Loading...
1985 05 08 - e - MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 1985 Vice-Chairwoman Albee called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Members Present Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Bill Ryan and Jim Thompson PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the installation of wood timbers instead of concrete curbing for the Chanhassen Inn Motel, Larry Zamor, applicant Public Present Larry Zamor applicant Olsen explained that the applicant is proposing to amend his con- ditional use permit to allow the installation of wood timbers instead of the required concrete curbing at the Chanhassen Inn Motel. She noted that the applicant received the conditional use permit on August 20, 1984 to expand the motel by 18 units and a meeting room. She stated that the approved site plan showed concrete curbing along the southern portion of the parking area. She noted that the applicant currently has wood timbers in place at the location. She explained that the city requires concrete curbing for all permanent parking areas as a standard condition of site plan approval and that it is preferred because it directs water flow and prevents water from flowing underneath the parking surface. She stated that staff believes the existing wood tim- bers do not conform to the approved site plan and do not conform to the standard requirement for parking areas and that granting an exception to standard construction practices may set a prece- dent for other developments. Larry Zamor stated that the wood timbers would blend in much better with the building. He stated that in the staff report the timbers would have something to do with the water flow and stated that it is impossible because he is putting the timbers on high ground and then it slopes down to the right-of-way on Hwy. 5. He stated that they would berm up to the top of timbers with sod and put in shrubs. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 2 M. Thompson and Noziska felt that it would be O.K. if it were just temporary but felt that it should be concrete to conform with city standards. Conrad stated that he cannot justify making an exception for standard practices. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson to deny the proposal for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #84-9 to allow the installation of wood timbers in place of concrete curbing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an 8' x 8' boathouse on property zoned R-l, single Family Residence and located at 469 Pleasant View Road, Todd Adams, applicant Public Present e Todd Adams applicant Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an 8' x 8' boathouse 22 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. She explained that Lotus Lake is designated as a Recreational Development lake which requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark for any structures. She noted that an exception to this required setback is for boathouses being allowed within the 75 foot setback by a conditional use permit. She stated that to receive a conditional use permit the boathouse cannot be used for habitation and cannot contain sani- tary facilities. She explained that it will be used for storage of boating and fishing equipment only. She stated that the applicant proposes to build the boathouse into an existing hill and will be screened by existing vegetation and also additional landscaping around it. She stated that a representative of DNR and staff visited the site and approved the proposed location based on how well the natural features of the site were proposed to be maintained to reduce the physical and visual impact of the boathouse. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Conrad moved, seconded by M. Thompson to recommend approval of Conditional Use permit Request #85-6 to allow the construction of an 8' x 8' boathouse 22 feet from the ordinary high water mark of e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 3 Lotus Lake at 469 Pleasant View Road with the following con- ditions: 1. That the boathouse (Exhibit A) conforms to the site plan dated May 1, 1985. 2. That the boathouse conforms to the landscaping and ersion control plan (Exhibit B). 3. That the boathouse will not be used for habitation and will not contain sanitary facilities. preliminary Plan Review for a PRD of Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached Residences and a Public Boat Access on Property Zoned R-la and Located South of Lotus Lake off Highway 101, Herb Bloomberg, applicant Public Present Richard Lloyd Mark Koegler Dean Burdick Don and Judy Schmieg Wayne and Lori Hagman Ole Iverson Daniel and Jeanne Burke Clark and Linda Horn Robert Meuwissen Earl F. McAllister Brad Johnson Curt and Nancy Robinson Henry and Georgette Sosin Fred Cuneo Bob Dols John Melby Richard Bloomberg Herb Bloomberg Marge Spliethoff Wes and Delores Arseth Nellie Segner Earl N., Jr. & Judith Miller Tim Murray Dianne prieditis 7302 Laredo Dr. Van Doren, Hazard, Stalling 206 Chan View 200 W. 77th st. 7602 Erie Ave. 223 Chan View 225 W. 77th st. 7608 Erie Ave. 201 W. 77th st. 7510 Erie Ave. 7425 Frontier Trail 202 W. 77th st. 7400 Chanhassen Road 7335 Frontier Trail 7407 Frontier Trail 40 Hill Street 1102 Hazeltine Blvd. 7002 Dakota Ave. 113 Sandy Hook 20 Hill Street 30 Hill street 7417 Frontier Trail 7208 Frontier Trail 7401 Frontier Trail Dacy stated that there were three major issues to be addressed in regards to this proposal. She stated that number one is the park and boat access issue, the second is the land use concept that is being proposed and finally the traffic concerns as proposed by the development. She stated that Bill Monk, the City Engineer, Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator and Mark Koegler, e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 4 acting consultant for the Park and Recreation Commission are pre- sent to answer any questions. She stated that there is a preli- minary plat proposal for a planned residential development and a proposal to rezone the property to P-l. She stated that the Planning Commission has not received a formal staff report as done in normal cases because comments were not received from referral agencies such a Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources and felt that they have crucial review role in this development. She stated that staff is recommending the Commission conduct the public hearing to field comments and concerns from the neighbors regarding all the major issues. She stated that this item should then be tabled so that a formal report can be made. She stated that in regards to the park and boat access issue, it is hard to sum up six years in a few minutes. She stated that approximately two years ago, the City Council formed the Lotus Lake Task Force in May and June, 1983 to look at the question of whether a boat access should be located on Lotus Lake. She stated that their recommendation to the City Council in June of 1983 was to pursue Bloomberg's site for LAWCON grant applications. She stated that LAWCON grants is where the state would pay for 50% of the improvement cost to develop a park site. She stated that the Council studied the findings of the Task Force in December of 1983 and moved to direct staff to proceed with the application process to apply for LAWCON funds and grant applications for the Bloomberg site. She stated that since January of 1984, the city has conducted three appraisals, has tried to meet all the requirements stipulated by DNR and other state agencies in regards to the grant application. She stated that it appeared that in April of this year that some type of action was going to be taken by the state as to the sta- tus of the grant application. She stated that the city notified Mr. Bloomberg and he consequently made application for prelimi- nary plat review also Mr. Bloomberg had intended to start development on his two acre parcel. She stated that the city later received word that the grant application would not be acted upon until late July and Mr. Bloomberg was notified of this and he still wanted to continue with the application for preliminary plat. She stated that now they have found out as of this week that appropriate agencies and committees have met and the legislators have met to approve the grant application. She stated that the final step in the grant application process would be to have it go to the National Park Service and the Federal Government for their final review and sign off. She stated that staff wants to make it clear to the Commission that as in any other PUD request you are going to be reviewing the land use impacts of the proposed uses~ the single family and the duplexes and the creation of open space and review the impacts of the park to adjacent properties. She stated that the exact detail of the park design is normally conducted by the Park and Recreation Commission and with final approval by the City Council. She e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 5 e stated that the Park and Recreation Commission recommended staff prepare a landscaping plan to minimize the impacts from the pro- posed park site onto the adjacent properties and