Loading...
1987 05 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 1987 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner an9 Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ~MEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 9 (II), STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS, THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Margie Karjalahti Don Suiter 7413 Frontier Trail Lake Ri ley ~ Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Conrad: Before I open it up for any public input, just to get some rationale for this particular amendment, there are numbers in this ordinance and they are arbitrary numbers. The ordinance that we're amending originally said 1,000 feet. 80% of the houses had to be within 1,000 feet of the beachlot. In the unsewered area, because the lots are bigger, that forces the numbers that can be within 1,000 feet down significantly but there was a need in some cases to have use of a recreational beachlot in the rural area. Without any great wisdom or great numbers to use, the logic for determining the current amendment was as follows: Currently in the urban area, given the current ordinance which is 80% of the houses have to be within 1,000 feet of the beachlot, that logic said we want the home users to be close to the beachlot. We don't want it spread allover. We don't want lots to be off the lake. We want the houses to be close to that beachlot. We looked at the current beachlots and basically it looks like the largest homeowners associations have under 50 homes within 1,000 feet of the beachlot. We therefore took that number of 50 and said that's probably a fair number to be placed in our rural service area. Therefore, that's where that number carne up between Staff, Planning Commission and other inputs. With that little bit of background, I'll open it up for any public comment on the Ordinance revision. Ron Merit: Is there going to be a limit of the number of feet that the lots have to be to the lake or not? There's not. So they could be a relatively ~ long ways away? Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 2 e Conrad: Yes. Ron Merit: So blocks? And 80% of that. Conrad: The 80% is out and the 1,000 feet is out. What we did is we substituted a number of houses instead of those. We're still concerned that a beachlot serves the real contiguous group of homes. That's the philosophy behind it. The 1,000 feet did not work in the rural service area for us and we couldn't come up with good other numbers that met anything. The thing that we try to do in the beachlot is make sure that (1) you're not overusing that beachlot and (2) that the neighbors on each side of that beachlot are not abused. You don't want so many people going through there that the lakeshore neighbors are living next to something that is rather objectionable so we kind of did it in this ordinance. We kind of protected that. Ron Merit: What else is going to be a problem without setting the lakeshore frontage of that, you have 50 homes and one small lot, do you think that will be a problem as you just stated? You're afraid that it will be too populated and could cause problems for the neighbors on each side. Conrad: The beachlot ordinance as is, what's the minimum feet for a beachlot? e Olsen: Conrad: It's 30,000 square feet, the lot size. So the lot size is like three-quarters of an acre. Margie Karjalahti: Would that hold true then for the rural one? That that would also have to meet this? Conrad: This is only rural that we're talking about. Olsen: Right and all the other conditions still hold. Conrad: The urban beachlots remain the same. Margie Karjalahti: All the criteria is the same? Conrad: Yes. The problem will be if that turns into an urban service area and those lot owners decide to subdivide. Therefore, there could be significantly more impact on that beachlot. In this Ordinance we have put the burden back onto that homeowners association to determine if they want to open it up for more membership. Don Suiter: I live across the bay from, not really this question but I think that's what brought it up. Does that mean, they have say 42 lots now that if in the future they wanted to add 8 more homes that they could have 8 more homes 3 miles down the road and say we want to welcome you to this homeowners association? e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 3 ~ Olsen: The 5th condition is that it serve as a neighborhood facility. has to be within that subdivision. It Conrad: That's a good question. Does that mean contiguous to the beachlot? Olsen: Yes. It would have to come through with another conditional use to expand that. Don Suiter: But I thought you said the expansion was up to the homeowners association. Olsen: That's within that subdivision once it's resubdivided when it gets sewer and water. Don Suiter: Is it possible that someone could buy another lot somewhere and meet the 200 feet and 30,000 square feet and all the other conditions and buy that as a beachlot and sell it to a subdivision over in here somewhere and say you can go have access to that? What's to prevent them from doing that? Olsen: Again, it would have to be the neighborhood facility. that in an urban area, they're not within the 1,000 feet. If they do Don Suiter: I understand why you're pulling the arbitrary 80% and how you _ pick those numbers. I'm just trying to look past a little bit and see if we ~aren't going to open up another whole can of worms. Olsen: That's a good point. We did discuss that and other than having a set distance from the beachlot, the only other alternative was to have minimum lots. Again, we added that definition saying that it was a neighborhood facility. Don Suiter: So neighborhood will be strong enough to hold up if anybody tries to do something? Are we rewriting for the last time or is it going to be amended again? Conrad: It will always be amended. Every ordinance we have will continue to be amended. Basically the neighborhood is a good definition in my mind because it at least gives us and probably City Council something to hang our hat on in terms of neighborhood is not this block and then 3 blocks away is something else. The neighborhood is a contiguous group of homes all attached to that beachlot. If something breaks up that neighborhood and somebody else wants to add four more lots and it's not contiguous to that first neighborhood, they do not get, in my mind, the way this ordinance is written, they do not have priviledges on that beachlot. Emmings: I think there's a good point here. Al though we've always tried to put in a statement of intention so you have something to help us remember what we were doing the last time around. In this one we put in that it is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which ~ it's a part. Instead of stating it as an intention here, that really is Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 4 ~ it's definition and I think maybe as part of this Zoning Ordinance amendment we should go back because right now in our definition of a recreational beachlot is land abutting public water principle use of which is for private recrea tional use for two or more fam i 1 ies. That's not really right. That's not really want we're saying here I don't"think. I think maybe what we should do is change that definition somehow to reflect the fact that it's a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it's a part and is intended for private recreational use or something like that. Then we really have it in concrete. Maybe as our statement of intentions, say that it's our intention that it not be used by. It's so hard to talk about. The one you're interested in is the Gagne corner of TH 101 and pioneer Trail and I can tell you that I think from our past discussions I can tell you that we would see those roads as marking the boundaries of that subdivision as the people who are going to be able to use that beachlot in the future. If anything carne up across those streets we would say no. Reducing that to general language that can define the concept is very difficult. We have wrestled and wrestled with it and that's why we've always been talking about the neighborhood and contiguous homes. Always struggling for language there. Maybe we could put in as our statement of intention that somehow we don't want it to get out of the immediate neighborhood, whatever that means. Margie Karjalahti: I'm from the Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association. I would just like to say one thing that you may need to be careful of in ~changing the ordinance is looking ahead maybe 15, 20, 30 years and the rural ~beachlots will then become urban. will their conditions then be granfathered in if there are changes in the urban beachlots? If you leave it too broad for the rural, they are always grandfathered into that. One of the reasons for the beachlot ordinance was to protect the lakes. Not just for people's enjoyment but it also adds protection for the lakes because not only do you have homes on the lake but you also have the beachlots and DNR has required that all lakes be accessible with public boat access and there are certain percentage of boats that they will allow on the lake too. So I would just caution to keep all this in mind. That it isn't just owners but we're also thinking of the environment. To protect the beauty of the lakes for everybody and for Chanhassen. Conrad: And that's a concern and subdivision will happen, maybe. It may not. We know it won't happen until the year 2000 but it might happen after that. By the definition of the beachlot, you can't park cars on it. You can't launch boats on it. You can have one dock. When you think of the rural service area and you think of 2 1/2 acre subdivisions, you can't drive a car down there and park it. I suppose you could leave it out on the road but it's kind of self policing because of distance. It's not where you stroll down. Some of these houses are going to be a long distance away. I think the beachlot ordinance by itself protects the lake and as I've looked at it, I think there is a lot of protection already in place. That was my view of it and here we're giving the opportunity for the same type of rights to that community in the rural area that urban people have and I think that's fair too. Margie, it's a good point and it's hard to foresee what's e going to happen but on the other hand it almost looks like it might police Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 5 ~ itself simply because of the great distances between that furthest house out. Are they going to walk a mile or whatever it might be, half a mile to get to the beach? I don't think so. And they can't drive their boat down there so they are going to have to use public accesses. I'm more concerned with the neighbors on each side. If they are in the homeowners association and therefore they may have a great deal to say about how, at the year 2000 when I won't be here, those neighbors will have something to say about how those lots are divided. Don Suiter: I think your intentions are right. We have to share our lakes with everyone in the community and I think the ordinance as it stands is self policing in some ways. Unfortunately, it's not enforceable. We have a public access on Riley Lake that is manned by Eden prairie and they do a wonderful job. When there are 15 boats on the lake, a cable goes across and everybody tries to find other ways to get on the lake and they do. There is the park on the north end of the bay. The outlot on Sunnyslope which I'm not even sure is an approved recreational beachlot or not, the last two weekends there have been boats launching off of there. How do you enforce that? Do you have neighbors call the police when they have a lot better things to do? The people and launch their boats, drive their cars back home and they are on the lake that day so we've got another access point adding to the lake. As I see it, there are other development areas on the lake and we could have ever more. I'm really, truly concerned about the safety on the lake and the environment of the lake. It is getting taxes more and more ..everyday. Just by this addition on Gagne's corner here there are 7 more "'lots which I think 4 or 5 boats per lot. Okay, 3. Another 21 boats that could, and I know they won't all go out and race around at the same time but we are adding use. There is now another airplane that's been added to the lake this summer. It's just getting more and more busy and I think it's a great intention but if we can't enforce it and can't police it, then I don't know if we're really opening outselves up for more trouble. I know that's not the true issue here tonight but I think my question if it does not meet the requirements today and we continually change the requirements to allow more and more beachlots to happen. That's my concern. Are we trying to put a stop to this to save the lakes or are we just trying to open it up for everybody and every condition that happens along next time. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Steve, I think your point is good. I don't want to drop that point and the intent of this. I would hope we could do something in terms of intent other than definitionally. Headla: I'm of the bel ief that people near the lake should have access to that lake. In other words, if there is a development and let's take this development that's coming up. The people who live in that area, I think they should have access to it. I like the concept of the beachlot. I like it because the way we constructed it, you can't really carry gasoline down there. It's kind of awkward. You can't get a car down there so primarily _peoPle walk down to the dock. They use the lake the way a lake should be Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 6 e used. It's minimum impact. A lot of recreational activities can go on. I like that concept. Steve, I like the concept of the intent. We have K here and we talk about the terms of the neighborhood and the reason I like that is we look at it today but in 10 years from now you've got totally different people here and rules are going to be a little bit different. I think the way the intent is here, people can look at it and apply it to the situation as it is then. We aren't bounded by blocks all the way around so I myself like it and I like the recommendation of the Staff. Wildermuth: I go along with Dave. I like the recommendation of the Staff. Siegel: I have nothing to add. Emmings: I think we're all relying in the backs of our minds too, or at least I am, on the homeowners association. There has to be a homeowners association that's responsible for the maintenance of a beachlot and we're assuming that not only will the thing police itself by distance and some of those factors that Ladd mentioned but hopefully if the thing is getting out of hand use wise, the homeowners association is going to grab it and say there are enough of us who are unhappy about what is happening to this that we're going to impose restrictions on all of us to use it in a way that makes sense so I think we're leaving that up to the neighborhood to some extent. I think under urban recreational beachlots, I have two picky language changes. In the third line down it says "within at least 1,000 _ feet". The words "at least" don't mean anything to me there and I think we ~should just say "within 1,000 feet". Under rural recreational beachlot a similar in the fourth line down, I would change "as a result of" to just "resul ting from". It's shorter and clearer to read. The other thing I would like to do as a part of this, I don't disagree that we should leave the statement of intention in. That's fine. I think we should change the definition of recreational beachlot that appears under Article II, Definitions because right now it's not accurate. It's not what we think a beachlot is. I agree that the intention not only should stay as stated in there but maybe even be added to get it across more clearly. Conrad: What does it take to change a definition? Dacy: That can be part of your motion tonight. Conrad: Do you think we can word a definition? Dacy: I heard you say something earlier tonight about that. Olsen: I think it was from the intent. The subdivision of which it is a part. Erhart: My personal feeling is that the rural lots will be subdivided in the year 2000 so I don't think that's going to be a problem addressing that. The other comment is I think everything is okay here other than I agree that the definition should be changed. I would suggest, rather than try to do e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 7 e it here that we direct Staff to do the wording and make that part of the proposal. Headla: It almost seems like a beachlot, we should heavily encourage anybody having a beachlot to put it in the center of the property so the people who have land on either side, there is going to be a minimum effect. If you have a couple lots on each side as a buffer, I think we'll protect a lot of the neighborhoods that way. The one we talked about last week that we put it on the north side. Here somebody comes in and had no idea that's going to be a beach lot and owns the land by the beachlot there. Conrad: Steve, I'm going to point at you. I think you're a logical person to make a motion tonight on this one. Do you have a worded motion or would your preference be to have Staff prepare one? Emmings: I'll throw one out. I've written one. I've combined the intention statement from the beachlot ordinance with what we already had and I've got, land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. Conrad: That's the recommendation to change the definition in the Ordinance? Emmings: Yes. eDaCy: And there would be a comment after that, the principle use of which is for private recreation. Emmings: That's why I throw that out, neighborhood recreational facility. Dacy: So you're not even defining the number of families? Emmings: This is only to change the definition under Article II. Dacy: I understand that but then what you're saying is the rest of the existing definition you are proposing to delete? Conrad: It says 2 or more right? Does 2 or more having any meaning in that? Emmings: If I was going to change it I would say for more than 1. Conrad: But I'm not sure what that means. Dacy: The intent was if two abutting property owners wanted to share a dock facility or share a boathouse or something, they wouldn't have to get a conditional use permit to do that. If you've got 2 or more, then the ordinance is tending to regulating that. Emmings: Let's look at that a little bit. If my neighbor and I want to e share a dock, which we do, that's not a recreational beachlot. It's just a Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 8 ~dOCk going out on our lot line. Dacy: I know but I'm saying, if you say 1 or more, then it would be. Emmings: Why? Dacy: Because you have 2. Emmings: But I have my riparian rights on this 11010 feet of shoreline and he has his on that side. Dacy: But under that definition, if you said 1 or more, than you and your property owner would have to have... Emmings: Isn't the difference Barb that as a lakeshore owner I riparian rights and what we're doing is giving people who don't lake riparian rights essentially through the use of a beachlot. to me to be completely distinct. have live on the That seems Dacy: I understand your definition based on your riparian lot situation. I think it does become a little muddy though with the way the definition is worded. Conrad: Let's make our motion the way we like and I'm sure you can pass it ~by the City Attorney and get real legal advice on this. The process Barb, ,.,if we pass the Ordinance and we recommend a change in definition, the change in definition to the ordinance, how does that happen? Does that mean a public hearing? Dacy: No. Part of your action tonight is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. You're amending the beachlot regulations. You're simply adding to the motion. Conrad: Any other comments? Okay, Steve will you make a motion? Emmings: Yes I will but let me understand before I start. You want me to make a motion on what we've got in front of us and then we'll simply make a recommendation on the other part or do you want to make that as part of my motion? Conrad: I would make it part of your motion. Erhart: It still bothers me the question of can a lot outside the original subdivision add later? Even with steve's definition, I'm not sure it's clear. When we're all dead and gone and something happens to interpret that. If you look in the other one you can't do it because as soon as you do that one lot then falls out of the mathematical formula of 810% for 1,101010 feet. In the rural it's written that there really is no maximum. You start out with 510 and they all subdivide and you could end up with 11010 but it really isn't clear. On the Gagne's property, there isn't a street that ~binds that whole neighborhood because on the east end it simply ends the Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 9 e property. It isn't perfectly clear that the next lot over can't assume the right to that thing so as a result I would simply add in your proposal that no dwelling which lies outside the subdivision for which the recreational beachlot is a part. Dacy: I thought we had that covered in, facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. Conrad: By saying that subdivision it can never be anything else but. Emmings: If they put in a new subdivision next to Gagne's on the east, then it's not part of that subdivision. Erhart: Okay, so that's clear. Conrad: concern. I think it's covered Tim. I think that subdivision covers your It covers mine with the same concern. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #87-4 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 Comprehensive Plan. e 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. Any future lots resulting from resubdivision shall obtain permission to use the recreational beachlot from the homeowners association. Also to change the definition found in Article II of the Zoning Ordinance under recreational beachlot to read as follows: Recreational Beachlot shall be defined as land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood recreational facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 10 ~ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING - - - DISTRICTS TO PERMIT TELEPHONE SWITCH BUILDINGS AS EITHER A PERMITED OR CONDITIONA~USE:AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF UTILITY SERVICES~INCLUDE --- - UTILITY BUILDINGS, THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this Zoning Ordinance amendment. Bob Docken: I am a real estate broker who has been retained by Northwestern Bell to secure this particular site in Chanhassen. I'm here basically to answer any questions you might happen to have about that type of facility. Do you want me to describe it briefly? Conrad: Does anybody need any descriptions? I don't think so. If we have questions as we go through, we'll ask you questions and you can field them for us. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: If I'm reading this correct, you are proposing to put the telephone equipment building in with all these other things that are automatic permitted uses. Olsen: We just thought it was an essential service. e Erhart: I agree it's an essential service but I think there is a substantial difference between traffic signals and hydrants in a residential area. Personally I would like to see this come in as a conditional use where we could review the aesthetics of the building. I have great faith in the telephone company but this could be expanded with cable TV's. I think we ought to take a look at them. Conrad: You're primarily concerned about the aesthetics? Fitting into the neighborhood? Erhart: From what I understand this one here, they're talking about buying a lot that's original intent was going to be a private house. And they are going to build a building that's going to fit in with the houses. Now we know th is case tha t we can see they are go i ng to do tha t bu t I'm not sure that we can have any faith that the next time this occurs that they are going to build a structure that is going to fit in and appear like a neighborhood home. There is no economic reason for them to do that. Either that or write an ordinance that requires the aesthetics. Conrad: As we go through the rest of the staff, would you think of conditions? If it's going to be a conditional use permit, think of the conditions that we would be looking for Tim. If we've got them, then they should be part of a motion or recommendation. Emmings: I agree with Tim. I think if you're going to put one of these ~up in a residential neighborhood or any kind of neighborhood, people live Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 11 ~around there ought to have an opportunity to comment. think we should stick with a conditional use process. For that reason I Siegel: what are the other utility uses of this nature that are in the Ordinance? What would this be lumped with as far as part of the utility services definition? Olsen: It's with the power lines. I'm not sure what the question was. Siegel: We're talking about either making it a conditional use permit or lumping telephone utility services in with utility services. Olsen: utility services are as permitted uses. Siegel: Yes, what are those? What would be permitted utility uses? Olsen: Public utilities, municipal transmission systems, communication poles. Siegel: But it's not structures? Olsen: Not specifically, it doesn't say structures. The internal is the utility service for the utility works for the proposed building but not the building itself. e Siegel: What I'm trying to get at is why the recommendation of Staff is either or. We either make it a conditional use permit or recommended use within the utility services definition and this seems to be sort of an exceptional use when you1re talking about building of a structure. It's not the same as say a electrical substation right? That's not utility service? Olsen: That's conditional use. Dacy: That was part of the reason for the option is that we had our recommendation but obviously you have your different viewpoint and that1s why we put both options. Wildermuth: I guess I would like to ask the gentleman representing Northwestern Bell, is there a standard approach to these utility buildings that Northwestern Bell takes? Are they hard masonry construction or single story, double story? Bob Docken: I have some pictures of typical buildings which you might be interested in looking at. This particular one is a new building just built six months ago in Eagan. It1s next to a church site and the Bell architects and the church architect got together and the church hasn1t been built yet but the this building was designed to be compatible with the church at such time as the church is built. This is another recent one which is out in Woodbury out on Hans Hagen1s development out on Radio Drive. That particular style of building was the way Hans Hagen wanted it built. This ~is pretty much of a typical building. There are probably more of that style Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 12 ~than any others but they are not locked into it. They can be designed to fit if the circumstance is warranted, the building can be handled. Conrad: How many more of these might Chanhassen get? Bob Docken: I don't know. I can't say. Conrad: Do you have so many for x number of households? Bob Docken: No. Basically, the purpose of this building is to greatly increase the capacity of the cable going back to the central office. When the existing cable is filled, in place of burying another cable all the way back to the central office, they build one of these small buildings and install equipment which then multiples the capacity of that cable by a factor of perhaps 10 to 1. Then the actual distribution cable which serves the individual houses and buildings in that particular area all channel on into this small building and tied then into the cable that feeds back to the central office. wildermuth: When is one of these buildings typically constructed? When the development is being built? Bob Docken: In this particular case. That's what happened. There was obviously a lot of development, a lot of need for additional phone service a. out there and the cable itself was getting full so this is the means of ~serving Chanhassen Hills as well as other areas which will develop in that immediate vicinity. I suppose that area might serve perhaps a half mile in each direction. I don't know. It would depend. There could be another one, two or three I suppose in Chanhassen. Eagan has a number of them already. There have been a number of them placed out in Woodbury. Pretty much in the areas where there is growth. They are also used under circumstances where some highly technical circuits are required and the so called fiber optic cables are brought in and they can be utilized in connection of this type of thing as well. Wildermuth: I guess I agree wi th the Staff recommendation that it be included with the definition of utility services so you wouldn't have to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. Headla: Since these can go into a single family dwelling, I would like to see the neighborhood to have a chance at an open hearing to understand what it's going to be and get some impact so I would say the conditional use permit. Conrad: If that's the case, there were some conditions that Staff made mention of if we wanted to look at it. One is landscaping. Two is the driveway. Three is access and setbacks. All those things to me look like something Staff can do. Wildermuth: If we go that route I think we ought to say some statement in ~there about the architecture fitting in with the area or the intended Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 13 e archi tecture. Conrad: I can go either way on this one. I think one, it's not going to be an impact on us but we've also talked about how we can minimize the stuff that has to go in front of us and here's a case where we're creating something that comes to us. I guess we can consider it an opportunity for the public to have their input on something but if they had their input, I see four criteria here that I don't know is a great deal to have input on. Are we involving public just to involve the public or do we have some real substantial things that they could persuade us on and we could say, it just doesn't fit. I don't see anything that Staff can't do here that we're going to add value to. Headla: Does Staff have any strength to reject it? Erhart: If the public comes in and says they don't want this thing? Conrad: There is a value in just informing and I can understand that. Olsen: One of the things we looked at is these are going to be most likely located before the neighborhood is there so a lot of the times the public might not even be there to inform. Conrad: I think all the comments are valid. This is not comparable to the ~other utility services. It is simply a different animal and it has a visual ~impact so from that standpoint I can say, it shouldn't be in that grouping and it's a little bit different. I'm just not sure as we throw our public hearing that we're going to hear anything. We're going to go through the motions folks is what we're going to do unless there is a condition that we don't see. Emmings: It seems to me too that if the neighbors have notice that this thing is going in there, maybe a combination can be made. If everyone in the neighborhood doesn't like one aspect of this one particular building, I would think that Northwestern Bell would be happy to meet that but if Northwestern Bell can just go in and buy the lot and it's a permitted use and they show it to Staff and go ahead and put it in, the immediate neighborhood hasn't had any opportunity to comment on it. I agree with you, I think Staff can handle these very easily and I don't want them to come in here but I think it's important to leave the local neighborhood to have contact with the people who are putting it in. Siegel: Maybe the real estate agent could speak because he just showed us three pictures of three very different structures, whether those communities had an option to pick and choose which construction? Olsen: Woodbury, no. Eagan is a public hearing process. Woodbury was not. Conrad: want to e Sounds like there is consensus for bringing it past us. make a motion on this? Tim do you Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 14 e Erhart moved, Siegel seconded that that telephone equipment buildings the following conditions: the Planning Commission recommend be regulated as a conditional use with 1. The site must provide landscaping as required in Article VIII, Landscaping and Tree Removal Regulations. 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 building exterior shall be architecturally consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. All voted in favor except Wildermuth and motion carried. Wildermuth: I don't think it really has to come before the Planning Commission and go through the public hearing process or go before the City Council. I think it's an essential use and should be a permitted use. ~conrad: We're assuming that these equipment buildings have no cables coming overhead. They are all buried at this time? Bob Docken: They're buried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE ~ SECTION 14, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONTRACTOR'S YARDS AS A CONDITIONAL USE, PATRICK AND NANCY BLOOD. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Patrick Blood: I would like to just say one thing. We're pretty new at this and we would like to have that spot for the simple reason that contractor's yards have a habit of having sore eyes. Junkyards and stuff like this. We don't intend to do that with that piece of property. We realize that's sort of a gateway and a leaving area for Chanhassen and Chaska and Shakopee being right there in that corner so we do intend to make it nice. Everything inside storage or landscaping to reduce any sight that might be distasteful to anybody. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 15 ~Headla: On the recommendation, the previous one, didnlt we spell out explicitedly there was no vehicle repair? Dacy: You mean on the previous conditional use permit for a contractor's yard? Headla: Yes. We were concerned about that. We felt that that shouldn't allow vehicle repair. Dacy: I don't recall that specific conditional use. Headla: I am concerned about the certain terms of vehicle repair and I would like to see something in our recommendation about that. Conrad: Do you associate that with this particular request? You're concerned with the fringe business district in general, not this particular... Headla: For this particular type of operation, I think just the nature of it is suspectible to breakdowns and 11m concerned that we don't all of a sudden start a major repair for vehicles in that area. Siegel: restrict e business Headla: I think We allow service stations already in that area so you can't somebody else from making repairs to a vehicle when you have a allowed in there that is exclusively doing that. I'm concerned about repairs like that. we ought to put a condition about that. If they do on continuously, Siegel: I'm just making the point that we already allow these service stations in this district. Headla: Who was notified of this? Were adjacent landowners? The people up on the hill, were they notified? Dacy: They would be notified if we had a specific application. After this is approved, the applicant will have to file a site plan and go through the conditional use permit process then people within 500 feet of the property will be notified of that. Headla: So it will come back in here? Okay. Wildermuth: I donlt have any problem with including the contractor's lots in the business fringe. Siegel: I have nothing to add. Emmings: I don't have any questions. recommendations. I agree with the Staff's ~ Erhart: Is that storage area that's screened 100%, that doesnlt request Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 16 ~ anybody though in the area that they're using during the day to do the repairs and back and forth with the trucks coming and going, there's nothing that really requires landscaping. Dacy: In our past applications we have requested them to outline what is a storage area and we have required a landscaping plan along with that. Erhart: You don't think you need to have that in there? Dacy: No. Erhart: Okay, then the only comment is, I think for the benefit of the applicant and the City getting abused, where you are proposing to put this and probably use the TH 101 bridge under the railroad tracks. I'm not trying to mold what you're trying to do along TH 101 bridge. The TH 101 bridge is our problem but the City needs to recognize that this is a growing area. Are you planning on driving the trucks under the bridge? Patrick Blood: Only if it's acceptable. The only thing that might restrict it, as far as I know, might be the weight restrictions on that particular road. Nancy Blood: We will consider a majority of the time using TH 212. The only time we might use TH 101 is when Canterbury Downs has it completely ~blocked off. Otherwise, TH 212 is better for us. Patrick Blood: We have been considering that we might be able to talk to the DOT and get access off of TH 212. Now we haven't proceeded that far. Erhart: Other than that, my only comment is that we have to get a trail easement along there. Conrad: I don't have any comments. I think it's a good staff report. Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #87-2 to amend Article V, Section 14 (2) to include contractor's yards as a conditional use subject to the standards established in Article V, Section 9 (4). All voted in favor and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURE ESTA~AND:Li5CATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 101 AND~14 (PIONEER TRAIL), GEORGE NELSON. -- --- -- -- --- --- -- -- Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this item. Wayne Tauer: I guess all I want to point out is just some minor differences that might be. The siltation basin as it exists on that particular plan right there is not necessarily an open area. Basically that whole area is ~ fairly heavily wooded. I think our intent is to site that as best we can by Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 17 e going into the field and finding the least impact that we can possibly find out there. We might have to cut down a tree or two and we'll certainly tell Jo Ann or Barb as to what our intent is but other than that, that's probably the only tree cutting that we will do. We're going to meander that walkway down there. It's going to site designed hopefully with 24 inch open flavor and try to avoid it. The design of the walkway will be bituminous will a tilt on one direction with a curb on one side that will not only act as a walkway but also as a flume to take the run-off from the street which is up above on the top of the slope. I just wanted to point out the one minor fact that the siltation basin will be in the trees someplace so we will try to spot it the best we can. Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: The only comment I would have, I think it's a good plan. I personally would like to see the volleyball court, I think that's a real nice thing to have but I agree that you have to minimize the clear cutting. The other thing on item 6, I guess I would like to see not being quite so restrictive in requiring gravel. I think we should just leave it as any coarse material. My bare feet do not walk on gravel too well and if they can come up with cement pieces or something where it would serve both purposes and allow people to walk barefoot so I would just change gravel to coarse material to eliminate direct run-off into the lake or something like e tha t . Emmings: I'm confused because we talked about the siltation basin as if it's going in but it says if required and I don't know what that means. Olsen: A lot of the drainage from the street will be directed down here and until we get the actual drainage confirmations, we do not know if that siltation basin will be required. Emmings: The only thing I would say then is that we add another condition that, if the siltation basin is required, that the ultimate tocation of the siltation basin should be approved by Staff. They don't know where they're going to put it. If it's requi red they should have to come in and get approval from the Staff before they put it in. I also agree with Tim's change to number 6 too. Siegel: I have nothing. Wildermuth: It's a good plan. Headla: Are they permitted to bring Satellites down to the lakeshore? Olsen: No. Headla: because 'e I don't think we ought to let that volleyball court there then you're going to lose a lot of trees. What is the rationale on that? Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 18 ~DaCy: The history on the Satellites is, it occurred during the original beachlot ordinance process because there were some situations in the city where there were unfortunate circumstances involved with those structures so the Ordinance was written with a outright prohibition against them. Headla: Can the homeowners association come in with a request if they want one? Olsen: We would have to amend the ordinance. It is specifically prohibited. Headla: I think we have a lousy ordinance. I don't think it's realistic. It's almost a time bomb. People are not going to walk up there. Kids, they're just not. I don't have anything positive to say except to put a lot of trees around the volleyball court. Erhart: I think you can take that problem further and it has nothing to do with the volleyball court. People are going to use that area so you not only have the trees, you have the lake. I agree with you Dave. I think maybe we do have a problem here. Dacy: I think the original concern was number one from an aesthetic viewpoint and two was that they did create a nuisance. People would tip them over and cause problems that way. Then there's the smell factor also. It was a major issue in the original ordinance process. ~Emmings: Would you need vehicle access to service them? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: I would not want one next to me. Let me guarantee you. I'm on the opposite side Dave. I would not want that on the beachlot anyplace. Even though there is a function. The trees are preferable if that happens. Neighborhood neighbors and I'm specifically talking about the urban area, you just don't want that there. We've had all sorts of problems with them. From the neighborhood standpoint, the beachlot here is only 200 feet wide and it may be hidden in this particular area but in other parts and other beachlots, it would not be hidden and I think it would be a real sore thumb for a beachlot. Staff Report said you're not wild about the grading for the volleyball and I agree with that but then in the recommendation you don't. Is that anyplace in there? Olsen: We can make it a condition if you want it. Conrad: It's like if there's a lot of grading then we don't want it but if there isn't, but we don't know if there's grading so I guess I would like to see a motion that would incorporate another point. Olsen: The first definition states that the applicant shall provide a detailed grading and tree removal plan. e Conrad: Okay, so that covers it. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 19 e Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded approval of Conditional Use Permit to the following conditions: that the Planning Commission recommend #86-4 for a recreational beachlot subject 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 permitted 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 maximum storage of 6 watercraft stored on the rack. 6. The walkway shall be bituminous to the siltation basin and any coarse material from the basin to the lake. 7. The applicant shall provide a detail design of the siltation basin. 8. A homeowners association be formed to maintain and govern the beachlot. e 9. The ultimate location of the siltation basin, if required, shall be approved by Staff prior to it's construction. All voted in favor and motion carried. SUBDIVISION OF 5 ACRES INTO TWO 2.5 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPRTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATESAND LOCATED AT 750 ~EST 96TH STREET; GEORGIA JEURISSEN. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision. Chuck Worm: The applicant isn't here but I'm her son-in-law and wanting to buy the other half of that. There are a few things, like the sewage hook-up deal. I would like to hook-up to it but for reasons that were said, it just don't make sense. If a person could hook-up to it, it would cost me the same that it would cost the rest of them houses in there or wherever else I would have to go to cost to a couple of people, whoever, to get this thing hooked up because it just don't make sense for one house in that area not to be hooked up to it when I'm only 200 feet away to hook up to it. And the lot line, right where the property line runs, from the road, we put it up on top there because it slopes to the east and it would take quite a bit of her yard and that's why it wanted it made like that. That's all. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 20 ~Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. and motion carried. All voted in favor Headla: The houses to the east, did they have to have soil borings before they were built? Olsen: No. Headla: But some houses aren't that old. What about Hasse? How old of a house is that? That's about four houses to the east. Olsen: They are all on the 201 system and really would not require to submit soil borings. Headla: Those were 201's before they even built? Dacy: The 201 program and the drainfield was sized based on the existing lots that are out there. Not anticipating any subdivision activity that we're getting now so that system was sized just for the number of lots along West 96th Street. Headla: So the homes were in place at the time before 201 went through? Olsen: e Headla : Right. When they built those homes, did they have to have soil borings? Olsen: They had to have perc tests. Some of those homes were built before that was required. Headla: Were any of them built after it was required? Olsen: No, they -might have had to &ubmit perc tests but_they never had to submit the soil borings. Dacy: A lot of the homes were built in the 60's. Prior to any ordinance so that's one of the reasons why they failed. Headla: But we're a lot smarter than we were 20 years ago. That scares me because it's just the philosophy of the soil boring, do you think we can detect problems better? Olsen: The consultant does. They look at all the features of the site. Is it in the drainageway where water is running under ground. Wi ldermuth: If nothing else you can go to a mound system right? Headla: I have nothing else. wildermuth: I'm in favor of the Staff recommendation although I would like ~to see the recommendation be a littl more explicit about the minimum lot Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 21 ~idth of the proposed new lot at the front would be. feet of that existing house or 20 feet or 25 feet or Would we go within 10 whatever? Siegel: I don't have any questions. Emmings: I don't like the way the lot split is with that line. I think it ought to be moved to the east. Can it be moved far enough east to make it buildable up there? Because of setbacks it will never be buildable towards the front will it? Olsen: Yes. 10 foot side setbacks. It's showing 50 foot on the side and that's not right. It is 10 on the side so they could possibly put a house up there. Emmings: I don't know exactly why but it seems to me that line ought to be as straight as it can be. I guess that's all I've got. Erhart: Why does the line jog there as proposed? Chuck Worm: We did that, if we were to split the lot in half, the line would only be like 8 to 10 feet from her garage and the west side of the house is the main part of her yard and that's why the jog is in here. And there's quite a bit of slope right where that line is. East of that line is quite a bit of slope to the east and we just made it that way so she ~WOUld have a decent yard yet. Erhart: But that forces you to put your house way back on the property. Is that your intent? Chuck Worm: We would keep it straight west in line with her house. Erhart: That's what is confusing is the setback. Under the old ordinance it's 10 feet. Olsen: When they come in for a building permit, it will be under the new ordinance which is 10/10. Erhart: So if we were to keep the line straight down, it would not require a variance? Olsen: He still would because they still do not have the 180 feet. Erhart: I understand that but they could split the lots in half and get close to half and still be outside the 10 foot of Mrs. Jeurissen's house. I'm just guessing what would happen if we split the lot down the middle to go within 10 feet to keep it fairly even lots. Conrad: And what's that going to do for us? e Wildermuth: It's keeps the lot line tidier. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 22 e Conrad: Does it solve a problem in the future? trying to meet the ordinance more fully? Does it tell us we're Erhart: The thing I was questioning in my mind, we have an ordinance that says 180 feet. We're putting a pretty arbitrary jog in here and we're going further away from our ordinance. Siegel: Is there any possibility of sharing an existing driveway so there is only one? Olsen: They will be sharing a driveway. Siegel: They are sharing a driveway now and they will continue when the lot is subdivided? Olsen: When the street is improved? Siegel: Yes. They will put a separate driveway into this lot. Olsen: Right now, when the home is constructed they will be sharing a driveway. Siegel: Then I don't see any problem with the configuration that's on there. ~Erhart: A question on the soil borings. This one says 12 inches mottled area. That would require a mound system. Just to point out Dave, this might have been before you got on the Planning Commission. The Commission and City spent considerable energy last fall and winter revising the septic system ordinance for the City because we had had some failures. We attended a class and hired a consultant and rewrote the ordinance. We did a lot of changes so just trying to settle your concern a little bit, I think things have changed a lot and I think we have looked into it. If any new member is uncomfortable with that, perhaps you should go back with Barbara or Jo Ann sometime and go through some of the things we did. I guess I'm pretty comfortable with the new ordinance. The existings homes were built there back before we had any ordinance and some of them wouldn't be allowed at all or would be required to have mounds. Conrad: The reason for the 180 feet? Olsen: It's for future subdivision. Conrad: Down the middle? It won't happen here. I'm looking for a reason that we can grant a variance. Olsen: There's the hardship because it's not physically possible. Conrad: That doesn't do anything for me. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 23 e Olsen: kind of It will not be split down the middle when it's subdivided. reasoning that we used for Mancino's. The same Conrad: So granting a variance here, I don't know that we need to get close to 180 feet because there's not a potential for a subdivision in the future here. In this whole neighborhood, do you see potential for other types of subdivisions ever occurring? They are configured this long, skinny way. Erhart: What are the lots on 96th? 100 or 150? Olsen: 150 feet. Conrad: They're all 150? I guess I can see a rationale that we can grant a variance. I think after the motion we should offer a reason for that. Headla: Why do we even put in number 2? Obviously he's got to put in something. Olsen: That's just to clarify that the 201 option is not an option. We're just making it clear that Staff is requiring the applicant to install an individual sewage treatment system and that he can not hook up to the 201. Headla: Let me put it this way, he doesn't have the right to persue it any it further if he pays the cost himself. He may be able to convince somebody eOf extenuating circumstances. Dacy: He would have to deal with Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Met Council and that still places a cloud as to the City's compliance with the whole 201 grant and the City does not want to be placed in a position that we have to refund the federal government all that money because we don't have it. It really raises the whole question to our conformance with federal standards. Headla: I think you have control over it without that motion in there and if you put that motion in there, you've got him locked in. I think you ought to give him a chance at least to see on his own. Conrad: I'm ready for a motion. I guess a person who feels that they have a definite opinion on where the lot line should be should make the motion so if there is somebody on the Planning Commission that has a definite... Siegel: I just want to make a comment. On the third recommendation from the Staff is that the conditions as stated in the City Engineer's memo dated May 8th is kind of redundant with your point 2 because his recommendations is that Lot 2 will be required to accommodate on site septic system. So you're just kind of stating it again as a separate condition? Emmings: I would like to state a position here. Condition number 1 is vague and I guess I would like to see it less vague and the way we get .. there, supposedly if you move it over is one thing. I don't know what Staff . is looking for there and it seems to me that there is no reason to grant a Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 24 ~ variance in this case whatsoever. The jog is there to accommodate the convenience of the person who is dividing the lots and that's not a reason for a variance. Although we can't reach the 180, I think we should get as close to it as we can. Olsen: Move it 10 feet from the existing structure of Lot l? Emmings: Yes, because it should go, to me, right down to 10 feet from the existing house because that's what the setbacks are there. They can always make accommodation between themselves. If that's the main yard of the house and the son-in-law is over next door, he can certainly let them to continue to use their yard as they have in the past but at least their yard will conform more to what we've done in the past. I'm uncomfortable with condition 1 as it is because I don't know what it means. What is the Staff looking for there? Olsen: We were looking it to be over as far as possible. Emmings: I would agree with that position. Conrad: And as far as possible meaning what? Olsen: 10 feet from the structure. e Headla: Did you actually go out and look at it? Conrad: Do you want to revise your motion at all Bob to be more specific in condition l? Siegel: Not after what I just heard from Staff about their intention. If that's their intention to adjust it for Lot 2. Maybe we're being too nebulous for the applicant in that regards in leaving it up to Staff. Chuck Worm: If you people saw where the line lies right now, you would understand why it is that way. If you guys all want to take a look at it, you would be in favor of this anyway. The way it is right now. If you were selling the lot to somebody else, you wouldn't want that lot lying 15 feet from your house or 20 so I think where the lot line lays right now is the best spot it's going to be. Conrad: Why don't you talk to us further. If we went out there and saw it, why would we be persuaded that the lot line? You can build your house and you're not going to effect the yard as it stands. You're going to be sensitive to the yard of the person that you're buying the property from. You're not going to infringe on that current yard so tell us why if we saw it we would want to leave it where you have it? Chuck Worm: Convenience for one thing. If you were living in that house presently right there, convenience to walk out to the west of the house there. It's a nice yard. It's all level and where the lot line lies, it's ~ goes right there to the point of the hill where it takes it to the slope. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 25 e It goes on the slope there place to put the line. so that's why basically it looks like the best Erhart: If you put the line 10 feet from her house, you can still build your house on the pad that you've shown on your plan. You wouldn't have to do any landscaping in that area. Chuck Worm: But it would inconvenience her house. If you move that lot line 10 feet from her house, she would probably say forget it. Siegel: We've got to be thinking of their problem for resale for that lot. That person isn't going to be living there forever. Emmings: I don't think we do need to think about resale. Siegel: That might be the hardship. Emmings: A variance is something that's not a condition created by them and that's exactly what they're describing. You don't grant variances on the basis of convenience. Conrad: Bob, do you want to do anything with your motion? Siegel: No, I'll let it stand. e I'll entertain that. Conrad: Any more discussion? you comfortable? You want to intent? If anyone wants to make an amendment to it Steve, do you have any more discussion? Are be specific but are you comfortable with the Emmings: I don't know. What I would like to do I guess is, let's just go ahead and vote on it the way it is. Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-4 as shown on the preliminary plat dated January 15, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The the internal lot lines shall be adjusted east to provide Lot 2 with additional lot width. 2. Approval be contingent on approval of the consultant of two septic system sites. 