Loading...
1985 06 12 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Bill Ryan and Ladd Conrad. MEMBERS ABSENT Susan Albee, Mike Thompson and Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner, Bill Monk, City Engineer, Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING Application of the City of Chanhassen to Install a Public Boat Launch on 4,87 acres of property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence and located at the southern tip of Lotus Lake off Highway 101 e Public Present Alex & Helen Hartmann Dolores Arseth John & Nellie Segner Marge Spliethoff Judy Schmieg Judi Miller Dianne Needham Henry Sosin Leanne Harvieux James & Eleanor Keiper Harvey Parker John Melby Robert M. Dols Herb Bloomberg Richard Bloomberg Mark Koegler 6687 Horseshoe Curve 20 Hill Street 30 Hill Street 113 Sandy Hook 200 W. 77th Street 7417 Frontier Trail 7415 Frontier Trail 7400 Chanhassen Road 6605 Horseshoe Curve 6615 Horseshoe Curve 7480 Chanhassen Road 40 Hill Street 7407 Frontier Trail VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings Dacy explained that at the May 8, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission moved to separate the two issues of the boat access and the Bloomberg application for a PUD. She noted that the Park and Recreation Commission acted on June 4, 1985 to approve the plans subject to the addition of additional fencing between the picnic area and the boat access area near the lake. 4It Dacy summarized that in December of 1983 staff was directed to amend the grant application to include the Bloomberg site as the - e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 2 park site for the boat access in exchange for city owned land on the north side of the lake. She corrected that the LAWCON grant monies will total 75% of total improvement costs for the park, instead of the 50% as stated previously. She stated that in exchange for Mr. Bloomberg's 4.87 acre parcel at the south end of Lotus Lake, Mr. Bloomberg will receive a 3.89 acre parcel in the city area on the north side of Lotus Lake. She also stated that if the Bloomberg PUD application is denied, or for some reason is not pursued by the applicant, the city would still pursue obtaining the land from Mr. Bloomberg. She stated that the city has received authorization from the National Park Service and the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development to expend the LAWCON funds. She noted that there were several concerns regarding the control of the park that were raised by residents at the public hearing in February of 1984, however it should be remembered that park management and control practices are deci- sions which will be made by the City Council. Mark Koegler: The park is actually in two pieces bisected by a road. The southern piece is about 2.7 acres and the upper piece is about 2.3 acres. What I will do is briefly go through some of the design aspects of the two park areas. The upper portion, what we have done is prepared a landscaping plan to go with the site plan and a grading plan. The ball diamond, the play area and the park facilities which serves both the neighborhood park and the boat access. Essentially we have some of the site being enhanced with maple trees on the boulevard section, from that point we are using plant material for two uses. One for visual separation and one which will be a physical barrier. The grading plan shows some of the grading and drainage in a preliminary stage, but in a fairly well thought out form at this point. The ball diamond is fairly level and will drain towards Hwy. 101 and eventually which will drain into the 101 ditch area. This por- tion of the site will be primarily parking lot as well as some of the street throughout this portion will drain into the parking lot area and from the street will drain back into the entrance, back into the parking lot area where there will be catch basins and a storm sewer pipe which will connect to the visual storm sewer and in turn go toward the lake and there an outlet that I will get to in a moment. Essentially the parking lot is being used to contain all of the drainage in this upper portion of the site. In looking at the park, again the facilities are substan- tially the same as what you have seen previously. There is one change, we have taken the boat access and have pushed it as far to the west as we possibly can without intruding significantly on the existing boat dock that is in there at the present time. The boat access is essentially the same as before, we have separated it out in this area and opened up a little more green area for a couple of purposes. One was to help with the grades and second purpose is that is where we have a lift station that e - e Planning commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 3 sits down in this area. We are trying to retain as much of the grade in that area at the existing level as we possibly can to reduce costs. The circulation is the same, in terms of coming in. There are two parking stalls down here, again to service elderly and handicapped individuals. That was a requirement that the state had put on the grant and those have been shown in that location consistent with the last one. The picnic pull-out area is still here, to allow people to come down and drop somebody off. In terms of the landscaping and some of the design features, what we have tried to do is respond to some of the con- cerns that we heard at the last meeting. As I mentioned this has been pushed over in this direction, we have shown an extensive and closely spaced planting that will serve as a buffer of spruce and dogwood through this portion. Additionally, around the access at this point and along this western side we have placed a bollard and chain assembly and if you are familiar with Minneapolis parks, those are the large one foot by one foot square posts that have the heavy chain that droops between them. There will be breaks in that chain portion allowing people to enter in the picnic area. We have a walkway that comes down on this side of the site and comes down from the parking lot up above. What we have done is try to keep all of the facilities and activities as much to the western side as we possibly can. That is essentially what we have looked at in terms of the site plan. Additionally, with regard to landscaping, we have shown again, an island plan in this portion which is intended to help stray these parking stalls from the view from the lake itself. Aside from that we have filled in with deciduous trees picking up some of the existing canopy that comes through there. In looking at the grading portion of this particular piece of park site, again, this storm sewer system comes down which is a continuation of the system that was up above. There is approximately, at the steepest point, a 10% grade coming down through here which flat- tens out as you get closer and closer to this access. Throughout that there is a series of catch basins which will be a sunk type of catch basin which literally has a well in it which will help to some degree settle out some of the solid material that is in the storm water itself. The catch basin and storm sewer system comes down gets to a point right here where there is an outlet to a drainage swale which will be a very gentle grass drainage swale, where the water then will eventually go out and feed into Lotus Lake. The other thing we have shown in this area, which again is one of these green islands. We have shown there will be another catch basin. That area again would be lower. We would essentially be taking the entire access and tipping it back away from the lake except where it crests to go back down to the boat access. So all the storm water that falls through this portion will come back into this area and will again be channeled through a pipe down to the swale before it eventually feeds out into the lake itself. