouldn't even be in front of us? ~'ney could do everything they wanted to do if this didn't have to be considered as part of the subdivision? Jo Ann Olsen: If they could have proven that there would be no variances and met public street frontage, the lot area requirement and just a simple one' line meets and bounds descriptions, then no. Councilman Boyt: As far as the beachlot access onto Frontier Trail, my observations are that that access is gated off much as we were talking about doing with Greenwood Shores Park and I have not seen it used that much in terms of entrance and exit on Frontier Trail. Jo Ann Olsen: If I could just clarify that. What I meant was not necessarily a Lot 12 access. It was the secondary access to Lot 1. I wanted that either to be closed off because once you have a cul-de-sac, if it goes straight onto Frontier Trail and it would almost be like a direct angle of that road and that's what we wanted to clean up so there wouldn't be two driveway points right directly next to each other. ~nen Mr. Johnson has stated that he would not be using the secondary driveway. Councilman Boyt: I don't think he uses it now. It looks like an alpine horse out there looking at the driveway. The other point I would like to make though about this driveway is that as the City Engineer indicated when he posted recommended speeds through there, that is the most dangerous curve on Frontier Trail. If this would help that situation, I guess I would like to have some more information about whether this helps or hinders. Gary Warren: l'aat was the motivation I guess. Anytime we can reduce the number of access points from a traffic standpoint, we're improving the safety of the curve and that was the sole motivation for that. Councilman Boyt: For reducing that, there's next to no traffic out that right now. I guess I'm thinking of the widening of the road that would occur with the cul-de-sac. What impact do you see that having on the corner? Gary Warren: Widening with the new road? We looked at it from the standpoint that we would get a little bit better sight distance from vehicle that was at the stop sign or enter onto Frontier Trail. 62 139 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think there's a possibility and this would ~ to be made to me to get my vote on this thing is we need to show a hardship. Dale talked about he wasn't so sure that he say a hardship as I heard him. There might be one. This is kir~ of a unique situation here but in looking at it I wasn't able to find it. I'm open to somebody~s pointing it out to me but it looks to me like this is an economic decision again and really based primarily on economics rather than on a physical impairment that would demonstrate hardship. I would like to have that for protection in other situations. Those are my comments. Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to repond to any of that Brad or Bill? Bill Kirkvold: I think as far as the road access to Lot 12 goes, people should realize that that's used only three or four months a year and th~n primarily only on weeker~ls in which case I don't think I've ever ~ more than three cars go down there on any one day. As far as that presenting a traffic hazard with automobiles driving in ar~ out of there, I think that is just minimal. (]~viously as a long term solution you would like to put a stop sign at that corner. Whether or not that's ever going to be possible. I recognize that the City has posted 15 mph spccd limit signs there but I have never ~ scmebndy go that slow by my house. Brad Johnson: I just polled the neighbors. I don't think we've got a deal. We probably have to abandon the idea if we have to meet city standards. If you guys feel that way, than I don't think it will happen for some time...I think that's where the hardship comes iD. We've gone from a $15,000.~fJ budget to a $33,~0~.~0 bugdget and that's a long ways away and there's no visual economic gain to the property. The value of the properties aren't going to go up because they already...The street we agree is an improvement. We already have sewer and water. Other than the middle one lot that you can't really hold against, there already is sewer and water in there. If somebody wants to hook up off that one line, it's going to happen I guess and leave it like it is and maintain it. All we're saying as a neighborhood, we're also saying we'll set it up in such a way that should this not work out long term, the right-of-way is in place for a full street someplace down the line but looking at your ordinances, the only way we can accomplish this today with your current ordinance and you notice that there is a motion coming out of the Planning Commission to charge the street size requirements down in certain areas in the community if they can do it. In Minnetonka it's 22 feet in neighborhoods like this. Basically, we've .got a problem here ar~ I think the City personally, if you say $33,~.