then triggering the services of Mr. Koegler. She stated that he is here to see what the adjacent property owners' concerns, as well as the Commissioners, for adequate buffering between the park site and the adjacent properties. She stated that T.H. 101 is located to the southeast, Lotus Lake borders the site to the north. She stated that the area in yellow is the proposed single family lots; 16 are proposed and the average lot size is 17,406 square feet. She stated that the single family lots are located along the east side of Erie Avenue along the shoreline of Lotus Lake and there are four lots located in the Hill Street neighborhood. She also stated that there are 26 duplex units being proposed or 13 buildings. She stated that they are located between the pro- posed single family lots and the interior of the plan and located south of the proposed park area. She also stated that 31 con- dominium units are being proposed which are located in the interior of the plan served by a private circular drive. She stated that the area in green represents the 4.3 acre park site. She stated that the applicant is intending pending Council appro- val to develop the first four single family lots on the east side. She stated that the purpose as far as this public hearing is concerned is to here comments regarding this land use concept and the impact of the single family and the mix of uses. She stated that the third issue is the traffic and the proposed access points onto T.H. 101. Bill Monk stated that there are two accesses being proposed onto T.H. 101 and a continuation of an existing cul-de-sac on West 77th Street. He stated that he could not be present one year ago when alot of these issues were discussed and he asked some of the people to go over some of those comments so that he could get that input. He stated that what they are looking at now is where our access or accesses should be and he will be working with MNDOT on this, whether there should be one or two accesses, whether the accesses should be moved, and whether a connection between West 77th Street and the neighborhoods is necessary and what impact it has. He stated that one proposal is a connection to Hill Street. He stated that he is reviewing several different options, that if the connection to West 77th is made, what traf- fic impacts would it have on 101. He stated that he would like as much input from the neighborhood as possible because staff would have to be making final recommendations within two weeks. - Judy Schmieg: I would like to know if the minutes from that neighborhood meeting aren't around because you mentioned a two week period and it was like a four hour discussion that covered every single point you need. Our association, the old part of the town, we have been here every year since 1974 and I did not e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 6 go back any farther than that. We have had a public hearing every single year. All of the people show up and go through everything. You mentioned the discussion again on the traffic and everything, if we had those minutes, you could save some time. Otherwise we could go on for a good three hours. I can get some of the highlights for you, other people can do the same. We can start with the traffic. The minutes are dated April 6, 1984. Mike Thompson: This would be your neighborhood meeting? Judy Schmieg: The Chaska paper had a problem, they did not think it was a neighborhood meeting, it was like a preliminary hearing and it was exactly the same thing and some of the same people were present, everything was there to be a preliminary hearing. We got notices in the mail. I think the date was February 6. e Mike Thompson: What was the bottom line of the meeting? Judy Schmieg: The bottom line was very heated. You know you have big, big issues. You are taking one piece the park, the density, the multiple dwelling, the cul-de-sacs, the traffic problems. We had a petition at that time for just the traffic, just to start there which was kind of an indication before we got to involved. If you are interested, the feeling of every house from that property to main street corner did not want cul-de-sacs opened. There is three of them. There is Erie, 77th and a deadend on Chan View. Bill Monk: I have read the minutes, we do have them. The Commission will get a copy as the packet is written. Since the Commission was not at that meeting, it would be beneficial for the Commissioners here tonight to at least get a synopsis of what has been discussed in the past. I think it is important that the issues from the neighbors be heard, because you can read minutes and you get an idea about what is going on, but it is not until you actually hear it said from individuals. Mike Thompson: What is this property exactly? Barbara Dacy: units per acre. Low Density Residential. The range is 1 to 3.4 The gross density of the proposed is 2.79 units. Mike Thompson: What do you do when you throw a park in there do you have to change the Comp Plan too? Barbara Dacy: Yes we might have to process a land use plan amendment. - Mike Thompson: What is the zoning on the property? e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 7 Barbara Dacy: It is zoned R-la, Agricultural at this time. e Judy Schmieg: The opening of the cul-de-sac on 77th and the assumptions. The neighborhood was told by the city that cul-de- sacs would not be opened and as a result, the concrete curb and gutter were installed and paid for by these people which was definitely implied permanency along with the verbal agreement. Like I said we have been here every single year, we have all these minutes and there were alot of problems because of that cement curb and gutter and road. We didn't want it, they are all deadends. Some elderly people live there and we did not want it. We put in storm sewers, water drainage outlots, I have four assessments on my taxes and we don't have alot of needs out there yet. The problems that I see with this is increased traffic and I took some examples. Seventy-three units in there, an average of two cars per unit, average three trips per day, is 438 cars per day on streets that don't have that. It is also a neat short cut from 101 up 77th for the other side of town to go that way and miss main street. The conclusion is all of the neighbors have expressed strong disapproval of the cul-de-sacs plan and there is a petition, I think the city has it, there is a diagram of where all of the people live. I guess the action on this par- ticular problem that I see is that they work on some other alter- natives which would be presented again to be worked out. Mike Thompson: Are they objecting to this specific plan that we saw today? Judy Schmieg: Yes, with the cul-de-sacs open. Mike Thompson: Do you have an alternative proposal? Judy Schmieg: There can be, and again I would like to know, the developer can see them, there are all kinds of things that you can do. There are two accesses already, I don't think that is my job, but I could make you a nice proposal. I don't want to do that. If the developer could come up with some alternatives because it has been brought up numerous times before, I don't need the cul-de-sacs. Ladd Conrad: I see one cul-de-sac, the second street up. The first one is not a cul-de-sac, it is a deadend. Is that 77th? Barbara Dacy: The first one is Chan view. - Ladd Conrad: So the plan we are looking at, we are looking at the cul-de-sac being reopened to the development. What was the point of not curbing the first street, that simply ends into grass? - '. e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 8 Bill Monk: Whether there was any intent to ever extend Chan View up into a plat. We have so many streets in Chanhassen that just end. I don't know why some have cul-de-sacs and some don't. Judy Schmieg: It is two blocks, that's all. It is what they call the old part of town and where is it going, no place. The city owns the land that comes down, it has that water shed and maintenance and what not and for that space where is there a need to go there. Common sense says should this property have a cul- de-sac in the middle of the city's property. This was definitely a cement permanent established cul-de-sac. A lot of time was spent on it, just like it is now. Why are we cementing, curb and gutter deadend streets? We are just going home, there is eight of us. We have paid dearly. Mike Thompson: If that cul-de-sac was not open, what other problems do you have? Jeanne Burke: I came up and saw the plans and had a few days to think about it. I live on West 77th Street and I figure we are servicing now about 20 homes. We have enough traffic from those 20 homes because Erie comes down and has to use 77th Street. Alot of people use it, I don't know where they are going. I figure our traffic would increase times five without counting what comes in off from 101, because we are taking 73 units plus 20. These people are going to have to go to the post office and they are going into Chanhassen. They are not going to go out on 101 they are going to take W. 77th plus the 101 traffic that is going to cut through and use 77th Street instead of going to 78th and I see 77th Street becoming a real busy street. I don't like the idea as a home owner. The idea of connecting the developments is fine, but we are talking 73 units as opposed to a single family development. It looks nice drawn out, but that is alot of people and alot of cars. Susan Conrad: Lotus Lake Association. I am wondering if the Planning Commission might address this whole thing from two dif- ferent standpoints. The fact that when Duane Barber was giving us the figures for density, he was taking into account the entire parcel and if we all understand it right, the public access and the park are separate from Mr. Bloomberg's proposal and to talk about traffic and to talk about anything as though they are one kind of clouds the matter. I am wondering if you could separate them so that even density numbers are correct. Barbara Dacy: The gross is 2.79 and I believe Mrs. Conrad is referring to a net calculation as I indicated in the report which staff approximated it as 4.17 units per acre. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 9 Susan Conrad: That answers part of the question, but I am also wanting you to deal with them separately the two items. Susan Albee: The Park and Recreation Commission met last evening on this issue and Lori is present tonight, possibly she could answer some of your comments on some of the decisions that they rendered. Barbara Dacy: Could you restate your question. Susan Conrad: The parcel of land that Mr. Bloomberg is proposing to development, in the mind of the Lotus Lake Association, should be separate from the public hearing on the boat landing and the park and the reason that I am bringing it up now is because in figuring density, I took it from that point. That is just one point where density should not apply to all 26 acres it should apply to 22 acres taking away the 4.3 acres. We feel real strongly that the two issues should be very separate and that the public hearing is one thing and the preliminary plat approval is another. Barbara Dacy: The 4.1 net density figure represents the substraction of that 4 acre piece and as I had stated earlier as in any PUD proposal, the Planning Commission can and does look at the creation of open space of park area that would not only serve the subdivision immediately around it but the area as well. The Comprehensive Plan identifies deficient park areas and this por- tion of south Lotus Lake. This portion of the city is identified as one area that is deficient of park site. If there was to be no issue of a boat access at all and Mr. Bloomberg filed applica- tion, the Planning Commission would be recommending where is your open space, how does this conform with our comprehensive Plan for parks and open space. So the park space is a land use issue that they have to address. They have to address the impacts of that park space against the adjacent properties' needs as well as the internal effects. The exact design of the park, where the tot lot is and where the softball field is, will be decided as a separate matter at the Council, but yet it is part of the same request because there is a boat access I understand the Lotus Lake Homeowners Associations concerns, they have expressed that to me before and correct me if I am wrong, they feel that the issue should be separated and I tried to explain why they are together. Henry Sosin: I would like to continue this present discussion for one moment. What we understood at last year's presentation, which by the way was done in this room and city staff arranged it so there should be minutes somewhere. It was our understanding that Mr. Bloomberg was exchanging land with the city at some point, in the north part of Erie so that the current 4. whatever part it is, e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 10 is not necessarily considered as part of Mr. Bloomberg's PUD. This could be considered as city land and a very separate issue. It is our feeling that it should be considered in that way and one of the problems that we are having in dealing with, what you said is you want to talk about traffic patterns first, we have to know what we are talking about with PUD, with the park, with the boat access or whether we are talking about traffic pattern minus the park and boat access because they generate variable kinds of problems. Since this, presumably the city owned land or at some time will be city owned land, we think they should be considered separately than part of the PUD which is being talked about tonight. e Georgette Sosin: Aside from the points that were just made, I would also like to point out that we have great difficulty with not having a separate hearing on a boat access period because it has never actually been decided by any group where that access should go and there is a great deal of information that needs to be disseminated concerning the DNR site or any other possible sites. The task force that was elected to discuss this entire matter never actually chose the Bloomberg site as being the one and only site, in fact in the minutes to Council and to you, it was simply said that it should be investigated as number 1 choice, number 2 choice, also the DNR site should be investi- gated. So this complicates the issues even further. Another reason why they should be two separate issues and why we should have all the information necessary to discuss where a public landing site should go and in fact should it be at the south end of the lake or should it be elsewhere. Albee: Barbara might you address that as far as history of the DNR site. Dacy: As I stated earlier, Mrs. Sosin is correct in that the Lotus Lake Task Force identified the Bloomberg property and I am reading directly, "the first choice for developing a boat access is the Bloomberg property contingent upon an acceptable agreement to both parties for the swap of properties being reached within 30-60 day period." This was back in 1983. The Council reviewed the task force findings and directed staff to prepare the LAWCON application for the Bloomberg site. That was the direction that staff received from City Council in December of 1983, to pursue the location of the boat access and applying for the grant appli- cation on that site. e M. Thompson: What does a grant application have to do with this? Dacy: Well, it goes back to the swap that the gentleman men- tioned. He is correct in that a swap is taking place and Mr. Bloomberg will receive 3.89 acres from the site on the north side - Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 11 of the lake which he gave the city in swapping land to receive the 4.3 acre site. That north site was originally sought by the grant application to locate a boat access and a park site. Then through the process, it was found that the north site was not appropriate and Mr. Bloomberg's site was identified. The appli- cation had to be changed to reflect that swap. M. Thompson: What happens to the DNR piece when this is all done? Dacy: We have received information from the DNR that if the access at the Bloomberg site is not consummated, that they will pursue to locate a boat access on their site on the east side of the lake. If the other site was studied and found not appropriate for that, was the Bloomberg site studied? Dacy: Yes, that is part of the grant application, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was done and a concept plan for the park plan had to be prepared and other information as part of the grant application. e Who approves it? Dacy: The grant application is approved by the state and ultimately the National Park Service. Bob Dol: I have a question as far as the land swap, is that swap contingent upon approval of this site? Dacy: If the preliminary plat proposal is denied, then there is no way that swap can take place. Bob Dol: So that would continue to block Mr. Bloomberg and couldn't it be developed in some other fashion consistent with his overall development, correct? Dacy: Correct. Merz: Is there a size to this boat access, as far as cars and boats? Dacy: The Park and Recreation Commission and the Council have looked at preliminary concept plans, Mark Koegler can address the details of the plan. e Mark Koegler: I am a Landscape Architect with VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings and as Barb mentioned, we have been working with the Park Commission on and off for quite some time. When the origi- nal Council designation was made to look at this for grant pur- poses, that was when we really started looking at concept plans e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 12 e and park. As you know it is divided into two pieces, with a potential enter coming in between. The city's was initially was to try and minimize the amount of development that actually took place on the lakeshore and in fact there was origi- nally no parking there in that portion. In about October of 1984, the Regional Deputy Administrator of the DNR submitted a letter to the city which basically said that if you don't supply parking down there for the elderly and handicapped the grant would not be approved. In response to that there was an amend- ment made which does show two parking spaces down there poten- tially for cars and boat trailers and a picnic drop off area