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 4 John Melby: I have a question about the drainage features. I own the property directly adjacent and we have some existing water problems. What I am concerned about is the water there is going to be at high velocity. How much work has been done for excess water and heavy rains? Ryan: What we wQuld like to do is let the staff make their pre- sentation and then open it up for public comments and questions. Mark Koegler: Essentially, that basically summarized the high points of the drainage and landscaping aspects. We have tried sincerely to respond to the comments that we have heard to date. Again this is not really the final plan, it is very close. Dacy: Lori Sietsema, the Park and Recreation Coordinator, has attempted to answer some of the questions that were brought up at the last meeting in regards to how the park will be controlled and to review some policies that the Council will consider in the park management of this site. Lori Sietsema: First of all, I want to point out that this is a map showing the park position areas within the City of Chanhassen. Some of the questions that I have heard was who is going to use this and who is it for. The upper portion is a planned neighborhood park. That park is going to be there for the people that are already in the area and the neighborhood that will be developed there. The second question that I have heard is the hours of the park. The LAWCON grant requires that the park be open a minimum of 16 hours a day between the hours 4:00 a.m. and midnight. Our Lake Ann park is under the same stipula- tions because we received LAWCON monies for that also. The hours there are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Our park ordinance states that the parks have to be closed at 10:00 p.m. Another question that I have heard is will there be a fee to use the boat access. DNR stipulates that we cannot charge for the use of the boat access. They will not service the lake if a fee is charged to launch boats. The fourth item that I wanted to address was the control of how many boats use the lake. There are ten car and trailer parking spots in the upper parking area and two in the lower por- tion. Two ways that we can control this, that I see will be most effective, is many boat accesses in the area limit the parking and post no parking signs in the area and enforce the parking regulations, so that a car and trailer cannot take up two car spots. They would be ticketed or towed. They could not park on the street or will also be ticketed and towed. This will require the police department to frequently patrol the area and issue the tickets. The second option would be to have a park attendant on duty. That park attendant would monitor the number of boats going in and as soon as the 12 parking spots are filled, a chain would be placed across the boat access and would not allow another boat on the lake until one came off. This is within the e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 5 DNR and LAWCON manual requirements. At Lake Riley in Eden Prairie, they have a similar situation and that is how they control their boat access. Ryan: Since this is a public hearing, we are here to receive input from the community on behalf of the City Council. We need to channel that input back to the City Council. So we will go back to the question of drainage. John Melby: Do you remember the question? Mark Koegler: Yes, your concern is apparently you may some drainage problems existing in there right now and particularly concerned about what impact this will have with regard to intense storms. You specifically mentioned that you were con- cerned about the velocity of water that was coming down in your area. e John Melby: The point that I wanted to make was since the big sewer pipe that you mentioned was put into the hill it has opened up a lot of under springs and water has been coming in my area. Our neighborhood concern is that this would be high velo- city because it is a real steep grade and you were talking earlier about a grass swale at the bottom that would channel into the lake, I don't think it was last long myself. Koegler: These green areas where the existing park will begin. The heavy black lines in this map essentially show drainage divides on the entire property right now as it exists. This sec- tion shows that all this drainage presently comes down in sheets down this hillside and eventually comes some down in here and I presume some also along the lower portion of your property as well. The center portion drains more directly towards the lake. This portion takes a little more circuitous route and gets to the lake. The rest of the drainage along here essentially goes to the 101 ditch. John Melby: I just want to make a point. Alot that goes to the 101 ditch also goes down and eventually to my property. e Koegler: In terms of the park impact in these sections they all primarily within the drainage divide will probably most directly it will split before it reaches your backyard. If you can see there is a dotted line. What this dotted line indicates is that all of the drainage within this area will actually no longer take its same path. What it will do is go through the system that I described earlier and eventually feed out into the swale and into the lake. We will be controlling it in essence on the park property and that should not stray over on the abutting proper- ties. Let me respond quickly in terms of the drainage what we had control over, really are two things. We are going to e e - Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 6 increase the volume of water. That is a fact. Anytime you put in paved area you are going to have more water. The slopes coming down through here does set up a situation where velocity is a concern as well. Velocity is one thing that we can control and we designed it into this system. That is done in a couple of ways. First of all through the pipe sizing, and I indicated before, that we in essence may be doing to some degree is retaining some of this water in the pond from the parking lot area and letting it out at a slow rate. John Melby: I should point out that thing has been tried before and it wasn't to successful either. It was tried about four or five years ago. Koegler: I don't know specifically what you are referring to, but that is practice that is used in hydrology that works in many areas of the