~0 is not a problem, I think you're dreaming. I think if you ask my neighbors I don't think they understard or comprehend what you guys are talking about. That's a hardship. ~here is no economic gairu We admit the road is a gain and that's what we wanted to do. We were all set to go until we discovered we had to put $14,~0.0~ into the sewer. We agreed it had to be done. We had no problem with that currently hut if we don't have a budget and that's what we got to operate under 'that allows us to do everything today but we can set it up so it's a lot better for tomorrow. Your ordinance says you can call this a private street with a variance. We happen to have four houses on it. I just don't comprehend it. 63 140 City Council ~cting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Horn: If the sewer system failed tomorrow and you had to go in and put in a new sewer system, they would be assessed right? Gary Warren: If they had to put a new system in, the property would be assessed. Councilman Horn: If they have the kind of system that you think they have, what are the chances that that's going to last very long? Gary Warren: I could say 100 years and tomorrow it could go out. It's hard to say. It's just that we don't have right now the ability to go out there without a lot of effort and maintain the system. We don't have access to it. Councilman Boyt: What about the possibility of saying that that system is substandard at which point the city gets involved and brings it up to code and then we assess the property owners which means they would have how many years to pay that assessment? Spread out the cost of this thing? Gary Warren: I think, if I'm understanding some of the direction here, Brad has mentioned that they see a value in trying to improve or take advantage of this opportunity to improve the utilities at this time. Quite honestly, the utilities to me, from a serviceability standpoint, are more important to be up to standard than even the cul-de-sac. I could live from an engineering standpoint with a narrower road without curb and gutter per se and feel more comfortable with that than I would with a 4 inch diameter sewer and a 2 inch watermain serving six lots. Don Ashworth: I was just going to repeat the same points that Gary just brought up. All that existed was individual lots. In other words, the City had no ~ements or anything to make extensions so the ability to have recorded documents as to where common lines may be, potentially they went together on certain deeds years ago so I guess I can see how you did get a 2 and a 4 inch in there and the City doesn't necessarily know where they are. Secondarily, looking at this property, the way a truck plows snow is that it has the momentum behind it. As it's moving down the street, as the momentum, the weight of that vehicle and the s~ in which to turn or plow snow. A very short cul-de-sac like this and as you are moving into winter and it becomes icier and you have a large truck ar~ you are trying to go up this hill, recognize that the only way you can do that is to have that weight, momentum and s~ behind you, becomes far more difficult. I, as Gary noted, think that an alternative solution would be to allow this to be a private street. (]et in the sewer. (~t in the water and allow that again to exist as a private street where they clean out the snow associated with that cul-de- sac. I like the idea of the island ar~ what not but I think in this case it really could be very difficult. Mayor Hamilton: Tnat would be the least of our worries if we can't reach agreement on subdivision of the property. Improving a neighborhood area and Dale said he wondered what it did for the city and I didn't know we had to do anything for the city. It cleans up a piece of property that's going to sit there vacant until somebody else comes along that wants to come back and suggest another subdivision of some kind. It's a nice old neighborhood area 64 141 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 and I think the way it's bccn worked out, makes the neighborhood area even better. It would seem to me that's why we're here is to attempt to do that kind of thing when we have the opportunity to do just that. Councilman Geving: In your original plan, your cost analysis Brad, you have $9,008.88 for roads. What did that include? Brad Johnson: It was our best estimate on a 28 foot wide, what was on the plan there? Councilman Geving: Give it to me the way you had analyzed that $9,800.08 and why the city chose to go to the $12,888.8~? I want to know the difference. Brad Johnson: Curb and gutter. Councilman Geving: Curb and gutter was a separate item. That comes later. That's another item. I want to know how you arrived at that $9,888.88 because we' re only $3,888.88 apart there. Brad