Loading...
1977 05 11 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 11, 1977 e Dick Dutcher called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following members present: Les Bridger, Jerry Neher, and Roman Roos. Hud Hollenback, Mal MacAlpine, and Walter Thompson were absent. MINUTES: Les Bridger moved to approve the April 20, 1977, Planning Commission minutes with the following corrections: Change the word policy to goals in the title of Exhibit A, and on page 2, paragraph 2 of Exhibit A the first sentence to read: The Department of Natural Resources should be formally asked by the city to continue or initiate essential lake services such as rough fish removal, oxygen determinations, spawning bed marking, restocking and other DNR services. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. Motion unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to note the April 18, 1977, City Council minutes. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. Motion unanimously approved. Les Bridger moved to note the May 2, 1977, City Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. Motion unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING AMEND ORDINANCE 47 MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS e Dick Dutcher called the public hearing to order at 8:35 p.m. The City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Russell Larson, Bill Brezinsky, and Bruce pankonin were present. The City Planner explained the proposed amendment. The intent of the mother-in-law apartment was to have a parent, related by blood or marriage or adoption, living as a secondary family unit in a single family house. He recommended that the city not open up the R-1 District to all types of relatives but it should be restricted to natural or adoptive parents of the fee owner or contract buyer of,a single family house. He further recommended that the city put pressure on the Sewer Board, if this is adopted, not to charge SAC units or give added status to this 'duplex. A letter has been received by the City from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in answer to the question of mother-in-law apartments. They stated that an additional ,SAC charge would be required. e Russell Larson - I think I have indicated my concern about this concept earlier. I have approached it, from two standpoints. One has been my function as City Attorney and the other has been from a point of view of being a property owner and resident here in the city. I do have some very grave concerns about this concept in its present form. One of the primary concerns is the matter of the sewer and water assessment. You have covered the requirement of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission which would charge an additional SAC charge to such a unit. I have also in that area a concern from the city and its.fiscal condition. That ,is, whether. or not in all fairness this type 'of unit should bear a full sewer and water lateral charge at the city level as well as our customary trunk charge sewer and water. Is it really fair to the owner of the single family dwelling who pays this charge and then his neighbor is permitted to come in and put two Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -2- living units in and get by with only one charge? If we are going to be consistent throughout this city in levying our assessments, and we ... have a legal obligation to do so, it has to be acknowledged that we .., have the obligation to assess these units on the same basis as we do a duplex. There have been several instances in the north area for example, particularly in the Koehnen Addition, where there are two living units within one structure and they received two sewer and water charges and two SAC charges. I think there are three or four up there. Another grave area of concern to me here is the impact of this type of duplex use on adjoining properties. There may be a legal issue involved concerning a claim of depreciation in the value of adjoining properties. The man who has a single family residence and moves into a particular subdivision relying on the fact that this is zoned for single family use only and 10 and behold some morning he finds that there is an apartment going in next door. Will that not have a detrimental impact on property value with respect to his house? I think it would and I think we might be very realistically sticking our neck out on that very issue. Another area of concern that I have is that of the vacancy factor. We have got to anticipate that in some instances if not all, the mother-in-law or the family member will move out or pass away and the question then arises whether or not the property owner feels he has the right to continue to rent this unit notwithstanding the fact that his mother-in-law has moved out or the other family member has left the premises. It can be anticipated, I think, that we may be met with the following arguments if the city decides that this property cannot be rented out to some other individual. The property owner may argue that he has relied on this rental income for his general economic uses. That he has built the __ structure initially to accommodate such a unit or that he has remodeled an existing unit and thereby incurred expense and debt therefore