country and works in the Twin Cities as well. There may be cases where it hasn't. We will have control of the amount of velocity that comes down through here. The other thing that we have control over is the type of catch basins. Additionally, we will control pipe sizes down in here and actually have a very large pipe down on the end so that there is some amount of hydro- lic surge, kind of a wave if you will, but that energy will be absorbed throughout that pipe. By the time it hits that point, there is no reason why we should have an erosion problem. We will have a normal outflow, at a slow enough rate and will not have a drainage problem at that swale. I should also indicate that the drainage and grading plans were reviewed by the Watershed District Engineer on a preliminary basis. In general, they had no problem with the system that was proposed. We agree and they agree that when we get down into the next stage, we will take another look at this, and for instance, we may run around this catch basin and back to this point to lengthen the amount of drainage that comes out here. Henry Sosin: For what kind of storm, when you talk about you will control this? Koegler: I am not a hydrologist, I don't know. Henry sosin: There is no settling pond built into this system. You talked about catch basins, how large are they? Bill Monk: We are saying there is no settling basin, there is as much as we can put it in by using the parking lot. It may not be a pond as we do for all subdivisions, but by using a parking lot you can achieve the same type of settling and actually achieve a better cleaning mechanism that you can sweep the parking lot to settle out particles as anywhere. So I think that is what ponding we can put in. The City is now buying a backhoe unit which will allow us to maintain the catch basins. They will have e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 7 12 to 15 inches in the bottom before you hit the outlet pipe which can fill up with larger size sediment as you go down. Another velocity control that will be used going down, is we will design and drop manholes. As you drop the water through a series of manholes, you disapate a tremendous amount of the energy as it would go down the hill and then use the flat but larger pipe at the end to dissipate what is left and perhaps use a surge basin so that between the catch basins and the parking lot we are trying to catch up as much of the sediment as possible as it goes down but also to disapate the energy, because I am very much aware of the problems with drainage across the Melby property and all across that area. Henry Sosin: Am I understanding that you are using the parking lot a primary pond which then goes directly into the drainage system? Bill Monk: That is correct. It is done quite frequently. Henry Sosin: How much water are you talking about having in the parking lot? Monk: The parking lot will be designed so that we can probably 4It sink it at its maximum of 12 inches before it would spillover. John Melby: Just one more comment about drainage. As far as I am concerned, it's a severe enough situation for us to have you consider that very carefully. I think without a doubt, it is probably well the last time, you probably underestimated the velocity and volume. The same thing happened with the sewer pro- ject and working with people from the city during that time. Because of our experiences with that, we were right more times than they were in terms of what was going to happen. I think you should really look at the volume and velocity. Bill Ryan: Those are engineering problems that the city should solve. Monk: I believe we are going to have to. I think we have and we will have to continue to address them, but I think in the work-up of the details, I believe that we can and it should actually reduce the amount of water going onto Mr. Melby's property because of the change in watershed areas. John Segner: Did you say something about the ball park being close to Hwy. 101? Which way will that drain, towards town or towards number 7? e Koegler: The ball diamond that sits in here essentially now drains over this direction. We're really not changing it, we are rearranging the contours obviously to get a fairly level playing e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 8 surface. Essentially we are serving the same drainage that is there now. I would imagine it comes back around this way rather than going toward town. It will follow the route that it follows at the present time. John Segner: Why couldn't it drain toward town toward the existing storm sewer system that is in there now? Koegler: I can't adequately respond to this because I don't know what the contours are in the ditch section along 101. I don't know where the break and actually occurs and whether the water goes in that direction. If it does at the present time, it will continue to do so. John Segner: As long as you have to grade it why couldn't it be graded that way? Koegler: Here again, it depends on what those elevations are relative to the park. If the drainage divides up in here, we may well be able to do that. If it is off site, obviously that is beyond our control and scope of this project. Bill Ryan: The topo on the highway shows the break point to be 4It well back toward the city, past the point of the development. Judy Schmieg: How much flat area is this picnic area on the lower park level? Koegler: It's not an acre. There is an area right down in through here that is fairly flat and I would guess it is maybe a third of an acre or so. There really has been no plan that has been set out for it, are we going to have three picnic tables or five or whatever. That will be something that the city will get at in a subsequent point in time. It has just really been iden- tified on the Comprehensive Plan as an appropriate area. Judy Schmieg: Could people walk down there, to just be down there? That is not a very large flat area, it is more of a hill. Koegler: The break of the hill comes right back really through the center of the grade area. There is an area in through here which is suitable for a number of people to enjoy it. It is a good area there for a small picnic ground. e Henry Sosin: The plan to use the parking lot as a primary reten- tion pond that will hold 12 inches of water just sort of escapes me because how are you going to use it as a parking lot then for one and secondly, since this is going directly into the drainage system, which I understand will go directly into the lake, it's the parking surfaces that contain the gas and oil and all the things that corne from cars that you want to keep out of the lake. I don't quite understand the use of that parking area. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 9 Ryan: We are already running water off that hillside. Right now there is water that goes down into the lake. We would, in trying to use good planning tools, provide retention methods to accom- modate the accelerated rate of runoff caused by asphalt sur- facing. So you don't need to put in a huge pond to protect four acres. To provide surge for four acres you have to put in a pond large enough to take the accelerated surge that is coming off the parking lot, the upper parking lot. Twelve inches of surge capacity is three or four times the normal rainfall, which means you can surge an area three or fours times larger than the parking lot is. Monk: First about the parking. We are really trying to contain it in this area up in here as it comes across. There will be an increase in the drainage by what is coming off of the parking lot. The intent is to control this runoff and release it slowly so that you can control the velocity better, but also that petro- leum at the bottom as you are slowing it down, you allow settling to occur. The one foot area will actually occur right in this vicinity. There will not be one foot spread out over the entire parking area. It is used in a number of places, especially in Minnetonka. If you use this front area running the street water in and down in there, allow it on larger sized storms to build up in this area and it will release slowly. Then after the release of it we struggle so much in the lower area to create the swa1e area so that we would still be able to run that water at a slower velocity over an existing ditch section to allow some purification to occur before it gets to the lake. The intent is not to sink this whole thing, but in essence to slow it down and allow some settling and control the water as best as possible. The reason for it in through this entire area is basically because it is a small drainage area with very limited potential for drainage. It is a widely used practiced. A10t of parking areas have curbs that might be as high as one foot in some areas and that is exactly what they are doing. They are using the parking lot to control the outflow. That is what we are pro- posing to do in this location. Is that in practice on drainage where there are parking lots adjacent to a lake? Monk: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires retention of water on site for so long and it increases with rain. If you go up to McDonald's in Excelsior, they are,adjacent to the lake. Almost all of the establishments around the lake use the parking area or portions of it. But still there is a lot of pollutants like gaso- line. Wouldn't a holding pond help alleviate the problem? e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 10 Monk: If we could get a holding pond on this site. The grade is already so high, that by the time you cut the parking lot in, the option of ponding on this and using the bottom swa1e to direct it by using it to catch up sediment as much as you can is about the only feasible option we have. Henry Sosin: You are talking about developing this system speci- fically for this narrow strip of land that is going between two other areas that are to be developed. Monk: It is a separate watershed area as it exists right now. The cut is pretty much right across here, this comes down and will continue to come down. We are not proposing to take all this drainage and push it one way or take another branch and push it the other way. We are trying to contain this area as best as we can and I believe this will do it. Henry Sosin: What about the area that will be developed just east of that? As I understand, there are several homes that will be built just east of that. Monk: Bascia11y, what we are doing is cutting off a portion of the drainage area in here, redirecting it across the park land. ~ This will then go the same way it goes now. Henry sosin: So there won1t have to be a different system made for that? Monk: Some of this will come onto the street in front of both houses and come down and into this drainage system. The back portions of the lots would continue to go just down the slope. Tom Merz: Could you explain again why we cou1dn1t use the ditch right along the road as a settling pond and drain all of this area. In other words, move those catch basins off of the parking lot where everything drains directly into the catch basin. Move them down into the ditch, ten feet farther and use that whole area of contour sufficiently to pick up all of the nutrients off of the parking lot. Not everything that comes out of the parking lot goes directly into the catch basins. Monk: The parking lot is actually being cut in. The intent was to leave this bermed up around here and not cut this down into this section because of the massive cut that would be involved. Instead to allow this to be a berm. There is a possibility, but I would have to take a look at it. Cutting all of this material out of here and actually making that swa1e, that could then be used for that purpose. ~ John Melby: Again from my experience, I agree that there is a nutrient and pollution problem. If you drain directly into that ditch all that water again goes into my yard. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 11 Judy Schmieg: Does this mean that all this water we are talking about in the parking lot, everything comes right down the slope and it goes right out into the lake and beach area? Ryan: They are attempting to design as much silting capability in the use of a holding pond in the parking lot as much as they can. Oils and greases would wash off a parking lot and in a rain it will wash off into the lake. There is going to be parking lot built next to the lake and that is going to wash into the lake. I don't think there is any way you can get around that question. Ryan: They are trying to catch as much of the silt as they can. Judy schmieg: I have another question. All this is just so twelve people can dock a boat? All this, 12 people on a nice Saturday to dock a boat and spend the day on the lake, and all this, a guard standing there and everything would benefit 12 people? Also, what happens to those people on Minnetonka that wait for that person to leave and so that I get line, where can I wait? Do they just circle and come back when that boat leaves? e Sietsema: We have limited it to 12 parking spaces because that is the minimum we can have on the lake. The residents that live around the lake were concerned with the traffic so that is why we have limited it. The state boat accesses are open 24 hours a day and they put in a community park and there is no attendant at the gate at all. So as many people that want to go in can. Judy Schmieg: Correct me if I am wrong, didn't the DNR say that if they put it in, they would give it to the city if the city wants to take care of it. The DNR will put it in but you will have all the control you want over it. Are you saying that if people park their trailers someplace else up that road, then they can just wait there until, and get down to the lake anyhow. They can just drive around and wait. If they take their trailer home will you let them down? sietsema: If the parking lot is full, then another trailer would not be allowed in. That is an option the city has in controlling the number of boats that can use the lake. e The city isn't controlling it real well right now. We live on the lake and there is a ton of people that don't that are docking out there now at friends' places and leaving their boats on 24 hours a day. I only see more problems corning with any dock arrangement that comes