Johnson: I don't know. We went in and asked what it would cost. Our original proposal is what we budge~ ourselves. It had nothing to do with any engi ~r~cring. Councilman Geving: I was just wondering. Were you looking at a 24 foot street or 28 foot street. Brad Johnson: We were looking at 22 foot roadway and bringing it up to city standa~s as far as base ar~ asphalt and we did not have an estimate. Councilman Geving: The reason I'm asking this question is there are only two variances between your original cost amd your potential solution, the city's solution amd that involves the curb amd gutter at $3,588.88 and approximatey $3,888.88 for the roadway. That's the only difference. Brad Johnson: $5,288.88 for the roadway if you allow it to be narrower... Councilman Geving: On your potential solution for the roadway, you're still looking at the private road as opposed to our $12,888.88 city improved road? Brad Johnson: Yes. Councilman Geving: Okay, then the only other item is the curb and gutter. We're within $18,888.88. Brad Johnson: $18,888.88 is a lot of money. Councilman Geving: I don't know how Jerry feels about this, Jerry's back there, how you feel about this but I don't know if you would be very anxious to get in and clear out this particular cul-de-sac if you had to take your truck up that high incline. Would that be a big problem for you? 65 142 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Jerry Schlenk: It would be easier even if it is smaller if that island wasn't there. Councilman Geving: So the question that Don posed is not a major problem for the road maintenance people? Brad Johnson: Didn't Don recognize it as a private drive? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Brad Johnson: So they wouldn't have to plow it. Councilman (~eving: I know that. I'm looking at both sides here. Jerry Schlenk: I'm sure we can do it. Councilman Geving: I'm looking at that incline there that when you've got a bucket full of sand in the back of that truck. Jerry Schlenk: I said without the island it would be easy. With the island, it's going to be tough. Don Ashworth: I think they're saying though that it has to be with the island and my comments were dealing with the island. Councilman Geving: If we didn't put the curb and gutter in Gary, what impact would that water run-off have on that area? It's all very hydrant. The water is going to have to drain somewhere. Does it go down to Lot 127 Gary Warren: Pretty much so. Brad Johnson: It all goes down to the street into storm sewer. It's the same plce it goes now. Councilman Geving: I guess what I'm trying to do is find a solution to this particular subdivision. I hate to see the homeowners who have collectively cooperated in this endeavor and I would like to see us carry it through if it's at all possible. Brad Johnson: I guess where I have a problem is if you allow us to have a private street, it would meet just about everybody's concern. If we're not allowed to have a private street, than we have to match all of these other ordinances. We're willing to put in the sewer and water. We're willing to upgrade everything. It saves us about $10,000.00. You can see maybe the difference which is about $7,000.00 that will go against those two lots. That's what we agreed but we can't just keep loading money onto those lots and hope that someday we' 11 get it back out of there. Councilman Horn: But you would probaby end up with that financial problem whether youhadmore lots in there or not if the sewer system failed. If what they're describing, it's hard to believe that it's going to last. What 66 143 City Oouncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 they're saying is they are going to pay for sewer upgrading by selling more lots o Brad Johnson: No. Councilman Horn: They didn't offset the cost of the sewer upgrade. Brad Johnson: We said we went from $15,~B~.0~ which was our original budget that the three of us agreed to. We were willing to say, $2B,QBB.~B to $23,~0B.00 we'll hold those against two lots because if we don't do that we're not going to have an extra lot. We're just going to vacate the deal that's all. We can put a street in for $3,~Q.BB to $4,00B.0B and be done with it. The alternate is we just forget the idea because we're not buying that lot, if we were buyirg that lot wholesale it would be a lot differently but we're buying that lot retail. It's not inexpensive. , Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, have you had a chance to review their existing proposal, their llth hour proposal? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Subdivision Bequest ~87-22 as shown on the plat dated April, 14, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The street be a private street constructed by the applicant. 2. The applicant will be required to connect the street up to Frontier Trail including the portion of the City property. 