that would be for strictly elderly and handicapped people. The predo- minant location for the parking spaces is up above, where there will be ten additional car and trailer spaces and in response to one of the questions that was offered, the number of spaces that were shown are dictated by the DNR standards and what has been shown are twelve total spaces and that is the minimum standard of spaces that they will accept for grant purposes. The total deve- lopment of the park site right now, we are projecting, the parking area, the boat access itself, landscaping, grading, those kinds of things, about $115,000 and that will be matched at 50% by the city and 50% by the state. That is a very brief overlay of the park layout as it exists right now and I would emphasize the point that was made earlier, this was really a concept plan that was put together for the grant application. As the Park Commission recognized last night, there are alot of detail items that have to go into this before it is to the final point where it is ready for construction. Landscaping, grading and those kinds of things would have to be looked at very carefully and they have not been done, except to see that essentially the grades in rough form are workable. e Georgette Sosin: I guess my point when I stood up before, perhaps was not stated very clearly, but what I was trying to express was that we feel that we have not had a public forum to discuss and to compare the various possibilies for a public access on Lotus Lake. That what was missing in the sequence that Barbara stated to you was that there was not a public hearing in which the public access per say has been discussed and whereby we could bring in facts and compare the costs for instance of the DNR site as opposed to this one. The possibility of some other land which we have been exploring on the other side of the lake. We need to have an opportunity, clear cut, in which all the facts about a public access are met. Not necessarily in a forum as tonight where we are talking about all the very real traffic con- cerns that these people have with their neighborhood, the density problems, all the other things other than with the plat approval. I am asking if you would make a motion that we separate these issues, that we have an opportunity to come back and talk about the public access with information about the DNR site and about e Ie e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 13 the other possible sites on Lotus Lake so that an intelligent decision can be made and then go on to the development. Albee: That is what we are anticipating doing when we get more information in context from the DNR and other referral agencies so this probably will again be going through a public hearing process very soon. Why are we here this evening? Albee: Basically we are here to get more input, we are here to answer questions, and address the problems and suggest alter- natives. Dan Burke: We have talked about the traffic problem, but I have a little trouble with children who play outside and I think 100 to 400 cars per day going by the house. We are going to have some major accidents with children. I find the map somewhat humorous in that I believe he said there were 9 or 10 parking spaces for non-handicapped people. There are 10 car and trailer spaces and hypothetically they are showing about 10 more spaces for neighborhood use. O.k. but you also have a softball field. Softball generally has 9 people on each side which is 18 cars plus you are going to have people running the boats and everything else. Where are they all going to park when they play softball and people want to use the lake? Minimum standards for any grant are minimum standands for a town of 2,000 people or a town of 100,000 people. In just looking at the layqut, where the park is, the only people that I can see that would get alot of use out of that softball field are the people who happen to live in the development. If the city is going to be paying alot of money for this development of the access, you should have free access for the people of the city. Koegler: You tabulated the park incorrectly. There were 10 car and trailer spaces and about 10 spots up above. I think one thing that we need to address is the use of the park. The park as it is designed, as it is identified in the Comprehensive Plan is a neighborhood park only. It is not identified as another Lake Ann park, as a matter of fact, all that can fit on the par- cel does not come anywhere near minimum standards for league type of play. It is intended to be a neighborhood facility. It is not intended to be an organized activity center. It is intended to pick up casual play from kids in the neighborhood and so forth. I think that leads into your second point, that you are correct that facility will serve the adjacent development, this piece and hopefully it will also service some of the additional lands up here and to the west. At the present time, probably the closest facility that would serve the same kind of purpose would be over at st. Hubert's school. This would provide again, casual e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 14 play kind of facility. It is not designed to be an organized facility. It is intended to be a low scale neighborhood facility and in terms of payment, as I indicated the $115,000 cost projec- tion for park development does not include the ball diamond at all at this point in time. That is shown as a possible future facility. The actual location and orientation will be subject to some change. The only other point that I would offer is that in terms of payment and who will be using the facility, the adja- cent development will be using it and I presume either through dedication of land or money, there will be potentially some com- pensation to the city to help construction costs as well as from the city fund. The location of the park seems to be a little bit of a problem to me. Why would I let my 5, 6 and 7 year old child play right next to Hwy. 101. You can have what ever kind of fence you want, but a child will climb a fence. It seems like the location of the park for casual use, but not for children, it is a terrible location. That is my opinion on it. e Don Schmieg: The other problem is the city owns the well house site, that has a casual park on it that the kids play ball on everyday, right now. So if we are looking for a casual park, we already got our casual park. My other problem is I want to get back the 22 acres, what is the density figure for 22 acres not the park, nothing else with it just 22 acres. Dacy: It is 4.17. Don Schmieg: What is that, medium, low, high, what? Dacy: That is the net density. The range for gross density for low density development is 1 to 3.4. A net density calculation will always be higher than gross calculation because net takes out the streets and the parks, etc. Don Schmieg: O.k. we are looking at 4. something for the actual density of that 22 acres, and that is considered medium or high? ~ Thompson: It is not high. Don Schmieg: What is it, I am asking? Judy Schmieg: You talk about net and gross, could you make it a little clearer, 1 to 3 is low density, 3 to 4 is medium, or do they overlap each other? e Dacy: We have two types of density calculations. Let's take gross. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that three ranges for development; as low, medium and high. Low is 1 to 3.4; medium is 3.5 to 6 and high is 6 and up. e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 15 Judy Schmieg: This is gross density? Dacy: Yes. Gross is taking the total acreage. You take the total number of units and you divide the number of units by the total amount of acreage. So the Comprehensive plan says that low density development that the gross density should be between 1 to 3.4 units per acre. The gross density of this project is 2.79. O.k. when you are asking what is the density minus the streets and the park, you are asking the question what is the net den- sity. Don Schmieg: No. I am asking what the gross density on the 22 acres rather than including the park land with it which is going to be city property. Dacy: The density minus the park and streets is 4.17 and that is called net density. Judy Schmieg: We are trying to find out the gross. We trying to keep apples and apples. You told us that after you took out the park it was net and then before you told it was gross. Can you just give us with the park and without. e Dacy: The gross density with is 2.79 and density without is 4.17. e I want to make a comment relative to the archi- tect's comment that this was going to be a neighborhood park. I tend to disagree relative to the piece that abuts the lake. It is not in my opinion anyway, a Chanhassen park. It is going to be a Department of Natural Resources public landing, as in no way construed as being exclusive for the use of the citizens of Chanhassen. What you are talking about there is a regional park facility, regional parks are generally funded by regional monies. LAWCON grant, fine you can call that a grant and that's not our money, it is everybody's money. But the shortfall between what the grant will cover and actual cost of development is going