up or boat launches. I see alot of people putting their boat down there and going back home. Judy Schmieg: Do the people have any place to wait? e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 12 If you go down to the current one in Carver Beach and you go down around the corner, often you find trailers parked there and people walking three or four blocks. They are parking where they can because there is No Parking signs down by the boat launch. Judy Schmieg: Well, 101 is not a good place to wait to launch a boat. It's going to happen, just like you say it happens on Minnetonka. Because this is a nice little lake and people are going to want to be on it. Judy Schmieg: Does the DNR have more room? Ryan: There have been a number of studies done on this and I believe those were presented at the neighborhood hearing among others. e Bob Dols: At the last meeting that was held on this issue, a figure was thrown out as to some approximate costs for this faci- lity and I wonder if in the interim there has been any sharpening of pencils. I think the number was, the number that I have written down is $115,000 and that was probably not inclusive of all this fancy drainage but I was just wondering if anybody had any more works so that we could actually put a dollar figure on the short fall between the LAWCON funds and what the citizens of Chanhassen will have to come up with as the short fall. Ryan: Part of the funds come from the LAWCON grant, the part that the city has to pay, I trust, would come out of the park fund which is collected as a separate trust account. Anytime a developer comes in the community to build a development, monies are put in the park fund to provide parklands for the community. e Monk: We have sharpened pencils, we have gone over a number of things. We have done work with consultants' and have come up with a final estimate for all of the improvements in the upper and lower section. It does not include the road as it goes to the plat. It includes the entire grading and drainage, the whole plan and it is approximately $115,000. Seventy-five percent of that is $75,000 which will be paid by the grant. Twenty-five percent will be paid by the city. That money has already been allocated in the city's park and recreational development acquisition fund which is collected as part of every building, single family, commercial or industrial that goes into town. A certain fee is charged and collected as part of the building per- mit. Those monies are then allocated on various parks around town and the 25% that the city will have to pay towards this improvement will come from that fund. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 13 I guess I would point out that the money that you are going to be pumping into this, while it comes from a fund that is established for parks paid by the developers, it is money that comes from somewhere and I think is inappropriately being spent for a regional facility when in fact, the city is financing a regional facility. Because there is no constraints on who uses it, citizenry from any surrounding community can utilize it and it's not a city park. That is one of my fundamental problems with the issue of putting this access in this overall development plan for the whole plot. I would point out that we have talked at other times about the fact that the funds from LAWCON are transferrable. If they can be transferred to this site, they certainly can be transferred to the DNR site. It is hard for me to believe that you could do as much grading and paving and sewering as what is being shown there for that kind of money. You must have some lower cost contractors then I have been able to find. e Henry Sosin: What about maintenance fees? Monk: As far as maintenance goes, we will be taking care of the storm sewer. The entire facility will be the city's repon- sibility as far as maintenance. We have not come up with an annual cost. It is thought that we will not be allowing the use of the boat access during the winter except we have to allow one location for fish houses have to get out and we do to. There are maintenance costs and they are not figured in the cost. John Melby: I would like the Planning Commission to also con- sider the cost of a fence to separate and maintain my privacy which would extend about 700 feet right along there. Koegler: The control mechanisms were discussed at the Park and Recreation meeting and what they are recommending in lieu of a fence to go with the landscaping is a bollard and chain which I described earlier. The Council will also be considering on what type of variables and recommending a little less hard approach, if you will, rather than having a very large fence along there. It would be a little bit softer and attractive measure. e John Melby: Right there I leave my boat out overnight, it's about 10 or 15 feet away from the road where the access is. I am totally opened up my property for parties, garbage and all kinds of stuff there. I think a hell of a lot more consideration should be given for what is going to happen to me and my family. I don't think there enough consideration shown for my family and you have got to do something about that. Koegler: That obviously can be a recommendation of this body this evening. We are trying to be sensitive and you do have a legitimate concern there. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 14 John Melby: Fifteen hours a day is a hell of a lot of exposure, seven days a week. There ought to be something there. Harvey Parker: I would like to address a concern that I am sure you folks have already considered. I feel somewhat an expert on this because I have lived on the same spot on Highway 101 for the last 26 years. That is the traffic situation and the dangers and problems that it is going present. As you go down Highway 101, just as far as the "S" curve and as you know there is even more beyond the "S" curve, what we have in the last two years is Hidden Glen, Near Mountain, Fox Hollow, Lotus Lake Estates, Hidden Ponds that continuing development and the area between Hidden Ponds and Harlan Smith's house, I don't know if that is considered Hidden Ponds or not. Anyway, basically, what we have got here if you sit down and think about it is you have got seven housing developments along Highway 101 in about a two mile stretch. The number of people, or potential people that are going to be in those housing developments, that number I don't have. But just the fact that there is seven of them is going to just by definition, going to put an awful lot of additional traf- fic on Highway 101. I think you are just asking for trouble by putting in a boat access up in this area which is a congested area, there is a curve right there as you well know and you are putting in another housing development in there. As a matter of fact, both of the sites that are under consideration right now, to me neither one of them are suitable, because they both have the dubious distinction of being right in the middle of a resi- dential area. If you look at Lake Minnetonka, you will find that most of their boat accesses are not right smack in the middle of the residential