and that he must now have this rental income to defray the cost which he has incurred. We are just opening a big can of worms. He might also argue that he needs this extra income in order to make his mortgage payments and retirement of his debt. Take the case where the mother-in-law or a daughter or a son marries and her husband moves in with her we then have a clear cut case of a two family unit occupying a single -family residence. It seems here in allowing this type of use in a single family residence district we may well be abolishing the single family residence district throughout the entire city, except in those few additions where there are covenants and restrictions. I live in one, Sunrise Hills. Dick, you may live in another, where you are limited to single family residence uses. Western Hills, there are no covenants and there are, Trolls Glen has covenants but by in iarge most of the plats I see that come in here now have no covenants and restrictions. The Reichert one does. The one you will be dealing with later on. These restrictions, incidentally, are valid only for a30 year period after the date in which they are created. Further concern of mine is real estate tax valuation and that deals with the question whether or not the newly created duplex, again using that as a term of art in my report, being a single family residence with a mother-in-law apartment should not be subject to increased valuation for real estate taxes by reason of the fact that we now have a structure which contains two dwelling units. Someone has come up wit~ the idea that perhaps we could use the conditional use concept to .., consider and possibly allow these. I feel that this is,making use of a conditional use concept using that device could very well amount to a case of spot zoning throughout the community where you have one Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -3- e duplex or mother-in-law apartment here and then three or four houses single family and another one over here and I feel it is a very dangerous instrumentality to use within this framework. If we look to the definitions of a single family dwelling in our Zoning Ordinance and dwelling unit you will see that a single family dwelling is a building designed for or occupied exclusively by one family and containing one dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is further defined as, a dwelling unit which consists of one or more rooms used exclusively as living quarters for one family only and containing complete kitchen and bath facilities permanently installed. Under the definition of a family in the Zoning Ordinance, a family is defined as an inQividual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or adoption living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. There is a distinction there. If you have the mother-in-law apartment you have two housekeeping units and two dwelling units. The mother-in-law concept clearly indicates that the structure would have to be more than a one dwelling unit. This is clear from the definitions and that applying these definitions we would have two families within the single family structure and unless I see more I do have to express my personal concerns as a property owner here in the city. I beltJ.9"apparently the only member of the public who is present to speak on the issue tonight but I also have my legal concerns, the matter of the sewer and water assessment business. We are approaching a critical phase in our debt service and quite frankly I am interested in seeing us get as many of those units in as we can. If you are going to go the mother-in-law route we certainly should levy those assessments because of our debt service. I also am concerned about the impact on adjoining properties. I think this is a very real concern. I would hate to see that down in my neighborhood. Roman Roos - There is a third shoe, the individual that owns that property which I don't know if we have addressed ourselves to. If you had a mother-in-law or blood relative who would come to live with you on a semi-permanent basis, how would you as that individual feel if you were denied the right to use your home as you would see fit? Russell Larson - I would have to follow whatever the community's regulations are. If my mother-in-law would come to live with me she would be living as a member of my familY sharing the facilities that we have. Personally speaking, I would not create a separate apartment for her. e The Planning Commission should be aware of the inconsist,ncies in the Zoning Ordinance regarding multiple families in a single family area. Specifically, two roomers are permitted in the R-l use district and also servants quarters are permitted as accessory uses in an R-l use district. e Jerry Neher - You brought up a lot of points but with the ordinance rewritten, don't you feel that most of those could be protected, such as, somebody else moving in later on, renting it out later on. It could be understood when they got the building permit that when mother- in-law dies... Russell Larson - I have thought about that but you get a permit to put one in your unit and you turn around and sell that house, mother-in-law moves away or passes away and the children are gone and you want to move into a smaller place, you don't tell your buyer that you can't rent that unit out. This is where we get into the problem. Jerry Neher - Could it be a deed restriction? Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -4- . . - Russell Larson - That's an awkward way to do it. Je~ry Neher - I would like very much to be out there. right now as John Q. Citizen and speak for it. However, if I did that we wouldn't ~ have a q\,1orum. LesBridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. Motion unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. . AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Roman Roos to table action on the 'ordinance amendment until the next regular meeting. Motion unanimous.ly approved. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR ROBERT REICHERT Dick Dutcher called the hearing to order at 9:10 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Margaret Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road - Mr. and Mrs. Orner Nemitz, 665 Pleasant View Road Tom Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road Harvey Robideau, 540 Pleasant View Road H. Charles Lentz, 2300 First National Bank Bldg., Mpls. Bill Brezinsky Russell Larson Robert Reichert, Box 332, E~celsior The City planner read the official notice as published in the Carver ~ County Herald. ,., The City Planner gave his report. The property is located on the north end of Lotus. .lake and is zoned agricultural. Sani tary sewer and water are being installed now. The City Plan shows the area to be low density single family. The rezoning and subdivision are consistent with the.spirit and intent of the city's plan for land Uge, transportation, and utilities. The Planning Commission should comment on the number of boats that are proposed to be moored at the common beach lot. He suggested that restrictions be placed on the mooring of one fishing class boat and motor for newly created lots. ~rticle V in the cov.enants should be expanded to include the 30 foot front yard setback. The city should not be approached for a number of variances to the front yard setback. Real estate signs should be restricted to four square feet as permitted by ordinance. The City Planner recommended that the Planning Commission find the rezoning from. R~lA to R-l to be positively consistent with. the spirit and intent of the city's plan for land use. Further, he recommended the Planning Commission act favorably on the proposed subdivision conditioned upon the filing of the restrictive covenants as amended. Drainage easements should be shown on the proposed outlots along the lake. Bill Brezinsky - The sanitary sewer and water is being installed and will be available later this summer. We don't anticipate that this development will necespitate any additional drainage structures. ~ The utility easements on the lot lines should be shown on the final ,., plat as required by ordinance. e planning Commission ~eeting May 11, 1977 Robert Reichert - The items that were questioned by the Planner, I can go through them very quickly and I agree with most of everything he has said. I believe that there is a sign ordinance in the community that restricts this to a four square foot sign which is one of the items. I notice that under Article III, Section 4 Taxes and Municipal Special Assessments on the common area would be levied against the common area and on these outlots. Are the outlets subject to special assessments? Bill Brezinsky - No. Bruce Pankonin - They are not buildable anyway. Robert Reichert - Article IV where Bruce has questioned the mooring of more than one fishing type boat and motor I have a question in my mind, if that is maybe to restrictive or that is acceptable to people in general that in an area where we have control over docks or a dock if we can go that far and say that just one fishing type boat and motor, one sailboat or something like that... At the end of Article V I have put in there, shall be a front yard setback of 30 feet as proposed by Bruce. I wanted to find out if that is the ordinance of the city. Bruce Pankonin - That is what it is in R-I. Robert Reichert - Article VI, No building, fence and I added dock, or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot. I felt that we should add that dock. We had no indication of dock anywhere else. Russell Larson - I have not had a chance to look at these covenants and restrictions in depth although I have scanned them and they look to be quite adequate. At this particular point I did flag that language starting with boat launching. I would like to see that sentence read: Lake use, boat launching, docks, and mooring, etc. My thought in that is that I would not want someone to come to us someday and say, well you have approved these covenants and restrictions therefore you are allowing me to use my 50 horse Johnson on that lake notwithstanding the fact that you have cut the horsepower back to 15 or whatever. Dick Dutcher - So that in Article IV, Section 2 the last sentence should start with the two words lake use. -5- e Tom Seifert - Mrs. Osgood has given me a letter to present to the Planning Commission. The. only real concern I have, I am really not sure about the covenants if they are to strong or to weak. I think the biggest thing on my mind is on the association lot I guess