to be paid out of the pockets of the citizens of Chanhassen. I guess I would encourage you to consider the fact that there is other land available on the lake as was shown on the overhead. The DNR can develop their own, they have if they want to. I would also submit that this particular landing facility, where it is located in this planned development, constitutes a sales tool for the developer. Now it is a nice sales tool I have to admit, because if it were not a public launch, he could not put in a launch facility given the current ordinances that are on the books right now governing each outlots. I guess it just isn't as clean and as neat as a plan they want you to believe. I don't feeel that I personnally want to be subsidizing the sale of homes and putting tax money into a facility that can be funded from an alternative source and much less drain on my pocketbook. e ,e I e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 16 Judy Schmieg: Density. The subject on the density problems from the neighborhood standpoint. It is a residential area and the land in question has always been zoned agricultural and I think the property owners would have a right to a public hearing if you do a rezoning or because of the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines. If you were to change that, it would be a hearing that we have not had yet. We had assumed it would stay residential in the future and be compatible with the neighborhood, which is single family homes and I guess now you have terms called detached. That is important that it is detached. The problems that we see are what happens to property values, you know it devalues the unit, selling for $36,900. We have heard nothing on that. We have concerns on what they look like, non-compatible dwellings. There has been no attempt made at all for barriers or relief from the residential area to the multiple, no attempts whatsoever at all on that in that, I have good examples, a 9,900 square foot lot with a duplex on it next to a 73 or 78 foot wide lot here. There has been no clarification or requirements. You know that we even know what this means, everything keeps going together all the time so that we have a hard time even telling what is there or like you said you were open for suggestions. We have done this at prior meetings, please be patient we have gone through this many, many times and it does get frustration. We didn't see the city's Comprehensive Plan, we have concerns on water drainage along with everything else because I don't know if you all had the opportunity to be out to that location, have you all seen it? Straight down, we have some very nice houses up here, that have very deep ravines and nobody has talked about moving dirt around or anything else on it which we are quite concerned about and again, the 73 units you are talking about for a piece a land and I just counted up that other picture that you had up there, that part of town, there is 51 units. If you take everything all the way up to main street you are talking 73 right there. If you took all of the east side of main street over to Kenny's and everybody on Chan View and everybody on West 77th and everybody on Erie, you are talking 51 units in that area. This you are talking 73 as part of the density issue. The other thing that if were are going to get into the boat access, everybody has been asking questions, and we come to the public hearing to ask questions and nobody ever has the answers. We keep coming back. I would guess you are going to have another one for us, aren't you? So if you would just say save your comments and we'll talk about the boat access and save your comments and we'll talk about the highway. Albee: We as a Commission want to get feedback from the public so that when we make a decision, we can pass something onto the Council. Judy Schmieg: Will there be another public hearing for the Planning Commission? e Planning commmission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 17 Albee: Very probably. Judy Schmieg: The other concern I had was there were some costs on the public boat access and the density. The boat access, there was some talk that there would be a land or house purchase or something down there also for $40,000 and in exchange for the other land would be in the sale of it and are there specific terms from the city for that and what does $115,000 cover and I thought that LAWCON grant ran out? I thought we missed it. Lori Sietsema: It was amended just recently. Judy Schmieg: I thought that was over. I thought that we had missed the deadline to qualify for the funds of $115,000 at one time until it was amended. e Mark Koegler: To my knowledge, the city never missed qualifying. There are certain dates that materials have to be in by so it can get to the legislature. I think one of those dates was missed. The committee had a special meeting that they called recently for another item and it did end up at that meeting and they apparently polled the committee members on this and they did all sign off on it. So it has been reviewed by the legislative com- mittee which is comprised of staff from the State Department of Economic Development and from DNR. e Jack Melby: I own the property directly adjacent to the Bloomberg property, I just have alot of concerns. I will start off with number 1, the cul-de-sac there going down to the lake, the map doesn't show the topography of the land there. it is a very steep hill going down and if you look at the beach area there, if someone loses their brakes or a boat breaks loose going down that hill, it is going to go right through, the way that the topography is, right through my beach. I hope that my family or myself aren't there. Another issue, I guess a question, have studies been done to try and determine what is going to happen to all the additional runoff that is going to occur as a result not only from the pavement that is being put in, but the development and everything else. Right now since the city sewer project that was formed in years ago, in 1977, we had substantial problems in my neighborhood. The Sigmers, the Arseths and the Horrs have had terrible issues with water runoff. Now this is going to cause a direct path, to our properties in terms of just water runoff. The idea of having a cul-de-sac directly adjacent to, where I cook hot dogs and where my family spends alot of time is not very attractive. It looks like that public road is no more than 6 or 8 feet from my property line. There might be a condition there for zoning, I don't know, I just thought of that. Another cost consideration that you may want to consider, that property area that I own that would be affected, I e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 18 e would guess is about 700 feet long from just about up to my house down to the lakeshore. I would like you to consider the cost of at least the 10 foot high fence, a row of trees down the distance of that fence to protect hopefully my privacy and the privacy of my neighbors, some landscaping down at the beach area to maintain some kind of quality or enjoyment that we now enjoy down there. I think the traffic considerations, the public access I believe is required to be open a minimum of 16 hours a day and that is a DNR regulation. If you are going to put in a public access, it has to be open 16 hours a day. So there are other considerations in terms of that, a public road going down to that lake with the park down there, I would suspect that 16 hours a day might prove to be a neighborhood problem in terms of noise, beer parties, things like that which are going to have another kind of impact on our quality of life. I think most of you know that the tax situation that we are faced with on that lake is very high. I don't think we want to pay for this kind of thing in terms of us that live there. I think it is a bad idea, I am sorry there is only three or four families here that are going to or might be directed affected by this in terms of water. That is going hap- pen, the water is going to go right down that very steep hill, in terms of the danger associated with that boat access going down a very steep hill and possibly getting injured or property damage from a car breaking lose or someone headed for you going down that road. The idea of the development is relatively attractive to me in terms of knowing Mr. Bloomberg's reputation, he has built high quality developments in the past. I prefer to see that whole area developed with high quality lower density homes. Charles Steel: (6613 Horseshoe Curve) My wife and I bought our home on Lotus Lake about a year ago, we are environmen- talists, we love the birds on the lake. We are really concerned about motorboats on that lake, an increase in high power boats are going to drive the birds away, it may drive us away as well. I am wondering what legal limitations are there for the amount of noise, the amount of boats, the amount of waves on that lake. Dacy: None. The DNR standards state that no more than 12 boats are permitted through the public access. ???? Koegler: The major method of controlling it to be honest with you is with the amount of parking. Charles Steel: That doesn't really do it because you can drop your boat off and park elsewhere, so that means nothing. e Koegler: The only thing that I can address on the size of boats, is that basically anytime parks such as this with public monies involved, the DNR has standards that basically say anything that e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 19 a resident can do has to be applicable to any public use of that. So if the city does not restrict motor sizes on the lake, as a whole, your are not restricting the access. So that you as a lakeowner have a 100 horsepower boat, somebody could come in and launch it Charles Steel: What happens if somebody comes in with a boat twice the power of anything on that lake? Koegler: At the present time there are no regulations to prevent it that I am aware of. Henry Sosin: One comment, that is the utilization of this par- ticular boat access, you are perfectly correct when you said that the only to control utilization is by the number of parking spots, that cannot control utilization. If the boat access were placed in this development with 73 units plus whatever other people might be able to get there. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent all 70 people who will own property there to launch a boat and drive their car home and put their trailer back into their garage. One of the main concerns concerning Lotus Lake is over utilization for some of the things that were just mentioned but not only that but for the safety of the people who use the lake themselves. The DNR does have specific numbers relating to water safety. One boat per 20 acres of lake surface is part and parcel of of that waters safety usage phenomenon. If you could limit the access to 12 boats per day or 12 boats at anyone time that would be a feasible thing to do. The way that this is currently set up, you can't do that. At the meeting that was held a year ago, the very same point was brought up and Mr. Ashworth assured the public at that time that the city would even establish a gate house, pay somebody to guard that gate house, for how many hours a day, at least two shifts to make sure that only 12 boats were on the lake at anyone time. According to the DNR that is legal to do. In my opinion that would be another major cost the city would have to partake every year, not just in construction. So that is the comment that I would like to make about over utilization of this particular plan since the access would be directly hooked up with this particular PUD project. I would seem to me that we would be creating, city monies would be used to be creating a private access for people who live there and I doubt that anybody else in the city or from anywhere else would have much chance of parking at a place like that. The other thing I would like to mention is cost. You mentioned $115,000 for construction, does that include the roads down to the launch, does that include everything? The other comment that I have about that is these are purely construction costs, they have nothing to do with maintenance, I have not heard a word about dredging which I understand is very expensive to do and if it has to be dredged, it would have to be done periodically. Again those are all costs that are going to have to be maintained by the city which again is a tax problem. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 20 Koegler: The $115,000 includes basically the areas that are shaded in gray tone. It is development costs only, it has nothing to do with acquisition and it strictly relates basically to those facilities and additionally does not include the road connection coming in off of 101. Mr. Bloomberg: Unfortunately, I have a hearing problem. One thing heard that there is a difference in opinion. I think that there is one thing that we can all agree on and that is when you come around this corner and look down toward the lake, it is a beautiful view. We have been living on the lake for 30 years. I don't think there is a day in the summer time that I haven't driven by and gotten a glimpse of the lake and enjoyed the view. Think of Wayzata, if you had a line of apartments where you have the railroad track and can't see Lake Minnetonka. One thing that I liked about any possible opening here would be to preserve forever a view of this lake. Surely if we put in buildings here, you will never see the lake, winter or summer. Now as far as the selfishness angle of this, I have heard two sides. One is that this is all designed to be a great thing for us to do, nothing but to make alot of money out of it. On the other hand, I hear that it is going to make an absolute disaster of somebody over here, I don't think I am that dumb. I have only been building houses for about 50 years. I have no hesitation whatsoever to develop houses, I do know that there is going to be a degree of traffic. But I think that this would be very, very limited traf- fic. It is the smallest access, we are advised, under the DNR and so forth regulations, it would give us the services of DNR for taking out rough fish and stocking it for fishing and so forth. I think the people that really want to use the lake for speeding are always going to go to Minnetonka or a larger body of water. The inconvenience of parking up here and go down there is going to be such that it is certainly going to sort out the traf- fic. I just don't think that the fears that people imagine are going to happen. As far as the overall traffic, this piece of 25 acres and when this was platted maybe around the turn of the cen- tury or maybe even more, there is no one, even the original people that ever knew or ever thought that a dead end road, that has been done throughout the whole community, there is no one that ever bought at a dead end in the first place that didn't rationalize a certain probability that the road would be extended. Incidently, the cul-de-sac where the pump house is, that is built on land that we gave to the city about 17 to 18 years ago because they needed a pumping station and at the time they only had a few dollars in the budget to put in the new pump. I surely understand the concerns, even though I feel that even its natural course, it wouldn't be too bad. On the other hand, I think that the city has plans on no left turns coming in from here and so forth that would help. I have seen plats of this when we didn't own the property. There was a period when we Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 ~ Page 21 traded it to the CharLyn Foundation back about 15 years ago. Then several years later we bought it back and during that interim there were, maybe some of you remember some of the plats of multiple housing and apartments and our feeling is that we are preserving lakeshore, there will be nothing but woods here by the park and it is all single family places here and when you are on the lake you won't see anything but some very distant buildings. We are open for suggestions, the city, the Council is. I feel that this would be a much more overall advantage to the city over the long pull then if the DNR would decide to put one in. Georgette Sosin: Mr. Bloomberg, if that access is not going to be part of that plat, do you plan to develop this anyway? Do you plan to develop this without the access if the access is not approved? ~ Mr. Bloomberg: Well certainly. It is our land. We are going to develop it somehow. We made this offer in good faith about 2 or 3 years ago and there have been many, many hearings and its gone through all the procedures. I think it is a good plan. I don't think it is perfect on every standpoint but it certainly is liable for the concerns and objections that people say. I honestly don't think that we will develop that. Conrad moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~ M. Thompson: Obviously, there are a lot of good points. I had a call last night. Somebody at Christmas Lake was asking how we happened to get the DNR to trade down on these different sites off of the original park site and so on and I said that I really didn't know. I'm still not sure. To the one gentleman that lived next to the property brought up alot of good points and I can be very sympathtic to the fact that he is public boat access next to his property which would create alot of problems. Another thing, we are sticking an access into a neighborhood that we are generating around it and it would allow every person in that development the opportunity to drive his boat in the lake and pull the car back in the garage, so I could feasibly see 70 some boats on the lake. The issue confusing to me at this point, if I were to approach it from just a straight subdivision forgeting about the access and the people are talking about traf- fic, I think that staff and the developers could probably work out some of the traffic difficulties that the neighborhood is objecting to. You said two trips a day, I think that if you look at the real statistics of a household, it is probably like, the standard is probably what Barb,S, 6 or 7 trips a day per house- hold? So if you had 70 houses and you multiply it times 8. When you are dealing with Hwy. 101, how are you going to get the people on or off? The way it is set up, I can see if you had