area. They are ususally around a commerical area, or marina, along a commercial but are not right in a resi- dential area. In answer to your question, where will those people lengthen to be driving around, they are going to be driving around in a residential area. I would, at this point, in spite of the work and effort that has gone into the planning of this thing, it is still not too late for the village to consider another site. I am not sure what is available on the lake, quite frankly, I haven't checked into that part of it, but some areas that just come to mind at the top of my head, is there is an area that's commonly referred to as the Molten area about halfway down the lake. I don't know if there is a possibility it could go there. My point is that I think that you should be considering another area away from a residential area. Because the new resi- dential area that Herb wants to put in is going to generate enough traffic as it is and you are going to start get boat car parking there that 12 boats in and of themselves may not be all that much problem, however, the people waiting to get on and just the back and forth traffic of those 12 boats being taken in and out is going to present a real problem for you and then you add onto that the traffic generated by Herb's development and all the e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 15 other developments that are in process. For the last 26 years I have been clawing my way onto Highway 101 every morning and gentlemen, it is getting worse, it's not getting better. I would strongly urge you to seriously consider another spot because neither one of these spots to me is your best alternative. Dacy: I just want to make one statement. The LAWCON regulations require or I should state that the LAWCON funds will not be eli- gible to be applied to the DNR site because it is owned by a state agency so that the monies would not be able to be trans- ferred to that site. e Henry Sosin: However, the city would not require any LAWCON funds if the state were to develop their own site. I would like to ask the Park and Recreation person a question. You said that two people or a gate attendant would close the gate when there were 12 boat trailers in the parking lot. The prior discussion was the problem of over utilization and the reason that it was requested that these two items be separated even in discussion was the way that this is built into the development that Mr. Bloomberg is proposing is that even off the same road, and as I understand it there are 76 units being planned for this, it would be very feasible for everybody with a boat trailer and boat who wanted to, living in this small community to launch their boat, take their boat trailer home, put it in their garage or wherever they normally store it and this would not control over utiliza- tion. Unless the number of users are controlled, even the two people that are standing there may not provide the safety that the citizens are asking for. Ryan: Are you aware of any lakes in the metropolitan area where they actually control the number of people that are allowed to use a public access? Henry Sosin: I don't know. Ryan: Or is it supply and demand? The lake belongs to every- body. Minneapolis requires that all boats that are going to be used on the city lakes to be licensed and have a permit from the city and are subject to a tag if they don't have one. Ryan: One of the questions I was going to ask Lori is would we require a parking permit in order to use the city park? e Sietsema: It is an option that the city has, however, because the lower area is mainly the boat access, we may have trouble with DNR servicing lake which is one of the reasons we want the boat access on this lake. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 16 Judy Schmieg: Can snowmobiles and three wheeler motorcycles go down through the public access in the winter? Ryan: I saw something in the minutes that talked about the potential for on and off access for fish houses but I really don't know what really became of that. Monk: We had talked about winter time uses and it was a concern. That the use of that type of an entrance cars and whatever just going down to the lake for a good time. We don't want that. The Council will have to wrestle with that question but what we have talked about and what we will be recommending is that as fish houses go out, it will be about a two week period most of them go out and the same coming off, that we will leave the gate down at that point to allow that to occur during the daylight hours. At other times we will put not just a chain but a permanent gate across there so that non permitted uses would not be allowed. We do have to get down there to service the lift station almost everyday, but we would chain it up as we come out. But to say that is going to stop a snowmobile or three wheeler totally, I don't think I can say that because they go just about anywhere. e Judy Schmieg: Do you want to stop them? Do you want to keep everybody away from it? Monk: No, but at the same time, same as boat usage on the lake, is that there is such as thing as over utilization. You might find that there is a trail to get through but at the same time you are not trying to open it up for just everybody and anybody to go rip roaring through so that you multiply a problem that may already be there. Control is the name of the game and you try to control it as best you can. If we put a trail through there, you define the trail so that they stay on it and use it. wintertime usage is more difficult and we have only looked at it in the pre- liminary fashion at this time. John Melby: It appears that I am getting a double whammy here on several things, I am getting excessive water runoff, I am getting a double whammy with the park, the other whammy is the access, which is posing additional safety problems for me. All kinds vandalism and I think it is too much to expect one resident to bear. I still think the DNR site, it is paid for, it is there, it can be used at no expense to the city, it would be less of a burden on me personally and my family from safety issues to all kinds of issues. I am being surrounded with all kinds of con- cerns here. I would like you to consider that in terms of maybe reducing the impact of myself and my close neighbors. That is a lot of stuff. e Henry Sosin: I would like to address one more issue. The reason that this particular piece of property sort of came up as a e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 17 possibility was, as I understand it, this is that the DNR refused to accept the parking situation at Carver Beach as an acceptable DNR site. What I am trying to tell you is that I think the DNR is probably more flexible than what we have been led to believe. Firstly, as you have all read in the newspaper, the DNR has been very flexible with the people at Christmas Lake. They are offering, if the newspaper is correct, to limit motor size on a public access to a public water for a period of two years, whereas that is totally against DNR rules anywhere else in the state that I am aware of. The rule is that if you have a 150 horsepower