from a number of standpoints I see it as a real problem for the neighborhood. We would like to see it kind of develop like the whole neighborhood is and that's basically a lot on one side and an outlot on the other side. I see supervision as being a problem. I see parking being a problem. The biggest problem we have in the area is people trespassing.. e Dick Dutcher read the letter from the Osgoods. "We would like to go on record that we oppose any multiple subdivision or public dock and launching site at the north end of Lotus Lake in particular Bob Reichert's property. The reasons we oppose such a measure are: 1. Close proximity to private lakeside homes, and 2. It would tend to disrupt the fish and wildlife habitats that are now protected in this area." Orner Nemitz - I think we all have the same concerns. I think the intent of the Planning Commission as I heard from the result of the letters is to keep it a private property right. You are opening it up with the association on a very narrow lot as I see it. If that's Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -6- the case and five members all decide to go down to the beach on a Sunday afternoon and they bring a guest,there is ten cars. They will parked in a very narrow area. Bruce Pankonin - I think that's a moot issue because Management Regulations would apply in that case. b. the DNR Shore land Harvey Robideau - Would it be possible that more lots could be developed in this area? I am concerned that if this is allowed possibly there would be some other property developed and several families would get together and buy one specific lot and then we would have double the problem. Russell Larson - I would say not under these covenants and restrictions. They could not. Charles Lantz, Attorney for Near Mountain - We have no objection to what is going on. I am just here for information purposes. Bob Reichert - These are some of the same arguments I had originally with Bruce. I didn't want to get into this association thing. I didn't want to go to the expense of all these covenants but I was convinced by the Planning Commission at our last.meeting, by the Planner that I should. These expenses have gone to the point of trying to do the right thing but I appreciate the neighbors comments because they are the same as mine. Orner Nemitz - Do I,interpret what 2'0U said is that the Planning Commission is encouraging you to create this outlot. Bob Reichert- Yes. Orner Nemitz - Could I ask what the Planning Commission's reasons for ~ encouraging an Outlot E for this type of thing? ,., Jerry Neher - The first plat we saw showed outlots on it. We went along with it. We didn't particularly encourage him to create the outlots. Dick Dutcher - Of the proposals that we of the Planning Commission see very few developers go to the trouble and to the expense,particularly concerning the size of the project involved here, to attempt to answer concerns and also be sensitive to the development of the land. Margaret Thompson - I don't think any of us have any problems with the outlots as such. It's the idea of the association where one lot is being utilized by all of the homeowners. You know the problems we have had in-Carver Beach. That is a public access which has been closed but never the less this is essense almost becomes the same kind of thing. Who is going to do the supervising and provide the necessary patrol? A lot of the homeowners are going to be a half a mile down the road or more and because of the contours of the land and the road it's not visible. Bruce Pankonin - In the initial discussions with Bob on this subject it was proposed to create a number of outlots, I think it was in excess of what is proposed here, to attach these to each of the parcels across the road. This has the same affect as having one lot and an association because each of the lots then could have some rights to the lake. It was my feeling because of the spawning bed and the unbuildable nature of the vast majority of that parcel that any activity on the lakeshore should be concentrated in that one area where the land is suitable and not muck up the muck so to speak in the rest of the area. That was the reason for this association rather than having nine e separate little lots going with each of the lots across the road, put it all on one piece of property and that generated an association lot. Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -7- -e Margaret Thompson - Why do all nine lots have to have access to the lake? Bob Reichert - They probably won't. I would suspect that the lots that are surrounded by Near Mountain Project on the north end probably not have any access except if they want it. They won't have, an individual outlot. In a lot of areas they will have a lot and they will say you have access and they might not have an association. This is not controlled at all. Here, I would hope, that if we do have a common area that people that will have either a lot or an outlot will take it upon themselves to be on the architectural control committee which will control what goes on. Whether we have any parking on that. We could scratch all the parking and say no parking or we could leave it up to the architectural control committee to determine if there is any parking because this is