3. Sanitary sewer and watermain will be constructed along Lotus Court. 4. Outlot A will accommodate a driveway easement for access to the existing hcme to the north of the outlot. 5. The applicant shall e~ter into a development agreement with the City to provide the necessary financial sureties for completion of the improvements. 6. The location of the home on Lot 3 shall be done in such a manner to direct storm water run-off in a non-erosive manner ar~ proper erosion control measures shall be taken during construction. There was no secor~ ar~ motien failed for lack of second. Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, I have problems with this in that there really is no benefit to anyone other than the h~meowners who are developing a piece of property ar~ getting an extra lot out of it and sell maybe some properties. Mr. Kirkvold will probably get a lakeshore lot out of it and it will clean up some of the neighborhood that's there. I would like to request this suggestion of the developers and the h~meowners. That we eliminate the current access to Lot 12 and place that in as an easement access to Lot 12 67 144 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 across proposed Lot 2 or 3. ~nat's the only benefit that the city could get out of this by cutting off that whole access and bring it in through your development. Mr. Kirkvold said that the only access that he's ever seen is possibly two to three times a year. Bill Kirkvold: Two to three times a day on the weekends. Councilman Geving: Officially by our people? The people who have the right to go in there and the people that own the lot? Okay, but again, for any benefit to accrue to the city in cutting off another access onto Frontier Trail. ~nat makes sense to me. Mayor Hamilton: Where would you put the access? Councilman Geving: I'm saying bring that up your new street and bring it betwc~n~ the lots. Either Brad's lot and this proposed new Lot 2 or between the new Lot 2 and Lot 3. Mayor Hamilton: Do you know how steep that is in there? Councilman Geving: I've ~_---n in there. Mayor Hamilton: How are you going to put a road in there and meet the grade requir~nents? Councilman Geving: Unless there's something that the city can gain from this, then there's nothing that the city wants to participate in this as far as I'm concerned. I'm offering an alternative. Get rid of another access onto Frontier Trail including yours Brad. Brad Johnson: You've already eliminated mine. Councilman Geving: Okay, then let's take out the other one. Brad Johnson: We don't have any problem with that but I don't think anybody's going to want to buy into that is all. Councilman Geving: I'm throwing it out as a suggestion. Brad Johnson: Yes, and I'm saying that's fine. All I'm saying is I think somebody should look at it because on the road, it appears as you come down Frontier Trail, you follow that right down and you miss your turn, you end up down in the ditch. I'm just saying there are other alternatives to that and that's what I'm really saying and maybe this is fine. councilman Geving: Okay, let me give you another idea. At the base of the hill where you live Brad, if you put in a new road, we could bring that new road for Lot 12 along Frontier Trail for a stretch and then bend it the way it already is ar~ let it go back to the lake. Brad Johnson: Tnat's what Gary prescribed and I don't think we have an objection to that. Our concern was that it was included in our subdivision. 68 145 City Council ~ting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Geving: But I'm saying, in order for this to get some kind of approval from the City, we have to get something out of it and that is to reduce the number of accesses onto Frontier Trail. Brad Johnson: I'm not disagreeing. Mayor Hamilton: I really can't disagree with you Dale because in the first place I don't see that there's a big problem there. There's very little traffic that uses that access. It's a separate issue completely. It doesn't have anything to do with this whole thing. You can't go to that part because the grades are too steep. They said they would come around here and do this. I think it's not a big problem. It's a very minimal type of thing. You may end up having more difficult time taking a right turn and trying to get down. They say they're willing to do that. That's not a problem. Nobody said there was a problem with that. Councilman Geving: Let's say Plan B was to bring it along in front of Brad's Councilman Johnson: We're not sending it back to the Planning Commission. We're sending it back to Jo Ann to look at what you gave us a couple hours ago when we started this. I don't have all the implications for a private road. I do not know all 20 or 30 ordinances that might have anything to do with this and I would like St~ff to have a chance to look it over and advise us as our advisors, what we pay them to do, on whether this is a good thing and how we can show where there is a hardship and come out and explain that to us rather than us try to make it up and set a precedence right here at midnight whe~ everybody is running on about 50% to about 75%. That's my motion to table this for two weeks until we get adequate information ar~ especially the drainage. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table Subdivision Request ~87-22 for two weeks so Staff can look at the new proposal and come back with a concise recommendation on their proposal. All voted in favor of tabling the motion except Mayor Hamilton and the motion carried. Councilman Horn: Can we get the status of this outlot situationbecause it seems tome that this thing is going to be further intensified with this proposal. Brad Johnson: That is grandfathered in. Councilman Horn: It's grar~ifathered in but it's a conditional use permit. All these, beachlots were gone in with their current intensity at the time they were grandfathered in which means they can not be intensified. The people down there don't seem to ur~erstand that because they are improving it without permission but they are not to make any improve~ents that will intensify that beachlot which m~ans adding people to use it. Mayor Hamilton: But the intensification would be the use of it ar~ if the use hasn't increased then there is no intensification. 69 146 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 Councilman Horn: If there are more people added to the beachlot, that is an intensification. It needs a new conditional use permit. Mayor Hamilton: You're making accusations that they've already done that and I don't know if that's even part of this. Councilman Horn: Part of this would be to add somebody to that. I'm asking that question. It seems tome that they are adding sc~ebody to that beachlot. Mayor Hamilton: That would be a separate request again. If that person wanted to be a part of that. We haven't seen that. Councilman Horn: That's not a part of this? Mayor Hamilton: Lot 2 doesn't have lakeshore but does that mean they are automatically a part of Lot 12. I don't think so. Why would they be? Brad Johnson: In our subdivision it states that anybody who lives within that area is a m~nber of the beachlot. Councilman Horn: So you are intensifying it by adding a lot? Brad Johnson: Automatically but then adding lots continuously in our area, I don't know if that's legal or not. I don't know if you take away our rights that are grandfathered in. Councilman Horn: That's yours, that's not our ordinance that says that. That's your covenants. I think we need clarification on that. If you were here for our earlier beachlot discussion our concern is that these things don't intensify. Especially this one which was considered one of the problem beachlots when we did this original beachlot ordinance. SADDLEBROOK FIRST ADDITION. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, since this is going to be a long drawn out affair on Saddlebrook subdivision here. There seems to be a lot of conflict with Staff. The developer. I think he could use a little time working with our Staff here to iron out a few of the issues that are yet coming in this. The hour is after midnight. Our last issue started right at 11:00 which our ordinance on how we run our council meetings says we don't take any new issues after 11:00 and I would therefore like to move to adjourn. Don Ashworth: If you're moving adjournment under the ordinance, then the item would go to next Monday night. You would be setting up a special council meeting. Councilman Johnson: In that case, I would like to table this item. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman(~ving seconded to table the Saddlebrook First Addition for two weeks. All voted in favor of tabling .the item except for Mayor Hamilton and motion carried. 7~ 147' City (k)uncil Meeting - June 1, 1987 Rick Murray: We were going to the Watershed District on Wednesday and we were hopirg you people would be willing to look at this item. Councilman Johnson: Do you have to have our approval before the Watershed District? Rick Murray: They won't listen to our proposal or application until your reci~mendation, one way or the other on our grading plan. Mayor Hamilton: So it basically puts you back about a month then. Rick Murray: Yes, you just dropped us a month. Mayor Hamilton: You probaby won't be able to get anyone in this year y~t. Is that right? Rick ~k%rray: That's correct. Mayor Hamilton: I hope the Council understands that. ~his just delayed a develoI~ent for a year. Councilman Johnson: I think in the past mistakes have been made because of people not being 100% at midnight and I think it's important for the planning that we should be on our tops. We've been put here by the citizens