e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 page 22 e West 77th street open or something else, I would not want to attempt to get on 101. It just seems to me that this plan is not an adequate plan from that standpoint. As far as the subdivision and density, if the density is a problem, the density can be changed. You can get the density down. If the people are objecting to the boat access and they want to play games with the DNR, I think somewhere along the line, the DNR is going to get on that lake. The question is where should they be and what is best for everybody. I think that we could take the example of what has happened at Christmas Lake, they happen to have deep pockets over there and so the past few years every time they saw the DNR moving onto a piece property a bunch of people over there get some money together and they go out and buy the property. Now they have come to the end, now they realize that. The President of Christmas Lake Association called me and said hey we can't do this anymore and we're not going to get by with it and now we are trying to figure out if we can negotiate with the DNR and put it in what we consider an appropriate place. Their concern was that they put it in a place so they can control the parking. The issues should be separated and they ought to be dealt with separately so that we can determine whether that is an appropriate place for a boat access. The subdivision proposal, I think we can deal with that separately, too. When we decide on what standards we want for a boat access we can deal with it. As far as the drainage and these other things, I imagine that the engineering and everything has to be correct or it is not going to get approved. Bill Monk: One of the things I think should be mentioned is that a public meeting was called tonight and staff did not have the opportunity to put down on paper all of the items. We will be going over grading, drainage, utilities, traffic, land use and all those items in detail. That will be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting and in essence will be a continuing of the public hearing. At that point, we will be addressing all those issues in as much detail as we possibly can. H. Noziska: I don't have alot to add from what Mike said other than that I agree with him. We really need to separate the issues so that we can address them. I would certainly appreciate hearing from MnDOT. I am also sensitive to the opening up of West 77th Street and feel that it would be quite an increase in traffic level on that road. I think that particular traffic issue and the traffic issue on 101 needs to be addressed and straighten out those problems. e L. Conrad: I don't know why we had a public hearing. We do this all the time when we don't have the information. I do feel kind of responsible for the public coming in and we say we are not going to act on this. In the specifics, number one the issues do e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 page 23 e have to be separated. To my knowledge the boat access has never come to us for a public hearing. I think if fogs both cases. The development could be good concerning the boat access, con- cerning the development, I think it is to Herb's benefit to break them apart. Right now it looks like the property is over built and I don't believe it is a 26 acre parcel. I think it is 22 because I think the boat landing is separate, therefore the den- sity is too high, I think with our standards that we have been setting. I don't believe it is a neighborhood park. If we are looking for a neighborhood park you don't encourage other things in like we are. I don't think there is control. I have a feeling just in general as we design, something should be done with access on 101 and I have a general feeling there should only be only one access from the development onto 101, rather than the two and I think Hill street should be moved into that access. I think there are some problems around curves, that should be coor- dinated into whatever plan we have in the future. The Hill street access may be merged into with general property, general development access. I think that we have to solve the problems and I have heard the neighborhood talk about access problems to the highway. The highway is going to be used more and more. There is going to be more and more people as the development comes in from the north and the central business district to the south. There is going to be alot of traffic. I would like to separate the two issues. I have one question for Barbara, I don't understand lot sizes when we put duplexes on it. Because in the staff report we were coming in with average lot sizes but they really were supporting two houses. On individual parcels we are doubling up on that for duplexes. Dacy: Some of those duplex lots total 15,000 square feet and the lot line divides the lot in half, so that you have 7,500 square feet on each side. Conrad: So we are looking at lots that are much smaller than . . . The averages and the numbers we see here are really much smaller for the duplex properties. e Dacy: But what you are looking at is a fairly large single family house being split up into two units. So that building pad is placed in a location according to the setbacks and so on. It is just that zero lot line concept in that the line divides it in half. As I reviewed this plan, I looked to our proposed zoning Ordinance, which I realize means nothing at this point as far as the lot and so on, for a multiple family area that has duplexes in it. Minimum lot sizes are 4,500 square feet per unit. So the lot sizes for duplexes that are already proposed substantially exceed the normally accepted standards for duplexes. Conrad: Our Comprehensive plan says that this is a residential low density neighborhood. e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 24 Dacy: Right, but you can have attached and detached housing as long as it is within that density range. Conrad: So many times when we will get when we reviewed average lot sizes and I know we look at overall density for the proposal especially if we look at a PUD, we are more concerned, at least I am more concerned with open spaces and things of that nature, but still in this zone. Actually with a PUD we can do anything basi- cally. Dacy: within parameters. Conrad: What you are saying is the average lot size that you gave us is not over it. Dacy: The single family average lot size that I gave you was 17,406 square feet. On a calculation on a duplex and you just move that one individual unit, the average lot size for that one half of that size is 7,332 square feet. So if you look at the duplex on the entire lot your average is around 14,000 to 15,000 square feet. - Conrad: I am not sure I am comfortable with that based on some of the definitions that I have had in the past. Merz: First of all I am concerned with the traffic. Is there some reason why a development of this size cannot have its own means of access and egress. Bill Monk: One of the items we are looking at regarding traffic is the need for a connection to West 77th Street along with the T.R. 101 hook-up. Merz: You mean close off 77th and have this development access from 101. e Bill Monk: That is one of the three or four different traffic patterns that I am taking a look at and trying to see what impact it has again not only within this subdivision but on the neigh- borhood, especially to the west. As far as traffic goes, you always try to connect the neighborhood, it is always a very easy statement to make and in this particular case it has a severe reprecussion on the existing neighborhood and trying to come to grips with flipping an access with 60 to 70 homes on it with the single access or double access onto 101 as its only access bothers me also. I am trying to take a look at access onto 101 in terms of is another access needed, good, what impact does it have. That is the juggling that is going on at this point. I can't tell you exactly, I haven't even decided on which I con- sider the worst evil. But this is not going to be something where everyone will be happy when its done. The options are not that good. e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 25 Merz: I don't need to go through the density again. The remarks have already made. This boat access, I think to allow your lake to be into a boat access, is not good planning. If the lake will support, how many acres is the lake? Two hundred thirty divided by 30 is 30 boats per public access to the lake. So you are talking about 20 total public access. The DNR has laws and regulations and I believe the word is riparian and their laws state that in lakes such as yours, 200 acres divided by 10 would allow 20 some public access. Anything above that becomes use and abuse, this is part of their laws. So to allow 10 here and somebody else comes with 10 or 20 some other place, I think this thing has to be, all of the public access should be planned out and you control it. They have to have some public accesses and you might as well figure out what that is. To me to allow the boats up and down this access and in and out of this neighborhood is not good planning. Albee: I would suggest that we