the only place that you have access. It is the only place that I think anyone ,should go on this property to the lake. Other than that we don't want to have individual docks on different sites. The association was kind of pushed on me with the idea that this is the way you can settle it without giving individual people lots. I thought it would work out. If it doesn't I would just as soon abandon the idea of an association and throw it up in the air, go back to the plan of giving people an outlot. e The City Planner suggested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the second Wednesday in June to allow the people time to articulate their concerns on this plat to the Planning Commission Bob Reichert - I would like to take the next step if there aren't any strong objections. Roman Roos - We have been on this for several meetings and we have guided Mr. Reichert to the degree he is at right now. He has gone along with most of our recommendations. I feel at this point in time, speaking-for myself, that I can see no reason why we can't make a recommendation to the Council. ,.':, j-' Roman Roos moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Les Bridger. Motion unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. REZONING AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND - ROBERT REICHERT: Jerry Neher moved to table action until the next regular -' Planning Commission meeting. Motion seconded by Les Bridger. Motion unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SARATOGA LANE PRD HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION - Dick Dutcher called the hearing to order at 10:00 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Robert Navarro, 516 Laredo Lane Greg Eidan, 501 Laredo Lane Jim Hawks Thomas K1inge1hutz Doug Hansen, 17001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka Russell Larson Thomas C. Hanon Patrick Kerber Bill Brezinsky Craig Mertz- Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -8- The City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. - The City Planner gave his report. . The property is generally located north of Chanhassen Elementary School and west of Laredo Drive. On May 5, 1969, the City approved an overall plan for the Hansen and Klingelhutz Construction Corp. Included in this plan was an area of single family homes called Western Hills, an area called Laredo Lane which was originally proposed as a townhouse area. Just north of the school the city approved an area for townhouses and apartments and north of that area is the proposed Saratoga Lane for single family. Park land has been dedicated. An area north of the park is designated as single family but the city put restrictions on that area until a new north/south road is constructed. I Saratoga Drive as originally proposed was to intersect with Laredo Drive just south of the original farmstead owned by Patrick Kerber. This roadway location is a driveway to the Patrick Kerber and Bernard Kerber residences. The City Planner suggested the roadway location be changed for a number of reasons: 1. This roadway will provide the primary access to County Road 17 via proposed MSAS 101. He did not think the short cut to Excelsior should intersect with a collector street at a vertic Ie curve. 2. The cut involved with this roadway would leave the Kerber residence high and dry on a hill. 3. With the construction of Laredo Lane there would be a street jog. He suggested that Saratoga Lane be moved to the south where there are better site distances. e The Planning Commission should address the problem of pedestrian mobility along Laredo Drive because of the school. Laredo Drive functions as a collector street. The city should look. to a policy of constructing sidewalks on all collector streets. The City Planner suggested that Hansen and Klingelhutz be required to construct a sidewalk through the two lots in proposed Saratoga Lane. He recommended the Planning Commission look favorably on the proposed development plan as suggested by Hansen and Klingelhutz conditioned upon Hansen and Klingelhutz fulfilling other city requirements (concrete curb and gutter, buried utilities) . Bill Brezinsky - I would agree with Bruce as to the location of the intersection of Saratoga Lane with Laredo Drive for the same reasons that he stated. We have had quite a bit of discussion as to the length of cul-de-sacs and as required in the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance says they are not to exceed 500 feet. We keep seeing plans and approving plans with lengths far exceeding 500 feet. It has to do with certain pieces of property particularly smaller ones where it becomes almost impossible to develop without having the long cul-de-sac. That is the situation here. We feel that you still should retain the restriction in the Zoning Ordinance of the 500 feet. There is good reasons for that. If the cul-de-sac should get blocked off at the beginning of it and an emergency arose. We don't want to see large parcels coming in with long cul-de-sacs. Minnetonka ordinance is the ~ same as Chanhassen's. We think that restriction should remain in .., the ordinance subject to variance. One part of the ordinance we think should be changed regarding cul-de-sacs is the requirement of 120 foot diameter