boat on a lake, your access has to be acceptable that will allow that high of a powered boat on the lake. DNR apparently in not fighting because they are offering that to Christmas Lake Homeowners Association. They would then after the two year period decide what to do with their access. The second thing is, the DNR said that the Carver Beach site was unacceptable because the above site parking that was offered in the park up above Carver Beach was not acceptable because people who had disabili- ties could not walk down to the lake. Yet in this very park pro- ject here, which is supposedly to be acceptable to the DNR, we have ten off-site parking spaces with a considerable grade to walk down to the lake plus the two parking spaces for disabled people. I think the point that Harvey Parker made about the trouble with traffic on 101 is a very real safety problem either for this site and possibly even the DNR site. Since the Carver Beach site was the one that was chosen as the best site in terms of envirnmental issues by the city's own lake study commission who started this five years ago. The Carver Beach site was the number one site they selected and the only reason, that I understand it, that it was put on the shelf was the parking problem. I guess what I am trying to say is if the DNR is now a little more flexible, the Carver Beach site may be a perfectly adequate site for the DNR provided we can give them two or three parking spaces down by the water ramp, at which there is certainly room for, for disabled people and have the rest of the parking above Carver Beach's park area which was originally proposed. They are accepting it at this site, there is no reason why they may not accept it at the other site. If that would be accep- table, you would eliminate the problem at 101, which is a major traffic problem. So what I guess I am saying is that I don't think we ought to close our minds to other sites on the lake and maybe the whole issue should be reopened. We are not trying to prevent a boat access on the lake. We are trying to get the very best possible site for it. I would like to add one comment to the 101 situation. I own two properties adjacent to Harvey Parker. In the time that I have been in Chanhassen, I have had seven cars in my yard over that hill, including one that hit my house, just from routine traffic which of course each year has been building. The corner that this lot abuts on is going to be fairly blind for - Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 page 18 people with the additional problem of trailers coming across and I think there is going to be an immense problem with it just from what I have seen. I underst.and t.hat someone was killed on that corner the year before I moved here. So it is a very serious corner. Ryan: Hwy. 101 is a problem that has to be addressed by the com- munity as development grows along both sides of it. It is a state highway. Once it finishes out development, it needs to be addressed whether there is a boat access or not. I think you people should bring that concern to the City Council as part of this and certainly as a separate item. Bob Dols: I hope you got in your packet a copy of the letter from Don Ashworth, Mayor and Council dated December 19, 1983. Do you have that? Ryan: Yes. Bob Dols: I just wanted to point out in that letter they indicate that the estimated construction costs for a boat access at the Department of Natural Resources site is $50,000. That is a whole lot less than what is proposed at this access. e Ryan: There was an estimate that was done on the cost of the north end of the park. Costs were rough when they were estimated in those days. L. Conrad moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad was concerned about the impacts on the lake. He asked if dredging had to be done, if it was included in the $115,000 cost, and how often it would have to be done. Sietsema stated that it would have to be dredged and it was included in the cost. Koegler stated that dredging would vary tremendously with the actually sedimentation of the lake. He stated that there would be removal of vegetation about twenty feet wide and go out approximately 80 feet. Conrad stated about noise. off and on. problems. that there were alot of complaints in Carver Beach He stated that was one of the reasons it was closed He felt that this access would still have the same e Sietsema stated that Carver Beach was closed mainly because of the narrow streets and that there was no parking available. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 19 Monk stated that the beach area was the place that the parties, etc. were taking place and felt that it was not at the boat access. Conrad felt that twelve extra parking spaces for the ball field and picnic area not necessary because it was a neighborhood park and would not have to have that much parking. Koegler stated that it is the city's policy and has been to pro- vide some car parking in neighborhood parks. Conrad was also concerned with the apartment people crossing Hwy. 101 and felt that it was very unsafe. Koegler stated that a cross walk could be an at grade crossing and try to control with a sign and try to get it as far away from the curve as possible. He stated that at this point there would be no way to get undergrade access across there from the state. J. Thompson asked what we would be gaining by having the DNR approve the site. e sietsema stated that the DNR stocks the lake and they also test the water quality. She noted that the DNR wanted to get on all the lakes in Minnesota to do service on them. J. Thompson asked if maybe the city could take over those respon- sibilities. Dacy stated that the city does not have the staff that would be qualified to know the quality, etc. of the lakes. J. Thompson also stated that he was concerned about the traffic in the area and concerned with kids crossing Hwy. 101. Merz felt that because the city would have to be responsible for the maintenance of the access that the boat access should be placed on the DNR site and have them take care of it. Dacy stated that the LAWCON funds cannot be applied to the DNR site. She stated that the proposed park and access area is recognized as deficient in park area and it would fill the need for the parkland. She stated that it is the city's service to provide neighborhood parks for the community. She also noted that the 75% of the money paid by LAWCON has to include a boat access. e Merz was concerned about the amount of traffic that is generated from the property and with boats going down West 77th Street. - Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 20 Monk stated that most of the traffic would be using 101 to and from the site. He also noted that the DNR site is also accessed off of 101 and it is also on a bad curve. Merz asked if staff would explain again why this site was chosen as the site for the boat access. Sietsema stated basically so that the city can control and moni- tor cars and boats using the lake. Ryan asked if soil tests were done for the road going down to the lake. Monk stated that there is already a gravel access that follows alot of the proposed