3. The conditions as stated on the City Engineer's memo dated May 8, 1987. Siegel and Headla voted in favor, Conrad and Emmings opposed and Erhart abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Emmings: I'm voting against this simply because I think we should, instead e of saying the lot line should be adjusted to the east to provide Lot 2 with Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 26 e additional lot width, I think it should say that this lot split should be even if possible. The lot line should come over as far as it can to the existing house. If necessary, right up to the required 10 foot setbacks because I don't think there are any legitimate grounds for a variance. Conrad: I agree with that. SUBDIVISION OF 15 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY-RESIDENTIAL AND~OCATED EAST OF CHANHASSEN VISTA AND TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, JUST NORTH OF FRONTIER TRAILION LOTUS LAKE, SHAD6WMERE SUBDIVISION, HILLOWAY CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Phyllis Pope Marv Leggel Mr/Mrs Bill Loebl Susan Albee Jeff Bonner Jack Crow Roger Smi th .. Don Anderson .. Margie Karjalahti 620 Carver Beach Road 650 Carver Beach Road 7197 Frontier Trail 6871 Nez Perce Drive Carver Beach Road 7193 Frontier Trail 606 Carver Beach Road Pleasant View Road 7413 Frontier Trail Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this subdivision. Jim Fenning: I'm with the Hilloway Corporation. I live at 2440 Byrnes Road in Minnetonka. I have with me tonight Joe Finnley, my attorney who can speak to any items and also the engineer, Ray Azon from Land Data. We're in agreement with the Staff Report. We think it was an excellent, indepth report. Any comments, because of the way time is going here, we'll just wait until after the neighbors comment and maybe we can incorporated them into any answers to any questions they may have, we can incorporate that into a brief presentation. We did have a neighborhood meeting on May 6th where we had 14 different people from 11 different households who were represented. Phyllis Pope: I live 620 Carver Beach Road and I've lived there since 1963. I guess I have about four concerns and the first one is about the whole concept of the development. I guess to have seen that property through the years and I feel it's really a unique piece of property in Chanhassen with the old trees that are on it, the wild flowers and the lakeshore. I feel that cutting it up into lots of this size is a shame. You can do that in a cornfield but when you have property like this, the trees that are going to come down even with the restrictions are going to be just numerous. It's not going to be anything like it is now just for the houses and road itself e so I feel that it's a mistake to divide this property this way. My second Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 27 e concern is the capacity for the lift station if they connect to the one that's partially on my property I guess to the north. That lift station has given the City nothing but trouble ever since it's been in there and only yesterday many trucks were going up and down that road pumping it again. It doesn't seem to work. Add these houses to it and who knows what's going to happen. It's overflowed into the lake many times too. My third concern is the erosion of the creekbed with the houses on the one side of the development. As you know, as was noted in the Staff comments, it's a very steep bank and I feel the houses are way too close to the edge of that bank. My fourth concern is the suitability of putting lots on the lakeshore to the north end. That's very low property. It's wet most years most of the year. Practically level and I don't see how a house is going to be built there. That's about all. Marv Leggel: I own property 650 Carver Beach Road. I guess my concern and I understand that the City is going to be doing feasibility study, I guess I would like to see the extension of that Carver Beach Road go on through. I think it's for the good planning of the City and fire protection and safety and for school buses and everything else. I think that that road should be connected. Bill Loebl: I live on Frontier Trail and our backyard abuts the property that Fennig is trying to develop. I have two points which I would like to make. The one is a technical question and concerns the dimensions which _ appear on his proposed plan as opposed to the plan which we recei ved when we .. bought our property. The figures are not the same and I would urge you, before your approval, to have these figures checked to make sure that the right figures are approved by you because once the wrong figures are approved, then it's much more difficult and complicated and expensive to correct any errors regarding lot lines. The second point I would like to make is the number of lots. The original plan was for 23 lots, as you have seen and for a beautiful piece of land like this is, to jam in 27 houses side by side with minimum distances between houses as the page 2 of the plan will show you, is a shame and I don't think anybody will pay several hundred thousand dollars to live 10 feet from a next door neighbor. Mr. Fennig told us at the meeting that we had last week that in order to develop the land he would have to cut down 90% of the trees. I urge you to take a real good look at this. Conrad: Your first comment that you're concerned on numbers. Would you go over that with me again? Bill Loebl: Yes, may I show you. We live on this lot and the distance here reads 65 feet. The plan shows 30. This distance reads 98.14 and his plan shows 95 and our plan, this is 36.7 and his reads 40 you see so these discrepencies should be corrected before. Conrad: How do we handle these discrenpencies Barbara in plats? Dacy: I guess I better look at it first. What this is saying is that it's e 65 feet from your west lot line to where the line jogs and he has shown that Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 28 e that 65 feet on the plan. This 30 feet represents from the new lot line. Bill Loebl: Okay, that was the explanation I was looking for. What about the next one? The 98.14. Oacy: Yes, he is showing 95. That would have been caught at final plat because this is just a preliminary survey and final plat what they have to do, they ha ve to make sure tha t tha t wou Id ma tch the Sunr i se Ridge subdivision. Here they've got 36.7 and here they're showing it as 40 so we've got the same amount they just redistributed it differently but that would have had to match the Carver County Survey Office would have caught that. Mrs. Loebl: We're concerned with Lot 21. You said something about rearranging the something there on 21. What are you doing with that? I see those two dark lines Barbara. What are they for? Oacy: This is the line that they had originally shown. What's being recommended is that the line be shifted to this alignment so that that would force the location of the building pad further to the east. Then this area would be added into this lot. Mrs. Loeb1: Which would be the east Barbara? "Oacy: This is to the east. Your house is right here and this would force "the location of the house more towards the east. Mrs. Loebl: What is the dark line down at the bottom? Oacy: That's to gain lot area so that it can maintain a 20,000 square foot lot area. Mrs. Loebl: Is that taking property away from the people to the east? Oacy: It's taking land area away from his land from the next lot, from Lot 17. Originally, it was 23 and it drops down to 22 and this is back up. Mrs. Loebl: So the house pad on Lot 21 would be further to the east? Oacy: That's correct. A tape change occured while Susan Albee was making her comments. She stated that she thought the plan was a very good one, does a minimal amount of grading and she is in favor of the plan. She stated Mr. Fennig has a right to develop it and she thinks the plan is very beautiful. Jeff Bonner: I live down at the end of Carver Beach Road. I agree with this gentleman about opening up that road to Carver Beach. There are a lot of chidlren playing there and a lot of traffic that flows into the deadend that I see going by my front door everyday, turning around up in the e Moulton or Mr. Fennig's property. I didn't like the way I didn't hear about Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 29 e the 35 foot drop up on the hi 11 to grade down tha t one area tha t you were talking about. I would like to see that. I told Jim I would mow his yard down there because I go down there in the spring with my tractor and get stuck down there... The pump station where I hear it's pumping almost every day. They make 100 trips through there. I don't know. There are a lot of pros for it and a lot of cons. I know there are also lots in there that they have people coming in already who are interested in buying if not already sold. I hate to see this be like Triple Crown there where they come in, which I was here at the meetings at and the guy stood up here and deliberately lied and said that all the trees would be left and here my backyard is asphalt and dirt because they cut everything out of there and they told you they were going to leave it. They also didn't get a permit on that for the 70 different cutting trips that came in there. So I just want to make sure that everything gets done. If it's Staff meeting or whatever economic sanctions or whatever it takes. Conrad: It appears to me Barbara that you've looked at this more from the impact on the environment than you have other developments, especially the Triple Crown development. This gentleman has some concerns. He's seen some things happen in that other development that he's nervous about. What do we tell him that says this is going to be different? Dacy: The Triple Crown situation is the type of development that the developer indicated we're going to come in and grade for the streets and ~ we're also going to prep the sites for the building pads. That's why it .. required the amount of tree removal that it did because they prepped the entire site. Each individual lot. Vegetation from the setback. The building pad location the vegetation was removed. In this application, as I stated earlier, this is not the proposal. The proposed grading plan under consideration by the Commission tonight, if adopted, will limit grading to only those areas for installation of the streets and utilities. There is another second process that the applicant has to go through. After plat approval they have to submit what is known as final plans and specifications and that has to be reviewed by the Council. We've also, as I listed out, required additional plans as well to make sure that that gets done. Conrad: When you talk about control and I think there is always intent of controlling but then there is also limited staff time too. When we talk about monitoring clear cutting or monitoring taking down trees, how do we do it? And again, going back to the gentleman, how do we manage a developer who we put some restrictions on, we may put restrictions on, how does City Staff track that? Dacy: As part of the building permit application, the applicant submits a Certificate of Survey. In the case of the lots along the southern tier, they will have to submit a grading plan as well so we can look at the drainage impacts but through on-site inspection as well as each individual building permit is routed through planning, building, engineering and so on, that Jo Ann and myself, we individually take a look at the lots. Our inspection ~ department has been very astute now as to watching for things for erosion .. control, locations of homes next to lakes, creeks and so on. They are out Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 30 e there on a full time basis and they alert us if they see something occurring. Marv Leggel: I think the difference that you see there in the Triple Crown was probaby a FHA improvement project which require a clearing of the path and contraction of the whole building pads. It appears that the developer has agreed to go in with an architectural control for each individual lot and to me that tells me that he's going to do a lot better job in preparing it. From what I've heard of the price of the lots, I think this is area is going to dictate a much finer home and architecturally designed home versus a lot of them that you see in Triple Crown. Jack Crow: I have a couple concerns. When the Chan vista project went through, we had over 90 people sign a petition that we didn't want that connection into Frontier Trail. I don't like the idea, we got 27 more lots coming onto Frontier Trail from this subdivision but in addition to that, if it gets connected into Carver Beach Road, we're going to get all of Carver Beach going down our road as well. Nobody heard us the last time but I hope somebody is listening a little bit better this time. The other thing I wanted to mention, that drainage pond down there for sedimentation doesn't appear to me to be big enough, at least from the plans that we've seen but I guess that's an engineering question. I would like to see the engineering on that at some point. A Dacy: Gary Warren is the name of Ci ty Eng ineer. ~ 100 year storm event. So feel free to call. It has been sized for the Conrad: If you would like to see it, you should go in and talk to him and if you see something that maybe alerts you to a problem. We trust our engineer in terms of telling us what's acceptable. I think we've had enough drainage and enough issues in that area that the engineer is sensitive to run-off but I think we would welcome you to go in and talk to him and take a look yourself and if you see a problem to bring it up to City Staff and City Council. Roger Smith: I live at 606 Carver Beach Road. I own the property at the northwest corner of his property. I own the last house on the northwest corner of Carver Beach has there. The questions I bring up is the fact that I look down onto that creek. I have the northern part of that creek on my property and it goes through part of my property. I built that house in 1980. That's the last house that's been built on that creek in 30 years and since I built my house I've watched the property from my house, from both sides of the creek move 4 to 6' feet and drop into that creek. I'm talking about those high banks there. There are some high banks in the first 5 or 6 lots and all the way up about 7 or 8. I've watched 5 or 6 feet of my property drop off into that creek and likewise with the other side of the creek. I just can't imagine that you can put houses 90 feet apart abutting the back of the creek and not have a significant part of that drop back into that creek again. I can show you the trees that have been down there. I can watch things falloff. It's not from my property. It's the natural ~drainage that goes into that property. The soil just drops that creek like Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 31 e from both sides. It's not the water coming through the bottom, it's the water corning on the sides. Those lots and those houses and roofs, corning off the back there will knock that down. If you people want I'll show you the amount of erosion that's gone since my house was built. The other thing I have is I see the water for that creek, I saw the dam they put up, I saw it right before I carne here again. I really have serious questions whether that holding pond will handle the amount of water that it's going to put into that thing based upon what I've seen which is since the last 6, 8, 10 years and I live on the creek. The other thing is the trees. I have this property exactly, in fact the same gentleman who owned it owned all that property. I built a house back up and did the same thing they did in taking out trees. You can't build a house of the quality that they're talking about building without taking a significant amount of trees out. The other thing you do when you put your roads in and disturb the roots of those big oaks, they die. And if you don't believe that, you can corne out and I'll show you the ons that I've got stumps all around my house along my road where if you get within 8 or 10 feet of them and they're gone. That's how I've been heating my house for the last 6 or 7 years. You're welcome to corne out and I'll show you our side of the story that Phyllis and I are talking about. We're the people who live on that creek. We're not objecting to the development, we're just objecting to the drainage on that creek and the number of units going in there in relationship to what's going to happen to that. The other thing is the road that's involved in that. If they're going to put a road down there to go through, you're going to have a _ lot less traffic. I guess my big question is who is going to pay for that. ~You've got Carver Beach people and you've got Chanhassen people who live in Chanhassen, there's got to be an allocation of those funds. I know a lot of people who live in Carver Beach who work in Chanhassen, go to school in Chanhassen. You've also got likewise the beaches and recreation down there and traffic corning the other way. If it's going to be assessed to the people in Carver Beach and the people on Frontier Trail, a lot of other people use that too. I think we're going to have a problem figuring out who is going to pay for that. Conrad: Do you see any difference in this land versus Lotus Lake Estates? Roger Smith: Definitely. Conrad: Other than the creek, what's the difference? They have a lot of trees. Roger Smith: The creek. Conrad: They had a lot of trees and they developed that quite tastefully. Do you see a difference in this proposal versus what they're doing? Roger Smi th: I do know the drainage runs off without any building. Conrad: Their lots are 30,000 square foot lots. Minimum lot size in the ~ city is 15,000 and I don't know. This is double the standard. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 32 ~ . h Roger Smlt : property. I You've got a creek in there that's a sizable portion of that don't know if they have 20,000 on there. Helen Loebl: Ladd, did you say those lots were 30,000. Conrad: I was going by net density. Helen Loebl: They're 20,000. Conrad: They probably are. Net density is 1.7 units per acre which is still not, when we take a look at subdivisions, that's not a whole lot of acreage. That's not a whole lot of units per acre. Roger Smith: Those 10 north lots, two-thirds of those there's a creek on them. Four on this side of the creek. Dacy: Your concern about those lots and the creek are very well founded. The Watershed District as well as the City have those same concerns. In measuring the distance of a setback and a standard 25 foot deep building pad, it ranges from Lots 6 and 7 on over but there is approximately an additional 30 to 40 feet before what I would call the crest of the hill before it drops down to the creek. The Watershed District will be requiring as well as the Soil Conservation Service also indicated that the existing erosion that's occuring along those slopes will have to be corrected as well ~ as that channel through there will also have to be stabilized. The ~Watershed District has indicated to me to do that. One, is to provide a piped improvement which would eliminate the creek and install a storm sewer pipe. The other option is to do rip rap and other means to control erosion and stabilize it. The City, from our standpoint, we do not recommend the installation of the storm sewer pipe. It's obvious from our standpoint that you eliminate the amenity of the creek and the benefit that that proposes so there will be conditions regarding erosion control around the creek from the Watershed District and the Soil & Conservation Service. Roger Smith: without more houses, the natural run-off alone drops it off there 2 or 3 feet. It comes down in just clumps. Dacy: I would agree that the existing situation is such that it is eroding very rapidly and what the Watershed District is going to be looking at is to try and correct tha t and stop it and stabi 1 i ze it to the poi nt that there... I'm not going to sit here and say that there's no way that those houses are going to cause erosion problems but what I am saying is that we are very atuned to that problem and we're not going to create a situation that's going to make it worse. Don Anderson: I live on Pleasant View Road on the north end of Lotus Lake. I think it's kind of nice we got a developer that's not trying to get more lots than he's supposed to on a piece of land and it's also kind of nice not to have somebody pushing for an off-lake rights for the off-lake lots. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 33 e Phyllis Pope: I would like to hear some Staff comment on my concern about the lift station. Dacy: I wish the City Engineer was here to address that. To be honest with you, on a day to day basis I am aware that there are employees going down to service that lift station but to be honest I can't answer your questions about the capacity and so on. Maybe the developer's engineer can address the capacity issue as far as from their development but unfortunately I can't address your concerns from the City's standpoint. Phyllis Pope: I think that's a concern that should be straighten out here before anymore houses are connected to that lift station. I don't see how this project can really be considered without that. Dacy: What Staff can do is the engineer will be present at the City Council meeting or I can have him directly call you within the week to answer those concerns. Jeff Bonner: Could they hook up to that original whatever it is going behind where they want to tie in the road? Dacy: I believe from the gravity situation there, they are proposing to connect into the existing lift station. They are looping to the watermain from Chanhassen vista. -Jim Fennig: Why don't I just answer a number of concerns that were raised. Regarding the sewer, right now we're talking about a course by gravity into the lift station. There is an alternative of picking up gravity sewer down south here. There is an existing easement in place and it could run there. We'll leave it up to the City Engineer and the City Staff to tell us which way they want it run. Obviously if we're going to overload the lift station, I'm sure they're direct us in the other direction. The reason we're not running sewer from here in this direction is because the street is sloping down that way and would require another lift station and normally cities want as few lift stations as possible because of such problems. I think I miscommunicated at the neighborhood meeting if one of the neighbors walked away with the impression that we are going to be removing 90% of the trees. This illustration shows the area we will be cutting outside of the right-of-way. There is a good chance that we will even be able to pull that in even more because within the Subdivision Ordinance it does say that if there are significant trees in certain locations you can have them within the boulevard area. This is the worse case scenario where this would be the maximum limits of the grading and cutting. We've worked on at least 10 plans trying to refine this and keep bringing the road upward or down to limit the grading. The erosion control, I would like to show you from some pictures, in the old days this is what was called a driveway and then this is a new culvert that's just been put in place in the last couple years. The culvert under the driveway is located down in this area. Now with a 12 inch culvert and another 20 inch culvert, in the spring with heavy rain, I've seen water over the driveway. With that new culvert you see, all the e water is going to be stored upstream. The maximum water coming out of that Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 34 ~ retention area is going to be out of a 20 inch pipe. So we see that the erosion will be extremely minimal plus we will be incorporating any rip rap. Mr. Smith indicated that there is erosion coming from the south going north. We will be intercepting most of that with the street. At least half of that plus most of these houses are going to have positive drainage towards the street which means the hard surface areas will also be draining towards the street and going down here to the sedimentation pond. That's all I have. Joe, I don't know if you wanted to mention anything. Joe Finnley: I'm Jim's attorney. I think he's really addressed most of it. I just want to make a couple comments. I think first of all, a few of the neighbors had address kind of the concept concerns about the subdivision and to me that's getting a little bit beyond the zoning and planning aspect. There are standards in the subdivision ordinance which Jim has met. We're not really asking for you to give up on any of your standards. We're going to meet them in some cases go beyond them and I hope tha t' s how you view it. The second is on a number of items which are really factual like erosion control and what's to happen. There really are a number of protections. This subdivision is being looked at a little bit more closely if not a lot more closely than a number of ones that went before. Number two, on the erosion control, we're going to end up with a plan that a number of government agencies are going to look at and approve. To a certain extent I think you have to trust the city and Watershed District and the DNR. They all say it's good. They are professionals and I guess at a certain point A you have to trust them and while we don't have the work done right now, it's ~clearly a condition that we have to have adequate control for final approval before we get any building permits. The City Staff has taken care of that very well. I guess finally, this is a point that strikes me as an attorney, I'm also a planner and something I see a lot in subdivisions. People have specific problems which they have identified on an existing site, an erosion problem or something and the natural assumption, despite what staff does is that a subdivision will increase the problem or exaggerate it. Whereas, what your Staff really tries to do I think is use the subdivision as a positive planning device. They try to emealerate the problem. They identify an existing problem and say if we do this subdivision correctly, not only will we not exaggerate the problem, we may diminish it some and I think that's the point Jim is trying to make about where the pads are located with the drainage towards the street, storm sewers going down to the sedimentation pond, intercepting a lot of the existing drainage. The honest thought behind that is not to even come in and say, we'll leave it as is because it's sort of there. I think the thought is to emealerate the problem to use the subdivision to correct. Nobody can make it quiet perfect but I think the intention is that it would be as good or better after the subdivision than it is today and that's a point that I would like to make as a planner more than anything else. That subdivisions aren't necessarily a device to exaggerate problems. Where the Staff is careful and cautious as they were in this one, you can help correct problems. Beyond that I don't think I have other comments. Mrs. Loebl: Maybe this is premature but they talk about connecting Bighorn ~ Drive and coming up through Chan Vista, that connection. We were out there Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 35 e riding yesterday and at one time it had been brought up that that incline was so steep that they didn't know how a road could be put in there. Could anyone explain to me what's going to be done about that incline now? Also, do I understand correctly that the only trees that are going to be removed are where the streets and the house pads and everything else is going to be left. Is that the way I understand it now? Dacy: The streets and utilities. The grade between where Bighorn Drive cul-de-sac's now on into the subdivision here is a significant one and one that they will have to cut through into the subdivision. The Carver Beach Road connection is going to be an even greater grade. More so than the extension of Bighorn Drive. Mrs. Loebl: It looked so much higher yesterday Barbara. car could get up it. I don't know how a Dacy: Right and if you stand at the end of this cul-de-sac and look directly to the east, I think you'll notice though that it is fairly flat and then it begins to slope down toward the east. But if you look toward the north, it drops very quickly. Mrs. Loebl: We were looking south from Carver Beach. Where Bighorn Drive is going to be coming through from Chan vista. ~ Dacy: Where the gravel road is now and if you're proceeding down Carver ., Beach Road it drops very rapidly and then it bottoms out and then it rises again and what I'm saying is that this grade is more steep than this connection here. This is the one that poses more concerns. Mrs. Loebl: How will that be done Barbara? Dacy: What the City will do is hire a consultant to look at the engineering aspects. How that connection can be made? How wide should the street be? Also look at the potential costs. How will the property owners be assessed? How much will be assessed against the applicant? How much benefit will be assessed to the existing property owners? Mrs. Loebl: Even on Frontier Trail too? Dacy: At this point I'm going to say I doubt it because the rationale is there is no direct benefit from your home to this connection. Mrs. Loebl: We're going to get all the disadvantages because besides having the traffic from Chan vista that we've been fighting for a year. Dacy: I thought you meant a financial impact. Mrs. Loebl: Yes, but then we're going to I'm talking about financial impact. Cost e because there is going to traffic as well get more traffic yet from this. plus the impact of the traffic as the financial impact. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 36 e Dacy: I doubt that you will be assessed as a part of this project. To compare this, I think it's about 1,000 to 1,200 feet long compared winding through your neighborhood. We believe that a majority of the traffic will take Bighorn, the shortest route. to Mrs. Loebl: Why would they come down from Carver Beach Road then if they're going to go out that way? Dacy: The people going out to work in the morning and typically who use TH 5 and people in southern Carver Beach are the same way. For getting to a destination south, the quickest means out is going to be through Bighorn Drive. I think the people in Chanhassen Vista are going to be the ones that are going to get the traffic. Roger Smith: Chanhassen. I've got a wife who has 40 piano students. They're going to be using that road. They come from Dacy: And they may come up Kerber and use Bighorn. Typically people will take the shortest route and the quickest time. Winding through Frontier Trail I think is going to take longer than going up Kerber, going down Big Horn then up. Mrs. Loebl: don't mean .. collisions .. accident. don't mean The speed limit signs that you put on Frontier Trail, they a thing. On two separate occasions we almost had head-on in front of the Friedlander house where there was that one bad They come whizzing around there. Those speedsters those signs a thing. Margie Karjalahti: I live on Frontier Trail down a ways. I'm here on behalf of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Associations and I would just like to encourage the developer, I think the development looks very nice and I really like it but one thing I would encourage you to do is to learn from experience at the boat access. The government agencies didn't understand what the people who live next door do so to rely just on the figures and recommendations from them, I think you wouldn't run into probably more trouble if you really talked with Phyllis and this man and really worked with them about erosion control. For the benefit of the boat area and just for the lake too. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: trail? Barb, will you go over again what the Park Commission said about the I got lost in the description. Dacy: The overall trails plan indicated that Bighorn Drive was approved with a portion of the pavement containing a pedestrian and bike trail so what the Commission wanted to do was make a connection up into the Carver Beach area so if Carver Beach Road is going to be constructed as a standard city street, they were saying that the city should include area for an off- e street trail. If it's not going to be improved to a public street, then the Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 37 ~ Park and Rec Commission recommended that the plat be approved with condition that at least a 20 foot easement be reserved so that the Commission could construct a trail. the Headla: I think Mr. Finnley brought up the point that from what I've seen they meet the requirements of the lot size and more than meet what we as a city feel they should do. I think they are more than fair on dividing up that land that they do have. I think they're really adding something positive. I like all the recommendations and I thought it very positive on the creek but then at the very last, do we even have anything definite what's going to happen to the creekbank? Dacy: Is your question do we have anything definite as to what's going to happen? Headla: Yes. Dacy: As I tried to explain earlier, the Watershed District is going to require the developer to do certain types of improvements along the creek. People in the neighborhood are right. There is erosion problems occuring. The Watershed District also has it's standards that any drainage improvements in the area have to handle a 100 year storm event so yes, the developer will be required to submit a final plan. It has to be approved by the Watershed District and approved by the City Council. e Headla: Okay, I interpret them as saying that's going to be an improvement over the current situation. Dacy: Yes. Headla: The current situation is continually caving in? Dacy: That's correct. Headla: I don't have any more questions. wildermuth: The creek slope line as indicated on the map, does that have anything to do with where houses can be located? Is there a setback from the slope line? Dacy: The City does not have an established setback but that slope line was established by the developer to prevent buildings being constructed beyond that line. The City on top of that anyway is going to be requiring a drainage easement along the northern tier of those lots which will also force structures out of the slope area. Wildermuth: Should we have a high water mark on the shoreline? Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as shown on your plan there is at the ~ elevation of 896.3. That is the point that the shoreland setback is ., measured from. Planning Commission May 13, 1987 - Page e . h Wlldermut : Meeting 38 Is that for septic plan? Dacy: Yes, I think it's on the grading plan. Wildermuth: I have no further questions. Siegel: I think Staff has answered all my concerns and I think they've done a very good job of putting together this thing. It looks like a real fine project. I think it will be a real enhancement of the residential character of Chanhassen. Emmings: Are there any regulations that regulate the width of the riparian lots? Dacy: Yes, the Shoreland Ordinance requires 75 feet at the ordinary high but the applicant has exceeded those requirements. Emmings: You said the intent of item 2 was to preserve... Dacy: That was a typo. That should be over storage. Emmings: That's all I've got. Erhart: The 20 foot trail, the bottom of that creek is not reserved for ttanything? That's going to be all private lots? Dacy: Right. Because the creek is so fragile and so on, we wouldn't want pedestrian traffic along there at the bottom there. The Park and Rec commission's action was just to make the connection along Carver Beach Road. Erhart: The house pad on Lot 11, looking at the elevation...the ordinary high water elevation. Dacy: The Ordinary High is 896 and it's proposed at 904 and 9ll. of a walkout situation so it will be above that. It's kind Erhart: Does that solve the problem? Dacy: The concern that the City had was the sedimentation basin in Lot 11 and the elevation of that compared to that house pad but that can be accommodated. Erhart: And the driveway had to go along the basin? Dacy: It's going to be following the lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12. Erhart: Other than that you're satisfied that lot layout makes sense? It does not appear like we're trying to insert something in there that doesn't fit? e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 39 ~ Dacy: Again, our concern was elevation of the pond and that can be resolved when they submit final plans and specs. Erhart: Okay. That's all I have then. Conrad: I generally see some good things in what's been submitted to us. A lot of sensitivity to environment. Maybe not as much as some people would like but certainly more than we see in the typical plan coming to us. Certainly more restrictions in terms of what's in our recommendation if we adopt it tonight. In terms of controls so those of you who are neighbors, there may be some things you're still concerned with but in terms of what we see on a daily basis or weekly, whatever, I'm certainly looking at some things that are environmentally sensitive and better than development~ in other areas. I think the case comes down to an execution of these things and I think also in what we're seeing in how the developer is going to develop a property, I see the control that the city will have on the development to monitor. It's certainly better than other things that I've looked at. For my own interest, who owns a creek? Dacy: The attorney might want to help me out on this but I think the creekbed may be DNR but it's not officially recognized creek from the DNR's point so... Joe Finnley: The developer owns it. The DNR would own the water and the ~landowner would own the bed which of course means nothing if it's a public ~water because the DNR would regulate the water which is a resource of the state. But it's not a public water or designated wetlands as well. From my understanding it would be the developer's. Emmings: Because it's not navigable. Joe Finnley: It won't govern everything but there are some DNR things that are wetlands that are not navigable which the DNR in 1972 also took jurisdiction over as well but typically it would be a navigable water and Minnesota claims the water itself as a resource that it owns. Not the land. That would be a taking but as people find out, there are cases where people own a lake where rice is harvested and it means nothing really to own the land and public water. Conrad: creek? So what prevents a private landowner from doing something to this Dacy: Part of the proposed control mechanism is one, we're requiring replacement of the drainage easement along the northern tier of those lots. You can not place a structure within an easement. If there is a drainage problem that occurs, it gives the municipality the right to enter the property and correct the problem. The developer is proposing a private means beyond that by establishing covenants that match that creek slope line that he has identified on the plan. e Conrad: I've got four concerns and the Chanhassen engineer can solve all of Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 40 - them. I think the developer will be working along with our engineer. As Phyllis said, the lift station is a great concern and obviously we have to take a look at it and I would sure like to have somebody take a look at it before it gets to City Council so we're a little bit wiser when this gets to them. The holding pond size, if we can have an engineer, do we have engineering specs that we can develop or spec out the holding pond size to yet? Dacy: They have given us a preliminary design and the engineer has reviewed the applicant's design calculations but that again has to be refined and reviewed by the Watershed District. Conrad: We've addressed the creek erosion control and I'm kind of comfortable with that. Some of the lowlands that we talked about, I think again, as we develop lots, there appears to be control as those lots are developed so I think I go back to two things. The holding pond and the lift station are of interest to me and I think the engineer should have some comments by the time this reaches City Council. Any other points? wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-20 subject to the plat stamped "Received May 7, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 16 and 17 shall share a driveway. e 2. Realign Lots 21 and 22 as shown in Attachment #11. 