right-of-way. It really isn't required for maintenance to have that additional boulevard. It could be lowered to 100 foot Planning Commission Meet~ng May 11, 1977 -9- e . diameter. Sanitary sewer and water could be provided quite easily to. this property. Plans that have been submitted are adequate. Jim Hawks - I think that in the Engineer's report he did mention 100 foot radii on the corners. This particular plat that I put up was redrawn to reflect 100 foot radii. Since then we have had a couple of meetings with Mr. Pat Kerber. This plat proposed that the cul-de-sac would come in to about 10 feet of his property. We in turn were going to give him a corner property. He has decided that he doesn't want what we proposed. As a result we have got a third pian. What we proposed is that the lot south of Mr. Kerber's house would be an outlot. Since we no longer need to come up to serve that property the cul-de-sac has been shortened. I-guess that's th~only changes that have occurred. . Dick Dutcher- Would this newly created outlot normally be a buildable lot? Bruce pankonin - Yes. It far exceeds the standards. Dick Dutcher - What do you choose to exclude it at this time? Jim Hawks - We are in a state of confusion right AOW on the status of this driveway (prese~t Saratoga). Rather than trying to settle it right now, we have got come up with a better solution as to how to provide access to that lot and not use up this lot so rather than let that hold up the proceedings we would just as soon cut it out and let it sit there for a while and hopefully have the plat move ahead. Bruce Pankonin - The Planning Commission should note that the exception is two buildable sites. Mr. Kerber could get another lot out of this two ways; he would have to have access on a public road, either Saratoga as originally proposed and rejected by us or the cul-de-sac. The second plan would abort any potential for Mr. Kerber to replat that lot and put another house on it. Dick Dutcher - Will we as a city have problems with this later on? Jim Hawks - Well, I would suspect as long as the space is there somebody ~s going to try to use it and they will try to use it as' close to or far beyond the ordinance as you will let them. Russell Larson ~ I have been concerned about the existing Saratoga Lane problem because I have talked with Mr.. Hannon on it and Bruce but apparently the second plan that Jim outlined for you is acceptable to the Kerber interests. e e Tom Hannon, Attorney representing Pat Kerber - We don't have any problems with the development of this plat except for the fact as the road. Saratoga Drive on the original plan goes past his property on the. south. You. say that's not a road. I believe it is and I very strongly believe that's a road. I would be more than happy to explain that to you. I brought the statute along. I have done quite a bit of research on this and I'm willing to grant you that that alleged road as everyone calls it, that runs to the south of his property in fact has never been platted and does not show up on any legal document. I have researched down at the county recorders office and there is no mention of that road anywhere. However, that statute there says that if the public, i.e. the city, takes over the r~pairs and construction of the road for six years, the city has got a road. I have spoken to your City Attorney about this. There appears to be no question whatso ever that; and I spoke to Mr. Henry Wrase and discussed this problem with him and he stated that the city plows that road in the wintertime. It grades that road. It k,eeps it in repair and put gravel on the road and has been doing that for years. That road was given by the Kerber's Planning Conunission Meeting May 11, 1977 -10- to the Township of Chanhassen in the 1930's and when the Township was absorbed by the City of Chanhassen they kept right on repairing it. We could supply many, many witnesses to that point. What happens is that you simply inherited the road. It's now a public road of Chanhassen and it is our belief if there is any altering of that road, we don't care what you do with it west of the Kerber property, but if you touch that road without going through the proper public, vacating it, you are going to have a lawsuit. You are going to have an injunction. I think we are on very strong ground. If you vacate the road there is strong Supreme Court opinions that to vacate a public road-and that road was in existance as it was when Hansen and Klingelhutz purchased it you have an implied easement going over that. Mr. Kerber is always going to have an easement as long as he lives on that property going from his property to Laredo Drive. We came to a friendly agreement on this to maintain the status quo but you have a public road there and if it's altered in any way the city is going to be looking at damages and an injunction. Our agreement was to leave it exactly as it is and we're most happy to do. We want that cul-de-sac as that plat shows off the Kerber property with the assumption that he has an easement hook up somewhere. We can't seem to find anyone in Chanhassen who will tell Mr. Kerber exactly where he can hook up his sewer. Does anybody have any idea where the Kerber property's sewer line is supposed to hook up to the main trunk? Bill Brezinsky - There is a service on Laredo right now to the property. The utility plan that we saw last time there would be service also provided on the cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac is moved back as shown on what we are looking at now of course there wouldn't be. Tom Hannon - Then that plat on the left is acceptable to us if it maintains the status quo and nothing will be done with the road. We have had many meetings with Mr. Pankonin, Russell Larson, and Hansen and Klingelhutz. It's not something that we have pulled out of left field. This is a ligitimate. You have got a public road there. It's not platted and you may not want to admit it but you've got it. Russell Larson - The extent of the meetings that have had with me have been telephone conversations several days ago with Mr. Hannon who spoke with me from Bruce's office and raised the question. I advised Bruce and Mr. Hannon and Mr. Kerber to sit down with Hansen and Klingelhutz and see what could be worked out. I don't want to get the city involved in a lengthy research project involving o/hether or not a road exists. I am advised by Mr. Hannon that the second plan is acceptable to Mr. Kerber and obviously it must be acceptable to H. & K. The service for sewer to Mr. Kerber's existing house is available in Laredo Drive I understand from the Engineer. What ultimate disposition may be made of that road is something that I don't know that we want to get into at this time. The road as it goes in front of the existing Pat Kerber property. You will have to vacate the end of that Saratoga Road. Jim Hawks - If you do that then you admit it's a road. If we leave this as an outlot then the difference of opinion is all confined in that outlot and we sill have to someday arrive at what to do with it. In the meantime it will stay just like it is. Tom Hannon - The cases say it is a wide to the extent it is being In other words including the ditches and drainage. It is what it regardless of the measurement. Roman Roos - On this proposed gravel whatever it is, that road goes from Laredo west, again not knowing in terms of the alteration of that road does that create a problem for the city if there is some legal e e used. is e Planning Commission ~eetin9 May 11, 1977 -11- e implication as to that being a road or not. Russell Larson - If a determination is made by the office of the City Attorney that indeed a road does exist there, then we would recommend that it be vacated from the cul-de-sac westward under an agreement that, I understand there is an agreement with Bernie Kerber who lives northwest of the plat that he is agreeable so long as H. & K. give him access either along the western limits of the plat or through one of the lots up in the northwest corner. Roman Roos - I have no objections at all with this plat except from the city liability standpoint on that road. Dick Dutcher - Should it be determined that there is in fact a road as is being alleged or stated by' this gentleman. Les Bridger - Say that's vacated westward, how about eastward? If that was admittedly declared a roadway would then the exception piece of property be in a position to be subdivided and have access to Laredo Drive? Russell Larson - That might depend upon what the City Council would decide with respect to that short piece of road whether they want to continue to maintain it or not. Even though we open a road or a road is dedicated I don't think we have any continuing commitment to maintain it. I just can't answer that because I don't know what we would do with that road. It may well be that' time will take care of whatever problems have arisen here on this particular, plan. Bruce Pankonin - An agreement was made between H. & K. and Kerber regarding access to that and switching of lot lines so the issue wouldn't come up. Friday afternoon that was all null and void. Dick Dutcher - If it is in fact' a public road bed as being alleged regardless what they as private developers or owners are concerned with that issue has to be resolved. I am surpris.ed that it hasn't taken place prior to the platting of the land. Jim Hawks - We are going to have to face up to it. We are trying to. We haven't admitted that there is a road. You have to start with that admission first before you can start vacating it. If it is a public road then H. & K. bought it. There was a provision however, in there that said that the road would be graded, that access would be graded. The assumption was that Mr. Kerber owned the property, Mr. Kerber sold the property and he sold, the property south of the line which is the property he k~pt. I guess we didn't think we bought a public road. We thought'we bought developable land. Tom Hannon - You cannot buy a public road. You may have the fee underneath the road or something like that but you do not buy the road. The public road is a public road. It means exactly that. Jim Hawks ~ How can you sell it? Tom Hannon - You can't sell a public road. Doug Hansen - Pat sold it to us. Tom Hannon --He,may describe the land underneath it. Russell Larson - I would say you (Planning Commission) can take your action on the proposed plat subject to resolution of the Saratoga Drive question. - , Tom Hannon - I would like to make one more point. If