make a motion to continue this public hearing unless someone would like to render another motion? e Conrad moved to schedule a separate public hearing on the boat access alone when staff is prepared to address the issues and give us some of the background and until further information from referral agencies. Dacy: Before you make your motion, if a public hearing on the boat access issue is desired, I would recommend that the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission conduct the hearing. Technically the Planning Commission should be con- sidering the plat proposal, the issue of what type of improve- ments onto a park site is normally acted on by the Park and Recreation commission and the City Council. Staff can go to the next Council meeting and pursue the issue and schedule one. Then we can try and time the hearings appropriately, but we don't want you to get the impression that the Planning Commission will be deciding one way or another if the boat access will be occurring. M. Thompson: We don't have the power to conduct a public hearing on the boat access. Dacy: That is what I am trying to make clear. M. Thompson: So the only thing we can do is make a recommen- dation but what would be the normal procedure on a boat access, how would they handle that? e Clark Horn: You could hold the public hearing and make a recom- mendation to the Council. Council can elect to hold another e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 26 public hearing on the same subject, but it should go through the Planning Commission first. Conrad: My motion stands. Merz seconded the motion. Merz, Conrad, and M. Thompson voted in favor. Albee and Noziska were opposed. Motion carried. Albee and Noziska felt that the issues should not be separated. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Conrad, to continue the public hearing for preliminary plat clarification. NEW BUSINESS Sketch plan Review for PRD of townhouses on property zoned R-l, Single Family Residence and located at 3900 Red Cedar Point Road, Plocher and Geske, applicants. Olsen stated that the applicants are proposing to develop 18 townhouses on property currently zoned R-l. She stated that the applicants are proposing to rezone the property to p-l, Planned Residential Development as part of the development proposed to allow townhomes as a permitted use. She stated that excluding the existing right-of-way, the property has a net acreage of 6.25 which equals a net density of 2.88 units per acre which is within the requirements. She noted that each townhouse will have a two car garage and the open space will be maintained by a homeowners association. She noted that could access either off of Minnewashta Parkway or Red Cedar Point and that staff prefers Red Cedar Point because less grading and land alteration would be required. She explained that the townhouse concept allows the clustering of dwelling units to retain large areas of open space. She noted that the proposal maintains a large open area along Lake Minnewashta and that this beneficial int that it lessens any visual or physical impact of the development on the lake. She stated that it does result in the townhomes being located adja- cent to single family residences and staff is recommending that the applicant landscape the areas between them. She also stated that the applicants met with residents of Red Cedar Point and along Minnewashta Parkway and a number of the residents were in favor of the proposal. She stated that the applicant is pro- posing to have the open area along Lake Minnewashta be designated as a recreational beachlot. She noted that the ordinance allows recreational beachlots as a conditional use permit in the p-l district. She also explained that in order for a recreational beachlot to have a dock, it must be at least 100 feet wide at both the ordinary high water mark and 100 feet landward at the ordinary high water mark. She stated that the proposed beachlot e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 27 is approximately 640 feet at both and it will be operated by the homeowners association. She stated that the ordinance only allows for one dock per recreational beachlot and the applicant is requesting enough dockage to allow 18 slips. She stated that the zoning Ordinance would have to be amended or a variance granted to allow more than one dock for approval of this request. She also noted that the applicant has stated that the ability to install the additional docks is crucial to the success of the development. She stated that currently there is a public boat launch just to the north of the property which will be closed when Lake Minnewashta Regional Park boat launch is opened this summer. She also noted that the applicant is proposing to reno- vate an existing structure for a boathouse. She explained that this structure is non-conforming because it is within the 30 foot setback from the right-of-way and within 75 feet of the shoreland setback and would require a conditional use permit. She stated that staff would not recommend reuse of this structure due to its location on Minnewashta Parkway. The Commissioners asked the applicants if they were aware of the Beachlot and Dock Ordinance. Mr. Plocher stated that they understand the intent of the beach- lot ordinance and he believes that this sort of use or plan was not seen or addressed in that ordinance. He stated that they are not asking to establish a beachlot, they just happen to have a beachlot configuration because of the common area. He stated that through many discussions with neighbors and planners and public, they believe they have a plan that they are proud of. He stated that they want to preserve that open space and there is an emotional attachment with the people on the lake to that open space and they want to preserve it. He stated economic con- sideration is not the commission's concern; however, indirectly it is their concern. He stated when they bought the property they paid lakeshore price for it and they have got to get lakeshore value when they sell it. He stated that if they can't do it this way, they will have to go to a detached single family lot and get four or five lots along the lake. He also noted that everyone of those homes can have a dock and five slips, that there could be up to 25 boats. He believes it would be an ironic shame if an ordinance forced the second best use of the property. He wants to do first class job with project. He feels that people who have lived on or near a lake and their children are gone and they have got some money and equity, a very undemanding population for schools, private roads, probably a category of people that are not going to be heavy lake users, they are going to demand docks but aren't going to be heavy users. He stated that they have been through that cycle. He stated that according to Roy Leach on a given summer weekend, that property had between 300 and 400 people on it and 35 to 40 boats a day launched there. e Planning commission Minutes May 8, 1985 Page 28 e He stated that just adjacent to the property to the north is a public access and 12 boats launched there a day, but that access is closing. He asked the commissioners to think of the past intensive use of this property compared to what they are asking for. He thinks it is important to consider this whole bunder of logic together. He stated that in our "beachlotll plan, which they are not asking for but accidently have fallen into, has over 32 feet of lakeshore per home. He stated that he is embarrassed to say what it is for some of the other neighborhoods - 8.6 inches per home on Minnewashta Heights common lot. He stated that Pleasant Acres has 2.8 feet per home and they have 32 feet per home and feels it is like trying to compare apples with oranges. He felt that perhaps those things were abused in the past on lakes and perhaps that was the reason for the beachlot ordinance. He feels that this project could be an asset to the community and may be forcing it into the second best land use. He stated that this lakeshore had been heaviliy used and this is not a wildlife habitat or a marshy nesting area. He stated that he pictures someone owning a townhouse overlooking Lake Minnewashta gazing over the lake, paying $2,500 ro $3,000 a year in taxes, looking at someone in a row boat, fishing boat or runabout out there, using the lake that is launched over at the park that has got the exact same rights to have a boat on Lake Minnewasta as the man sitting and gazing at the lake. He stated that they are only asking for 18 slips and the ability to drive across their own property to launch their boat. The Commissioners mentioned to him about all of the recreational beach lots in the area and that they did not want to set a prece- dent in allowing him and not the others. The Commissioners advised the applicant to bring all of his reasons regarding the beach lot to the Council and discuss it with them. The Commissioners felt that they could not support a beachlot proposed of four docks and eighteen slips; however, the Commission felt that the townhome project was acceptable in its proposed location and density. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. e