3. Retention of drainage and utility easement through the northern area of Lots 1 through 11. 4. Clear cutting of a lot shall not be permited. Selective cutting of vegetation to allow the placement of a home shall be permissible. Selective cutting includes removal of vegetation up to four inches in diameter as measured four feet above the ground surface. 5. Submission of a detailed tree removal and grading plan. 6. Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement. 7. Lots 16, 17, and 21-27, will require separate grading and drainage plans to be submitted with the building permits to assure that drainage is maintained away from the Sunrise Ridge subdivision and that tree removal is done selectively consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. 8. A feasibility study should be prepared to evaluate the Carver Beach Road connection to Bighorn Drive. 9. An erosion control plan shall be prepared incorporating the recommendations of the Soil Conservation Service in their March 6, 1987 letter and be submited for approval prior to construction. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 41 e 10. All utility improvements shall conform to City standards for urban construction. 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. 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 from encroachment 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. SUBDIVISION OF 4.7 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY-RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON~~ITE AV&NUE, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, CREEK RUNlSUBDIVISION, ROBERT ENGSTROM AND--- - -- .e ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Worm 6185 Cardinal Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision. Robert Engstrom: I'm a developer of this property and have been in the development business for a fair amount of time and have built several thousand housing units in the Twin Cities. We've done design and land planning over the years and this is pretty straight forward. What you have here is a nice wooded run that comes through the old creek bed and the way it works out, the sewer and water is in this location right here so the road is pretty well fixed. Therefore, by putting the road entrance in there and leaving the creek run the way it is I think we can pretty much preserve the site. As you can tell by the contours lines, with this sort of configura- tion there will be a minimum amount of earth moving. There is a nice planting of evergreens and other deciduous trees on the site so we think this will be a very nice little subdivision. Regarding the island in the center of the cul-de-sac, I don't know how many times it's come up and I suppose 11:00 at night you don't really want to talk about it but I can show you it has stood the test of time going back to 1967 with Walden and e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 42 e Burnwood in Burnsville where they have been there for 20 years and they are beautiful. The people like them. I know the folklore that can eminate from the possible snowplow person who doesn't know how to plow a cul-de-sac. There are some distinct advantages but the subdivision doesn't rest solely on that item. I think you folks are missing a big opportunity as far as development of the overall community if you don't examine this project. Erhart: Who maintains the flower garden? Some volunteers? Robert Engstrom: My experience has been that there is always somebody in the neighborhood who will raise to the occasion especially if you plant with more or less maintenance free materials. Right now I have something like 200 to 300 lots under development where over half the lots are on cul-de- sacs and they all have islands in the center of them mostly except for one very gorgeous development over here in Minnetonka where they couldn't quite see it. Basically what happens when you live on cul-de-sacs, instead of looking at everybody elses home, if you plant some evergreens you look into trees instead of somebody elses picture window. In terms of snowplowing, my argument is if you have any intellect at all you can figure out you pile the snow onto the island and it's a nice place for storing snow so it's not that big a deal. And even if it was, so what? People want to live in nice areas and this sort of area we expect to exercise with our amount of architectural control and try to do a fairly decent job so it enhances the quality of the entire subdivision so I would ask what your comments might be on that. e Siegel: .. .maintenance of the island though. Dacy: If it's public right-of-way technically it's ours. Siegel: So it's city property. Emmings: So if a tree dies on it, we have to take it down? Dacy: What he's indicating from a practical standpoint the people in the area will maintain it but it's a public street, we have the ultimate responsibility. Robert Engstrom: In fairness, in some other areas where we have a larger subdivision like 30, 40, 50 or 100 lots and we do have an association, I put in the covenants that the association will maintain the islands in the center if maintenance is at a satisfactory level but generally, I just know from practical experience what happens is people who live there, somebody or all of them kind of set it up and that's how they take care of it. Brad Worm: I would like to look at the ditch slope between Lots 2 and 3 there. I'm pretty sure that it's more than a 1 to 1. I'm wondering if they're going to do anything with that? It seems to me that it's extremely hazardous. Robert Engstrom: Hazardous for who? e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 43 e Brad Worm: For pedestrians and cars on Yosemite. you know to the bottom there? What is the drop there do Robert Engstrom: The slopes seem to be pretty well maintained. They have nice trees on them. Brad Worm: No, they're not. I think maybe you want to talk to the road crew about that to make sure that the road isn't falling in the creek. Robert Engstrom: What's the point? Brad Worm: I think if you're going to develop this area you want to look at an extremely hazardous condition. Dacy: You're referring to which lots? Brad Worm: All along 2 and 3 along Yosemite. Dacy: You mean the ditch section along the west side of Yosemite? Brad Worm: Yes. Olsen: That will be in the drainage easement and it will also be maintained with erosion control during construction. i ~ Brad Worm: Maintained. So we would usually leave it, it would stay the same as it is now? Olsen: Yes, they wouldn't be able to touch it. Once again, the drainage easement is protected. Brad Worm: Currently we have like a 20 foot drop with no guardrails. No protection at all. Olsen: You mean for people walking along Yosemite? Brad Worm: Yes, you can't stand on it. Two steps off and you're down. Dacy: So you're suggesting? Brad Worm: I think that maybe you want to look at that as far as the development. Dacy: To cut down the slope you're saying or widen out the, I'm trying to determine what you're trying to have us look at? Brad Worm: The hazard. If you get houses in on Lots 2 and 3, you're not going to be able to do anything with that ditch so if you want to sell lots and leave that ditch the way it is. ;e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 44 e Dacy: Are you saying that you want to have the shoulder widened because the existing slope is so close to Yosemite? Brad Worm: The way it is now there is no room for a guardrail. I guess I think we should have some protection along there. Conrad: Along Yosemite? Brad Worm: Yes. Conrad: You're not concerned about the people who are moving in, you're worried about... Brad Worm: Well, once you get houses in there... Wildermuth: It would be hard to grade it back is what he's saying. Dacy: We could have the City Engineer look at that situation from the street. e Brad Johnson: I just want to give a position on the island. I had recently visited every single cul-de-sac in Chanhassen. I think they are basically ugly. An 80 foot expanse of pavement is not attractive to anybody and from what we could tell, the only reason was because the proper radius is for what he just said. The snowplower can't find the road and that's the only objective we heard that's legitimate. We could possibly have some training of our staff to plow that. It just doesn't make any sense and it really destroys the view. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: From what I can see in this subdivision that is proposed, five of the lots would require variances. Is that right? Olsen: Two. Erhart: Do we allow flag lots? Olsen: That requires a variance. Erhart: What about the other lots that have 30 foot frontage and 58 foot frontage? How many lots require a variance? Olsen: Lot 6 requires one and Lot 9 requires one. Conrad: What does Lot 9 need one for? Olsen: Lot 9 doesn't have 90 feet at the 30 foot setback. Lot 3 actually does not meet the 15,000 square foot and it has the 90 feet street frontage e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 45 e along Yosemite so although from internally, it really doesn't require a variance. Erhart: I don't understand why that street isn't done a little bit different. Just slightly longer or something. Or a hammerhead type cul-de- sac then we could eliminate all the variances. I don't see any hardship so I guess I would like to see the plan brought back. Unless he can explain what the problem is. Robert Engstrom: There are various ways to approach this site. I can come in with a plan that you wouldn't be very excited about. It would probably have an extra lot or two but you wouldn't like it but what we're trying to do here is have a situation where we're saving the woods coming along in here like this all the way here so we got that restraint already. We have some existing vegetation on site on the other lots. Some evergreens and emersion cover coming in here and there are some nice trees back in this area. Erhart: Readjust Lot 6 and have them all access off the cul-de-sac. Eliminate the flag lots and eliminate the driveway easement. e Robert Engstrom: But there is a certain amount of rigidity in your ordinance and if you're going to conform with all aspects of your ordinance, it's pretty hard. There are some other dramatically different approaches that you can take. You can take an approach of bringing the street access in over here like this and coming down this way. But that's not nearly as desirable I don't think from the City's standpoint. It's a very steep ravine. Erhart: I'm not suggesting you put a street in there. Robert Engstrom: But that would be another way of doing it. The City's already got the sewer and water in this location so that's kind of a fixed variable. Erhart: I guess I still don't see why the cul-de-sac can't be further north and rearrange Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 so they're on the cul-de-sac and at least eliminate the flag lots and private driveway. Is that not possible? Engstrom Associate: You would lose too much. Erhart: Too much what? Engstrom Associate: Too much ground. If you push that cul-de-sac back, it cuts the dimension of the lot down so we are not within your 15,101010. Two months ago it was 13,101010 and now it's 15,101010. Erhart: Maybe there's not room for 110 lots on this piece. only room for 9. Maybe there's ~ Engstrom Associate: All of them are oversized. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 46 e Erhart: I guess I don't like to see that high a percentage of variances. Robert Engstrom: Sir, I believe you misinterpretted the dimensions. These are the street dimensions. The only variance that I know of is for one lot. If it's really important to you we can move this lot line down here. This is here where the logical buildings sites are. The logical site for this site is here and this is also a logical building site. Erhart: We would also like to see how is 3 going to get access? Robert Engstrom: Private driveway. Erhart: I guess I'm not exc i ted about that ei ther. Let me just move on. Regarding the cul-de-sac thing, I guess I would like to take the opportunity, I think I agree with you but I would like to see our maintenance representative come in and talk to us about this cul-de-sac. I would like to get more information. If there is a positive aspect of putting islands in, I think we ought to do it but I would like to talk to them. That's my comments. e Emmings: I certainly agree with Tim's comments. I don't like Lot 3. I don't like Lot 6. 9 I don't think is that big of a problem. I think it could be accommodated pretty easily. My own impression as I was sitting here too is that it's too many lots crammed into that space and yet I realize to meet our square footages that they've met and in some cases substantially exceeded on what we require so I don't think that's a reason I can vote against it but I don't particularly like it. I think if you have to have a cul-de-sac, from what I've seen of islands I like them but again, perhaps we should hear what the real complaints are. Particularly in a development like this where they are small, I think it would be a good thing to have it. Siegel: I guess I don't share the same concerns. I don't see a real big problem with this. Although it's not the ideal maybe but considering the topography and the land, it's probably fairly well done engineering project here for meeting our specifications. Also, is there an island in a cul-de- sac in Chanhassen? Robert Engstrom: Yes, one. Dacy: Sandy Hill Road. Siegel: I guess are we speaking from experience when we say that plowing and servicing of the subdivision is very difficult or are we speaking from somebody elses, some other communities experience? Dacy: As I understood it, the City Engineer consulted with Jerry Schlenk, the Street Superintendent and from their standpoint a heavy snowplow can't see the curb area and come whipping in there. It's more difficult for them to work around. You can see from our comments from the Fire Department that e they feel they can work around it and each department has their own views on Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 47 e the matter but the Engineer consulting with the Street Superintendent has stated that we would not recommend that this would not become a standard policy. Beyond that I really can't say much more. Yes, they do have good points but engineering is pointing out some bad points. Siegel: From that standpoint it has some pluses and minuses. Obviously from a service standpoint, if you threw it out just on that point you wouldn't be considering some of the positive aspects of the island. The aesthetics and the possibility of enhancing that neighborhood. I think the problems could be overcome pretty easily by a snowplow. I would tend to think that including an island, I would like to see more islands included in cul-de-sacs. Especially large cul-de-sacs where it would kind of enhance the surrounding area. Conrad: Who would want to maintain them? Siegel: I tend to agree that if they are planted properly the maintenance is pretty minimal and generally, of course, they are going to be maintained. Even if you just put shurbery and wood chips on it. If you put some nice pines and some evergreens and wood chips, you wouldn't even have to worry about maintaining the grass. They would just grow so from that standpoint you wouldn't have to worry about anybody mowing the grass or whatever. e Wildermuth: I feel if the developer wants to put an island in the cul-de- sac and he meets the street and structure requirements that we have, I don't see it as being any problem. I happen to live on the one cul-de-sac in East Lotus that does not have an island. There are two cul-de-sacs over there. I think the City has more problems plowing that one than the one with the island with the small radius. Have you looked at how you could reconfigure this subdivision so there wouldn't be any variances? Is there anyway Barbara? Olsen: Lot 6 would have to eliminated and Lot 9 can be adjusted with the lot line being shifted over to the east but there really isn't enough street frontage to allow Lot 6 to have the 90 feet of frontage. Also, for Lot 3. Wildermuth: I think this will make a much nicer little subdivision here if it was reconfigured and not need the variances and maybe increase the lot sizes. I think as we talked before, even though we have a 15,000 square foot minimum, 15,000 square feet is not a very big lot. I guess I'm not in favor of the way it's configured. Headla: I would like to discuss the cul-de-sac. What questions did you really ask that fellow that is going to plow that? Olsen: We just asked him what's your opinion of an island? They have a certain way of plowing the snow. Headla: You know what the answer is going to be before you even ask and I'm not sure he should have the say in that. I think there are a lot of tit aesthetics for anybody living on that. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 48 e Dacy: Therels no question that the aesthetic benefit is there. The City is approaching it from the maintenance, the cost and the liability issue as well. Headla: whatls different than having some shurbery on the boulevard? I lived in Excelsior for a good share of my life and we had trees on the boulevard. Whatls the difference between that? Olsen: An internal structure that the snowplow has to go around. Headla: I thi nk that IS somethi ng tha t maybe they should learn how to do. On Lot 9, does it meet the intent of what welre trying to do on the Ordinance for aesthetics? Olsen: Again, the intent is to provide the lot width at the street frontage. Headla: But wasnlt it for the house setback. Olsen: The intent of the ordinance as it is written now is to provide that lot width at the street or at least at the 30 foot setback to . ilot ~llow triangular lots. . e Headla: Are we doing something just to do it or do we have rationale to change that? Dacy: Change Lot 9 or are you talking about Lot 6? Headla: I want to talk about 6 next but on Lot 9. Olsen: Lot 9, I think it should be changed. Conrad: Because why? Olsen: To provide the necessary frontage. Conrad: Because at 30 feet setback we donlt have the 90 feet? Olsen: Right. Conrad: what do we have at 30 feet? Olsen: 80. Headla: Lot 6, I guess I donlt have but on Lot 3. Are we talking about an easement or a common driveway or what? Olsen: An easement. That could be a common driveway if they wanted to make 4It it that but right it would just be an easement. ~ Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 49 e Headla: We talked about easements before and we've gone through this sort of thing. We just really haven't worked that out satisfactorly have we? I keep thinking of the one just on the north side of my property. An easement leads to more and more problems all the time. It seems like you're putting in an easement because you don't know of any other way to solve the problem. Olsen: Granted easements aren't ideal but in this case, Lot 3 meets the lot square footage of 15,000 square feet and it also has the street frontage onto Yosemite. Technically, if they wanted to, they would put the driveway out onto Yosemite but that would be going over the creek area. Headla: You would have to have a 4-wheeler. Olsen: What we ha~e proposed is that they use the internal street and reduce alteration to the land and reduce another access onto Yosemite. Headla: I think that's good rationale but it just seems like we're giving an easement because we don't know how to solve it. Can't we have an arrangement where they either put in a commen driveway or have a 30 foot right-of-way? Olsen: You could even have them make another flag lot if you wanted. e Headla: I got. I would rather see them do that than have an easement. That's all Conrad: good? Let's take the road takes about 12% of total area. Is that pretty Dacy: That's standard. Olsen: That's common. Conrad: 12% is common? Dacy: That's low compared to the lot sizes are larger than are required. Conrad: I'm not wild about the configuration with Lots 3 and 6 and it just bothers me but I'm sensitive to preserving the creek on 3 and I think the roadway is definitely less surface in this development than most developments. That's my perspective but I really have a problem with Lots 3 and 6 and I'm not sure how I solve it. I'm not wild about the flag lot for Lot 6. I don't know why I would grant a variance in that case. I can understand Lots 3 and 9 real easily. I just don't like Lot 6. It's just not good planning. It's nothing that I'm comfortable with but I also see some positives that the developer is doing and based on Staff's direction I'm trying to see if those positives outweigh the negatives I see with Lot 6 and I'm balancing and I still have a problem with Lot 6. I end up not e liking it. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 50 e Dacy: And that's part of the reason to need a variance. Basically, your Commission is going to try and decide whether or not Lot 6 deserves a variance and you're going to be determing whether or not you feel that this is overcrowding of the land. Technically Lot 3 meets it, Lot 9 can be adjusted to be so there are no variances. Conrad: I guess whoever makes the motion, I guess you got a lot of choices here. Obviously to go according to Staff or you can make the motion and approve everything other than the variances that are there. I think the motion should also be incorporating any comments on the island. I personally like the island but I personally think that somebody should be in charge of that island. I'm not willing to take it on as a city so that's where I'm at. If somebody would like to make a motion. Emmings: Can I ask a question first? This is maybe a little abstract and maybe not very much directed to this but here we've got Lot 3 and you say it meets the street frontage requirement on Yosemite yet it's not served off of Yosemite. What is the point of having the street frontage requirement against maybe a person who lives on a lot that doesn't have the street frontage? Olsen: The street frontage provides you with the safety access to be maintained by the City. Emmings: Here he has the street frontage on a street that you can't use and ~ we're going to sneak you in the back door on a little driveway here and that made me wonder why we have a street frontage requirement at all. Dacy: We have a street frontage requirement for easy means of access and safe and convenient access to the lot. You need a public street for some traffic flow and traffic circulation management. Practically, access to Lot 3, if they did come off Yosemite, you could do it. You could grade that down to get your vehicle up it but it would be a lot of grading. Yosemite is not a collector or an arterial so we don't have that restriction for direct accesses onto a local street. I understand your point. You're saying practically the access is going to come off the cul-de-sac. Emmings: That's where the frontage ought to be. Conrad: Okay, somebody want to take a crack at this one for a motion? Headla: Do you have any thoughts on the easement versus a right-of-way for Lot 3? Emmings: I personally think that Lot 3 ought to have street frontage on the cul-de-sac but I just want to make my motion this way and maybe it will pass and maybe it won't. The City Council will have those comments. That's going to be a private driveway, I don't know if they intend to make it an easement over Lots 4 and 2. Maybe they can tell us. ~ Robert Engstrom: It would be an easement, yes. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 51 e Emmings: Half and half then split up that lot line? Robert Engstrom: Yes. Emmings: I don't care if it's an easement. Dacy: Just for clarification, that contains Staff conditions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6? Conrad: Yes. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-21 as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 24, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. No individual lot shall be permitted access onto Yosemite. 2. Lot 6 shall receive a variance to the lot frontage requirement and Lot 9 shall have a 90 foot width at the 30 foot front yard setback. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and tree removal plan prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control to protect the ravine and the ravine shall be protected by drainage easements. e 5. The conditions as stated by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 8, 1987. All voted in favor except Conrad and Erhart and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Erhart: I'm not convinced that we took and tried to find a way of doing this without the variance and so my recommendation is that Lot 3 be redesigned, that all the lots have frontage on an internal street with the 90 foot at the setback. Conrad: I voted nay simply because I don't like the access to Lots 3 and 6 and I also think that as an island, because it was proposed an island, that there should be responsibility for maintaining that island and I don't believe it should be the City's responsibility. SUBDIVISION OF 3.15 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, S INGLE FAMILY RES IDEN'i:'iAL AND LOCATED AT-7423!7425FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS COURT SUBDIVISION, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address e Mr. Bill Kirkvold 7423 Frontier Trail Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 52 e Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision item. e Brad Johnson: I come before you not as a developer but as a homeowner in this neighborhood and I would like to explain why we're here and trying to accomplish this. We have Pete Linsmayer whose home burned down on that lot about a year ago now. He's here and the others that live on that particular area and also Mr. Kirkvold. We're all kind of joint applicants. Let me just give you some history on it because we do ask for some, I've asked for a number of things because I know when you don't have a private street you run into all these kinds of problems. This particular piece of property was developed a number of years ago and when they did it they just put the lots in kind of randomly. If anybody has been over into that particular area you can see that there is very little maintenance to the road itself and roads out in the village. Basically, we also have one more lot that is serviced off this road in addition to our own which is right here. That particular lot has no access to anything except it has a little easement across here. What we tried to do is approach this as a neighborhood and it's taken us about 6 months to negotiate the purchase of the land. That was the first step so there is very little up to us. We're not making a lot of money. We're just trying to straighten out the neighborhood. We also got all the neighbors to agree that they would participate in this so we have a rare opportunity where you have four neighbors who will act somewhat uniformally to try and straighten out the problem that probably would never, ever be straighten out again once we all go off on our merry way and the lots are all sold. The Kirkvold are going to sell their home on Frontier Trail and this makes it all possible, and build on the lake so he's bringing economic muscle along and he's buying the lake lot. Even at that point, to also bear the burden of the additional costs to all our lots, we decided we had to put an additional lot in there to justify getting it done so that's why we have the position of that one lot. That lot is 51,000 square feet and we're dividing that lot into two lots. One will be on the lake and one will not be on the lake. There is sewer and water to all those homes but 10 and behold, we got halfway through this process and we had agreed to everything except for wanting a green island and we discovered in the meeting with the Staff today that the sewer and water in there, there is no manholes so nobody knows what's there. And I can understand this one, the recommendation is they tear out what's there and put in all new. That's why we have got to do that. That might be the right thing to do. We're not saying that's the wrong thing to do. It does add $12,000.00 to the plan that we had not anticipated. They are also recommending that we put in at the end of the cul-de-sac, which we have for the fire which you can't really argue about, put in a fire hydrant and increase the watermain. There is maybe some legitimate and mechanical problems in there that could be corrected at this time. If we do do that, we don't know if we have enough money. We've budgeted $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 to do this and the additional $12,000.00 for the sewer and water and two manholes and everything else gets the budget up beyond what maybe the rest of the neighbors will agree to do and we may not get it done. The variances are simply, the houses themself at the point they will be built on are at a 90 foot point and they are setback quite a bit. There's a cliff there that drops off. A natural overlooking the lake. If we build homes as walkouts e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 53 - on it so they are situated on that particular parcel. If you notice this one house right here is probably 120 to 160 feet from right here over to where that house is situated. This house will be quite a ways from the road and this house will be quite a ways from the road. We could pull the road in farther and give us the frontage, it would just cost more money. Every time we move on asphalt, that's why the variances won't be justifiable. The cul-de-sac happens to be the backyard of two houses that are on the cul- de-sac. My house and somebody elses house. In our cases, a number of us, I'm giving up of what I call my front yard. All the way along to put a road in there as an easement. We have set that up so it meets city standards as far as requirements of space, the turning radius and everything like that. Having gone to other places that don't have rules on green areas in the middle of cul-de-sacs, we would like to try this as a private road then you don't have to deal with all these kind of things. The private road ordinance allows three homes on a private road and that is far less than what we have. That's where we're coming from basically that we would like to spend about $20,000.00. We think we're going to straighten out something that needs to be straighten out. We were half way through the meeting and I met with Gary Warren today and I think the Staff can understand the problem of money in trying to get this thing accomplished and they seem to feel that it's more important to put the sewer and the water and the fire hydrant in at this time than trying to put all of it up to City standards. When we say not city standards that means to drop off the curb and gutter and to make it a little bit narrower and keep it as a private road. We have hired snowplow experts. We bring them in from Eden prairie and they plow that and nobody will have to handle them. That's where we are. We've been working on this now for 3 or 4 months and believe me, it was not easy to get it all together. You have five people to straighten out a neighborhood. We also have somebody moving into the neighborhood. There's another thing that was required, an outlot in here. Because these people have a 10 foot sideyard and a 10 foot sideyard there and we think ultimately the Ellsworths will sell this outlot to these people and they will then have a driveway and a place to put a garage so we thought that part out too. It's like a flag lot and your easement problem except we only have a 10 foot front yard. So we have a lake lot which is worth a lot of money with a house with no place to put a garage and no front yard so we've set the outlot in for that reason. That took up some of the radius that we could have done. We could have done this a little bit different. So we've got it set up with this outlot someday to be sold off to that house. That's where we are. e Bill Kirkvold: I live at 7423 Frontier Trail which is Lot 10, I'm not sure what it says on the artist's sketch but as Brad mentioned, I think we consider this more of an improvement project rather than a subdivision. In fact, when the notification of public hearing came out, the fact that 3.15 acres was being dividing into five lots, a number of people in the neighborhood asked me what was going on because it sounded so ominous like a big developer, Lotus Realty Services in this case, was coming in and was going to plot five more lots into the neighborhood which really isn't the case. We're essentially trying upgrade the road and utilities in the area and divide one lot which is about an acre and a third into two lots. I think that really comes down to a matter of economics because what's e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 54 e affordable to the neighborhood in terms of this kind of a project. There isn't any economic gain to us other than if there is some increase in property value as the result of having a better road. I think it's a matter of trying to improve the road and get rid of an erosion problem that we've had with the easement road in the past and provide an aesthetically better neighborhood. Brad Johnson: The issue was also having the outlot as a beachlot. We're not sure, it was a good point that Gary brought up as to the relocation onto Frontier Trail but there may be a different way or different place to put that could corne out straighter than it is. Right now it would basically be running parallel to Frontier Trail and I'm not sure that's really real good. It's probably a way of doing that straight through maybe 200 feet up Frontier Trail to put the access in there. What I'm saying is we agree it should be thought out but we just found out about that one on Friday too and there are probably other solutions to that that are better. Bill Kirkvold: I think we can agree to having another access to Frontier Trail. At the same time I think you have to realize that that particular road gets used maybe four months of the year and during that time, mostly on Saturdays and Sundays so we're talking about a situation that's a problem a maximum of 20 days a year. There's a fence across it most of the time and it's locked. e Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. and motion carried. All voted in favor Erhart: Who uses the beachlot? Brad Johnson: We have an association of about 20 houses. Erhart: So it's the people outside the cul-de-sac then. that this road intersect into the cul-de-sac? Is Staff proposing Olsen: Yes. Erhart: Rather than on Frontier Trail? Olsen: You have two access points right on top of each other, intersecting actually, ,and it's dangerous as i.t is right now because you,' re on a curve and you hesitate. ,- Erhart: Wouldn't you turn the end of that cul-de-sac so that it intersected with Frontier Trail at a 90 degree angle? Brad Johnson: That's a sharp turn. We want to put a stop sign there is what we wanted to do. That will be the next thing. Olsen: We at least want a secondary access. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 55 e Brad Johnson: I live right here and we don't use this road. This road can come right out here like that. This is just a little stream and it can be culverted and you can run across there. The major drainage one is right over here. Two streams that come in. This road would come right in there with no problem. I just have a hard time of seeing a road here and road and they run parallel. Erhart: Okay, but Staff is recommending that it run into the cul-de-sac. Brad Johnson: And we talked with the Staff and we say they're probably right that something should be done other than what we were thinking about doing but we didn't know that that would be brought up. This is not our property. Erhart: My question is, it seems to make more sense to run it straight up Frontier Trail rather than using the cul-de-sac but enough on that. I assume you are taking the lot that you're creating, the sale of that to pay for the improvements? Brad Johnson: Not all the improvements but a major share of them. Erhart: The conversation you have in here regarding a private drive versus a public street, the ordinance does not allow private streets. I guess what we're heading for is perhaps passing this thing requiring a public street. e Brad Johnson: That won't work. Then we'll have to meet all the criteria. It would have worked up until we discovered it's going to cost $12,000.00. A public street in this particular area has to have a 28 foot width, concrete curb and gutter and we add all the math up, you find that that's about $15,000.00. Erhart: How wide is Frontier Trail right there? Brad Johnson: 28 feet. So what we thought we would do is set the road up so that that would be an outlot. The dimensions of it would be just like that, meet all the standards of a normal road but because of the economics. See we all think we have sewer and water until we were told we sort of don't. They said to put all new in. That's a surprise. We're not saying they're wrong because it sounds like it might be correct. It just was mishandled 15 years ago when you did it and that's possible so we're suggesting as an interim, because we have a limited budget, that we put more emphasis on the doing of the utility improvements at this point. We didn't think we had to do those. Erhart: What do you have wells now? Brad Johnson: No, we have sewer and water. We have everything. Erhart: And why do you have to change that now? e Brad Johnson: They're saying that the low pond. There are no manholes and Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 56 e they don't know where the shut-off's are and they want to put a manhole up there so they can turn it off. Erhart: It works though doesn't it? Olsen: They have to provide fire hydrants and they have to provide manholes and things like that. Erhart: The sewer system is working okay. They get city water. Brad Johnson: They don't know where the hook-ups are. the size of them are. They don't know what Erhart: Is that more important that the street issue. Brad Johnson: To us after we listened to them, we said fine, we'll go along and put the money into the fire hydrant and the upgrading of the watermain and whatever. Let's say that's $12,000.00. $2,000.00 for the manholes and right on down and we said fine. We will then use our budget and go with a private road in there and we'll cut down the width from 28 feet to 20 feet to plow ourselves. Those kinds of things and do away with the curb and gutter. That was the idea. e Bill Kirkvold: I think the rationale there is those types of improvements are going to be under the street. Obviously you want to make sure you don't have those kinds of problems before you go and put it in. There's no sense in putting in a street without those utilities. Erhart: I guess on the variance on the lot width, what you're doing here is really unusual that you can get everyone together to decide to do something. That's great so I like it. I just have a hard time understanding how the street works and the sewer. Brad Johnson: Originally we had it just like this and didn't think we had to do the sewer. It carne up and we're trying to agree now. Gary is probably right. Erhart: The issues we're going to have to decide is whether we're going to vote for a variance on the street thing but now I'll listen to the other questions and try to decide. Emmings: Staff is not recommending that we approve a private street? Olsen: No. Emmings: months and see how we questions. We've been kicking that issue around here over the last couple of we just finally decided what our position was on that and I don't can go along with it. Other than that, I don't have any e Siegel: That Lot 1, Block 2 and the recreational beachlot shall have access Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 57 e from the new street and not from Frontier Trail. have access from the new street? Doesn't Lot 1, Block 2, Olsen: What we're saying is the secondary access, we want this to be an opportunity to have this open. Siegel: Oh, that would be eliminated? Brad Johnson: Yes, and I'm saying that's fine. Siegel: Is there any problem with, we just talked about having a variance for that previous proposal for new Lot 3 here that has the frontage. What is the requirement, 90 feet? 01 sen: Yes. Siegel: I don't see any kind of hardship here that existed on the previous one because Lot 2 could be realigned or the other lots could be realigned to achieve that pretty easily. Brad Johnson: We only have two lots to play with. We can't realign my backyard. My house is built and my yard is there. e Siegel: what kind of frontage do have there on new Lot 2 at the setback? Can't we realign the lot line for Lots 3 and 2 to achieve that 90 foot minimum? Olsen: You need it for Lot 4 also. Then you get into the square footage. The only way is to take some land from Lot 1 to Lo~ 2. Siegel: It seems like there's enough land here to play with so granting a variance for Lot 3 doesn't seem to have the same kind of impact at least from my point of view as the previous proposal where there is on other solution from my thinking. Brad Johnson: Put yourself in our position, we have Lot 1, the house is built and right now I'm 30 feet off of the line. The only way to do it is say you're going to move over and take more of the property that I'm already giving to this and my wife will divorce me. Siegel: Is there any way of shifting all of the lot lines all the way over to that outlot and making less land there. In other words, just move it around. Brad Johnson: The problem is, the outlot, we got it in there as small as we could figure out to make it useful for someday for that house so he can sell it. Everybody is built so it's difficult to move things around. We earlier thought that you guys would accept the fact that we were able to show it at the building point where it's 90 feet. That's what we were try i ng to accomp 1 ish. All of the homes will be set back the same on the e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 58 e street. They will be equal distance back from the cul-de-sac. have their own driveways. It's tough. They all Siegel: What is the whole area of the original subdivision that has use of the beachlot? Is it all on Lotus Lake? Is it on both sides of Frontier Trail? Bill Kirkvold: Both sides of Frontier Trail. Brad Johnson: 12 families. Half of the members are on the lake already. There's about Wildermuth: I guess I don't have any questions. Headla: After we fought so hard to standarize on streets. When I came in here I was convinced that it should be street then I waiver and then I come back and gee, if there's going to be six there. We had such good rationale for the street standards and we've imposed them on other people although it was a little bit different. I guess I go along with the Staff recommending that. I had a little harder time on this one but I'm still convinced with all the recommendations. e Conrad: Contrary to you, I find this variance for lot frontage a lot easier. I felt there are more hardships here. In the other case it's a brand new subdivision. Brand new so there are no hardships. They can meet all our ordinances. Here, they're trying to straighten out a problem and I think it's to our benefit to help them straighten it out. I think that's kind of neat. It looks like a huge road when I look at the blueprint. It just looks. Headla: It's the same size as Frontier. It doesn't seem reasonable. Conrad: I would like to scale it down to a little trail going in there that a snowplow could sneak through. Brad Johnson: That's why we requested a private road. Conrad: We have struggled with private roads over the last couple months. Brad Johnson: We figured out we got all the people to agree to give away more of their land. You're talking everyone of these guys is giving away a number of square feet of their land to get the road in. We asked for the green area. That was the only thing we were really concerned about. Having an island because we know looking out the back, we'll sell this whole deal if we have to look out our backyards and some of our front yards, at an 80 foot radius or diameter of asphalt pavement. It will look terrible. This thing is 24 feet all the way around. If you can't drive something around that. So we were all set for this. I don't know what to do with this. I don't know if we can absorb, we figured out this morning and I agree with the City, that's where they're at. They're saying we all want all new sewer and water. Well, there's already sewer and water see, in our minds. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 59 e They're saying they don't know what's there and that'a surprise. Otherwise, we would have blown right through. That's the one economic thing that caught us off. I know you guys can't simply say we don't have to put sewer and water in. That's an engineering question. Conrad: Your recommendation for the access, I can't envision how it hooks up. The beachlot access hooks up to the new road. I can't envision how we could do that? Olsen: We looked at it real briefly but we saw this low area here and we said we don't want it to corne out over that. The street most likely will corne straight out so right here there are going to be two streets so what our proposal was, but we didn't know how Brad was going to feel about closing this off so what we were proposing was to have this curve like that so they could still use it. This is pretty well wooded and it's not like you're having a second street along Frontier Trail. Conrad: So what's safer? Having a road that accesses within 10 feet, onto the new drive within 10 feet of Frontier. Olsen: From our perspective, yes, to have the access off of this internal drive versus having one on Frontier Trail. e Conrad: But you couldn't even turn left. Once you got to that street, how you rearrange yourself so you're ready to go back out onto Frontier. It just seems like you have some lousy angles to play with. Dacy: What Jo Ann is pointing out is what we discussed with the applicant this morning is that the City's concern is to minimize access points. This was an suggestion to achieve that objective. Maybe the Commission would want to direct the applicant to provide a detail of that connection as well as an alternative plan showing the connection further west so the engineer can go out and evaluate sight distance and so on and maybe there is another alternative there. Olsen: Actually, you could have 30 feet separation on Frontier Trail which I think is feasible. Conrad: That's my concern. I don't know that the solution is as safe as having two accesses going out. I certainly appreciate minimizing the accesses and I think we should qtrive to do that but I just didn't see the connection was any safer so maybe that is something we can incorporate into a motion that we continue to look for a solution. Brad Johnson: The beachlot owners would have something to say about that. Erhart: Do we have streets now in the city that are 28 feet wide? Olsen: You mean public streets? e Erhart: A private street. Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 60 e Olsen: A private street would be much smaller than that. Erhart: So the minimum width in the City of Chanhassen is 28 feet so we don't differentiate any place even if it was a four lot cul-de-sac it would be 28 feet wide? Olsen: what we look at is reduced right-of-way but the street is still built to city street. Conrad: In some cases that's unfortunate. Headla: What's critical in street standards? When I think of street standards, I think of the base material and how heavy the traffic. I don't think of the width as much. Should we have something else besides just a 28 foot width? Olsen: That provides you the passing width and emergency access that's necessary. It also gives you the base. Headla: The base I can see just from the different vehicles that can handle it but the width I have a hard time with. You have a maximum of six homes here. It isn't as though you have heavy traffic coming and going. It seems like you should have some other additional alternatives to width when we know it has minimal traffic. Is there anything available on that? e Dacy: It comes down to almost like the private drive, where do you cut off the couple of lots? You could say for six lots or less you can have 20 foot wide paved surface. Well, somebody comes in with 7 or 8. If you want to make a recommendation to the Council that the Council evaluate a reduced standards, that is within your perogative to do so. Headla: A reduced width standard? Dacy: Right but from an ordinance standpoint, 28 feet was established to provide adequate travel lanes and as Jo Ann said, that emergency access, it's an appropriate width for an urban street and that's what our ordinance says at this point but if you want to make a different condition that's certainly within your power. Conrad: Is there a motion? Erhart moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-22 as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 24, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The street shall be improved to city standards and shall connect with Frontier Trail. 2. The City Engineer's conditions stated in his memo dated May 8, 1987. e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 61 e Recommendations: 1. The City Staff review the possibility of an alternative street standard for this subdivision considering the existing conditions and the hardships imposed by those conditions. 2. Staff work with the applicants to provide a better plan for how the cul-de-sac actually intersects with Frontier Trail and the trail to the beachlot. 3. To have the City Engineer reconsider the recommendation of digging up the utilities because they don't know where they're at. Conrad: There seem to be some contradictions in there. When you left, the street shall be improved to City standards. That's a direct contradiction to directing staff to look for smaller width streets. Erhart: Okay, is there anyway to work around that? Some wording? e Conrad: I don't know that you can make that part of this motion. If we want a smaller width standard, I guess we should be directing staff to research maybe not a 28 foot wide street but an 18 foot or 22 foot wide street or something. I think it's tough to make that into this particular motion. I think it's a directive that you may want to direct staff to do. I guess you have to decide whether your motion is to accept city standards or to specifically state they should be dropped for this. Erhart: What I want to do is get a vote on number 2, set to city standards and the recommendation was essentially to allow us to come back afterwards. So when it goes to City Council, somebody has done some work. I'm in agreement with what Dave says, why isn't there some alternative city standards that would allow in special cases a 24 foot street with a minimum base. I'm trying to get the thing to a vote to city standards. Conrad: I agree with the concept. Do you want to restate then on what you like. Erhart: The motion is the approval of the subdivision. One, the street shall be improved to city standards and shall connect with Frontier Trail. Two, the City Engineer's conditions stated in his memo dated May 8, 1987. That's the motion. Then there were three recommendations. Now, are those part of the motion or is that just something... Dacy: It sounded like part of the motion to me. Conrad: Yes, make it part of the motion. Erhart: Did you write down what they were. e Olsen: That the City Engineer reconsider replacing the utilities. Staff Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 62 e review the access from the recreational beachlot and Staff review alternate street design. Headla: Alternate street design or alternate street width design? Erhart: width and base. Dacy: Design encompasses. Siegel: When you refer to the City Engineer's memo dated May 8, 1987, there are redundancies and the City Engineer's conditions are sometimes duplicated by the Staff's recommendations. Also negate what you've just proposed in some cases so you can't just carte blanche say the City Engineer's position stated in the memo dated May 8th because there are contradictions in your motion. You either have to take the recommendations from the engineer on a point by point basis. Erhart: I guess what I was trying to do Bob is get it to a vote basically. Siegel: But I don't know what we could be voting on. Erhart: We are voting on whether we like the plan. However, if we require to do it with what I'm moving, they may not be able to afford to do this at all. - Siegel: In that case you're saying we should eliminate the requirement that the street shall be a public street. You said eliminate number 1. Erhart: I read that as the island issue. Let's leave the island in there. Conrad: Just a quick footnote, in the future we can't have a engineer making recommendations and refer to it. We have to see it on the same page. It confuses us and it keeps us here after midnight. Dacy: Has there been a second to Mr. Erhart's motion? Conrad: We're still trying to figure out what it is. Dacy: Maybe if there's a second, we can decide the issue. Do you want the street as a public? Erhart: Yes, public. Dacy: with or without the island? Erhart: with the island. Dacy: So the first condition is that it be dedicated a public street with an island. Then it's number 2 as is. Then you're dropping number 3, correct? e Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 63 e Erhart: Yes. Dacy: You're keeping number 4 which is the City Engineer's memo which we're trying to sort out. Olsen: I can iron out the discrepencies. Erhart: So leave 4 off? Olsen: You can go ahead and leave it in and I'll leave the pertinent conditions so we can conform. Erhart: I'm making this motion in that I believe this thing is going to end up being negotiated more with the Staff and it's going to come back here. I'm just trying to get the thing through to give you an idea of where our feelings are at on this thing plus get our comments onto the Council. Is the motion clear now? It includes number 1 with an island. Number 2, the street shall be improved to City standards and connect with Frontier Trail. And number 4 which Jo Ann is going to straighten out the conflicts and I agree there are some conflicts. Then the three recommendations are that one, the City Engineer re-evaluate his recommendation to redo the whole utility thing. Two, that we try to find another standard or another design for a street that is more appropriate for this particular unique situation. Three was the access of the beachlot road. ~ Siegel: You forgot to address the access to the beachlot in your motion? Are you eliminating that? Dacy: No, he's saying that we'll look at it. Emmings: It sounds like from what you are saying on various comments, are you expecting those things to come back here? You sound as if you thought they would. Erhart: Yes. Emmings: If it passes on to the Council how would it? Dacy: You're only other option is to table it. Headla: Council. They can make the recommendations when they give this to the Why would it have to come back here? Emmings: Tim said he might have to look at it again. Erha r t: No, we can move th i s on to the Counc i 1 as long as we get those three recommendations. I think it's a good deal but there are a lot of problems to work out yet. Conrad: Basically, your three recommendations are just directives to Staff ~ and really, in directives to be prepared to review these things when they Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1987 - Page 64 e get to City Council. Erhart: Yes. Also I think we're giving a message to City Council. I think that's our direction with our comments and through the recommendations~ Conrad: I'm comfortable that the Engineer reviews it. I'm comfortable that the beachlot can be reviewed again by City Staff in time for the City Council meeting. I don't know what's going to happen with the standard for streets. I think we should keep that there but I guess I would like to see us address that at a later date with Staff to review that issue. So keep it in but let's consider that as a separate subject sometime that we manage and move along and review. Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-22 as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 24, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The street shall be a public street with an island in the cu1-de- sac turnaround. 2. The street shall be improved to city standards and shall connect with Frontier Trail. 3. The City Engineer's conditions as stated in his memo dated May 8, 1987. e. Recommendations: 1. The City Staff review the possibility of an alternative street standard for this subdivision considering the existing conditions and the hardships imposed by those conditions. 2. Staff work with the applicants to provide a better plan for how the cul-de-sac actually intersects with Frontier Trail and the trail to the beach10t. 3. To have the City Engineer reconsider the recommendation of digging up the utilities because they don't know where they're at. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City planner _ Prepared by Nann Opheim