the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac comes back and touches .the public road or interrupts the public road as it applies to south of the Kerber property, we are going to seek an injunction against both Chanhassel'l. and H. & K. Russell Larson - What's the basis for your position on that? Tom Hannon - Simply because you can't interfere with a public road like that. r - Russell:La:r:son - Are you saying' that we cannot connect a public road to a public 'road? e e Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 1977 -12- Tom Hannon - No. Russell Larson - You just got through saying that. Tom Hannon - I wasn't aware that was a public road. Russell Larson - You argued that Saratoga is a public road. We are ~ connecting to. a public road with a cul-de-sac.. You are saying we can't do that. Tom Hannon - You are admitting that is a public road then. Russell Larson - You admitted in your premise. Tom Hannon - If you want to make it a complete thoroughfare there fine. I am saying don't alter that road until it is determined what it is. Russell Larson - I don't like the matter of having injunction thrown at us verbally and be threatened with a lawsuit in a public hearing. Tom Hannon - It was my impression that construction was going to start immediately on this or am I wrong. Dick Dutcher - As I stated at the outset of the public hearing, the Planning Commission is not a body which can grant such powers. After this matter has been reviewed by the Planning Commission it will go to the City Council and they would be the ones to officially approve or disapprove~ Tom Hannon - I was under the impression that construction was going to start next week. Bob Navarro - I live in Laredo Lane. I think r can speak for most of the people in Laredo Lane and my question is on the opposite end of the driveway. My concern at this point and I had a meeting with Don Ashworth last week, is in regard to a potential traffic problem at the intersection. We have one existing now and we always had one. The problem is when you are coming west on Laredo Lane to enter Laredo Drive you are just about completely blocked out and it causes one heck~ of a problem there. It is lucky nobody has gotten hit at this point. .., I understand they are going to tear down a portion of the berm on the south side of Laredo Lane so we get improved vision looking to the south. Bruce Pankonin - The City Engineer and I went out and both concluded the berm on the south side of the road has to be cut back, the pine tree has to be moved and some ash and maple have to be moved also. r mentioned that to Tom (Klingelhutz) and we really didn't come to any conclusion about who would be paying for all that. Roman Roos moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. Motion unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:50 p.m. SARATOGA LANE PRD: Les Bridger moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that we have reviewed the material presented this evening and are in agreement that Exhibit B presented at the public hearing'May 11, 1977, seems to be agreeable to both the developer and the landowner and we, as a Planning Commission tend to go along with their feelings and recommend that the City Council look favorably on Exhibit B stibject to the resolution of the issue presented by the alleged public road designated as Saratoga Drive. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. Motion unanimously approved. HESSE FARM - REPLAT OF LOTS 10, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 1: Frank Berg was present. In May 1975 the Council granted plan approval to Harold Hes~ to subdivide his property on Bluff Creek Drive, subject to a number of conditions, they entered into a development contract. Since that date the Hesse's have found it to future buyers best interests to redesign Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1. This would create two better buildable Planning Commission ~eeting ~ay 11, 1977 -13- - sites. The City Planner states he finds nothing wrong with the proposal. According to the development contract the streets in the subdivision were to be sealcoated. This has not been done. The Planner feels that until the agreed to improvements have been made the city withhold any action on this replat. Mr. Berg has sent a letter to the Hesse's stating that the plat is before the Planning Commission and that the Planner has recommended that no action be taken until the roads are sealcoated. The City Planner suggested the Planning Commission order a public hearing conditioned on assurances from the Hesse's that the roads will be sealcoated. Roman Roos moved to hold a public hearing on June 8, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. to consider the replat of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1: Motion seconded by Les Bridger. Motion unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to table the following agenda items until the next regular Planning Commission meeting: Ecological Committee's Proposed Goals for Development of Lotus Lake. Estate Developments. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. Motion unanimously approved. A motion WaS made by Roman Roos and seconded by Jerry Neher to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11;30 p.m. e Don Ashworth City Manager - ~.