to be at our top form and at midnight after everybody has worked a hard days woxk ar~ they come in here arid work quite a few hours, I don't think w~'re on top form. Rick Murray: I haven't talked with Staff but in our discussions with Staff I haven't ~n aware of any major concerns. We have a subdivision here that meets your ordinance. It's just a straight ordinance subdivisio~u It's not a PUD. It' s identical to a preliminary plat. Mayor Hamilto~ moved to place this item on the agemda for tomorrow night, Tuesday, JUne 1, 1987. There was no second and motion failed for lack of Councilman Johnson: Call a special meeting for tomorrow night? Don Ashworth: You could do it tomorrow night. We could move the Task Force somewhere else. The only problem with that is Tom and I are supposed to both be there. Councilman Boyt: What if we move it to meet tomorrow at say 6:~0 p,m.. The question I have on this is that I have a letter from Staff dated May 29th as you do from Gary Warren and this implies to me that Gary did not receive all the information he nccded to provide us input on the grading plan ar~ erosion control. .Is that correct? Gary Warren: I think it's a series of things. As you are aware, we are all trying to get things out of here in a limit_~ amount of time and the plan as it stands, there are some inconsistencies with the EAW and promises that were made to the EAW as far as phasirg approach to the project and just some basic 71 City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 things which appear minor on the surface I guess but when you try to look at things, it just shakes the credibility of what we're looking at here and at the time this thing was coming through, I didn't feel comfortable with being able to make a proper review of it and that's where I'm coming from. Councilman Boyt: Would you be in better shape next Monday? Gary Warren: Definitely. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us move it to next Monday. ~nat sets him back a week, is that right? Councilman Johnson: Tnat sets him back a month. Mayor Hamilton: It sets him back a year. Councilman Geving: But here's the deal. We got a recommendation tonight from Don Ashworth, our City Manager on the second page of this. He says he's not happy with this until we meet with the applicant and resolve these issues before sending it to the Council. I would have asked to table this anyway tonight for two weeks. CounciLman Horn: We talked about zero hour input last time this came up. Councilman Geving: So this isn't just a quicky tabling action. I wouldn't have trusted this myself basically from what I've seen. Don Ashworth: The grading issue is one question. My concern raised, we're in for an additional 40 feet of right-of-way somehow or another handling Kerber Blvd. as it would access to the property. Making a recommendation saying that there should be an adjustment of 40 feet of right-of-wayhas to be a very impacting type of a recommendation to the developer. I have never before made that form of recommendation without sitting down first with the developer and I felt very uncomfortable doing that. Rick Murray: What condition was that Don? Don Ashworth: The Staff Report, the one we prepared at 5:00 Friday night recognizes that we do not have enough right-of-way on Kerber Blvd. to be able to make left right hand turn movements safely for the new roads out of your subdivision, to put a trail within the right-of-way and to maintain the ditch sections. We can not do all of those things. I asked for right-of-way, an additional 40 feet as a part of this recommendation and I see that as a severe change to your plat. I felt very uncomfortable making that at 5:00 Friday afternoon. Mayor Hamilton: Not only are we going to assess him $200,000.00 to put in curb and gutter but now you want to take 40 more feet of right-of-way of his property. Don Ashworth: Choose. Can you live within a ditch section or can you put everything in an urban section. 72 149 City ~ouncil ~ting - JUne 1, 1987 Councilman Geving: There was one other issue too. We expected something from the Attorney in response to Rick's Attorney. We haven't got that. Gary Warren: That was scheduled for the 15th. Mayor Hamilton: That was a different issue. Councilman Geving: That was a different issue but we're still talking about the same subdivision. Councilman Johnson: Do you think you can work out some of these problems between now and tomorrow at 6:00? I don't know what everybody's schedules are. Councilman Boyt: I'm not willing to make the decision until we have input fr(x~ Staff. Mayor Hamilton Gary Warren: I think there has to be a meeting with the developer before we can bring it back. Councilman Johnson: Can you meet tomorrow Rick? Rick Murray: I can meet tomorrow morning but we're shot for this year anyway. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 73