road to get to the lift station. Ryan asked if there was going to be a beach area on the site? Dacy stated that it would be just a picnic area. e Ryan asked if it was the city's intention to propose with the control for this launching facility be that the first twelve boats launched on the lake are all that are allowed to be launched. sietsema stated that if the parking lot is not full, it is not feasible that we close the boat access. She felt that could not legally be done with the LAWCON monies. Ryan stated that Lotus Lake Homeowners have about 15 boats that they would like to pull in and out. He felt that one of the pur- poses of providing a facility such as this one would be to pro- vide a service to those people. He stated that they live on the beach and they have a the right to put a boat down there and use their boat during the day. He also stated that there are developments on the west side of the lake that are going to ask the same thing. He stated that we could have thirty to forty people who want the right to do that and asked if we are going to allow them to do that? Dacy stated that if the Planning Commission is aiming at some type of solution for the control issue, they should make a recom- mendation to pass onto Council. Ryan stated that you have come here for a public hearing and presented a proposal that to me indicates that you have no idea how you want to control it. e She stated that staff has identified two options and if the Commission doesn't think that is adequate, then they have to make that statement and try and come to a solution. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 21 Ryan stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission is to review proposals for land use and determine whether they fit into the comprehensive plan for the community and they represent good land use planning. He stated that they can evaluate whether this is the proper place to put a launch facility or park, but are not the party to determine whether the controls and the operation of that facility are a problem. J. Thompson stated that on Lake Minnewashta most of the people that live on the lake launch their boats at a public access or at least they did when it was over by Leach's and bring their trailers back to their homes and not leave it over there mainly because of the traffic problem that was associated with Leach's resort. Ryan stated that is what concerns him, that the problem is if the first 12 people are fisherman who put their boats in and park in the lot and the lot is full and at 10:00 in the morning someone comes along to put their boat in and can't. He stated that Carver Beach would be closed and if they had this one they would use it as a control system, then we have restricted their right to use the lake. He felt that they could not reasonably deny 4It somebody the use of the lake who has already had the rights. Sietsema stated that she was talking about control, she was trying to address it from the viewpoint of alot traffic on the lake and how to minimize that. She stated that the City Council will ultimately decide how many boats are going to be allowed. She stated that if you live on the lake, they may allow 50 boats on the first day of the season and let everybody on the lake launch their boats and the 12 users that don't live on the lake fill up the parking lot and then close it. She stated that any control measures can be adopted to fit the needs. Ryan stated that staff has come to two public hearings now without any idea of how you intend to run this facility and the next will be at the City Council meeting where you approve it and after that you are not responsible to the community at all. He asked with respect to the park about what thought went into selecting a softball diamond. Koegler stated that the thought process was first of all in this community ball diamonds seem to be a component of virtually any neighborhood park. He felt that they have had enough interest and requests for them from abutting properties that it becomes the situation. He also stated that the Park Commission recom- mended a smaller scale ball diamond be part of that proposal. e Ryan stated that he does not oppose the access. He felt that it is necessary and that the DNR has reviewed and feels that a e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 22 parking lot that close to the lake is proper and satisfactory. He felt that if properly done, the boat access is a reasonable solution to the community's problem of proper use of Lotus Lake, however, felt that the upper level park area violates the stan- dards of reasonable protection of public safety. He felt that this was not well thought out to put in a ball diamond and nothing else. He felt that building the park that close to Highway 101 with uncontrolled access is not good planning. Conrad moved, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City that before they act on this that they seriously review the three other potential boat sites. If they chose this access they should consider: 1. The city should assures that the water runoff has minimal impact on the lake. 2. That the unneeded ballfield parking lot is eliminated from the plan. 3. That the city consider the safety access off of Highway 101 into the boat area. e 4. That the city seriously considers controlling access from across the street. 5. That the city has a control mechanism in place for cars in, access, crowd control, etc. 6. That the city seriously consider the impact on the neighbor which he felt has not totally been resolved. Ryan stated that this has been studied and restudied and you are suggesting reopening another study? Conrad felt that the DNR access would be less costly. He felt that any access on the west side of the lake would be safer. After discussion, Conrad modified the motion to recommend that the upper park area not be developed until a more comprehensive plan for access control is presented. Jim Thompson seconded the motion. J. Thompson, Ryan, and Conrad voted in favor. Merz was opposed. Motion carried. e Merz stated that he felt it is not good planning to have that steep of grade down to the lake, to introduce a public access into a development like this and for the city to take on the expense of paying and maintaining the public access. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING preliminary Development Plan for 71 Units of Single Family Detached and Attached Dwellings with a Rezoning to P-l, Planned Residential Development, Herb Bloomberg, applicant Public Present e Alex & Helen Hartmann Dolores Arseth John & Nellie Segner Marge Spliethoff Judy Schmieg Judi Miller Dianne Needham Henry Sosin Leanne Harvieux James & Eleanor Keiper Harvey Parker John Melby Robert M. Dols Herb Bloomberg Richard Bloomberg M:::Irk Koegler 6687 Horseshoe Curve 20 Hill Street 30 Hill Street 113 Sandy Hook 200 W. 77th Street 7417 Frontier Trail 7415 Frontier Trail 7400 Chanhassen Road 6605 Horseshoe Curve 6615 Horseshoe Curve 7480 Chanhassen Road 40 Hill Street 7407 Frontier Trail VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings Dacy stated that the applicant had revised his plan from 73 units to 71 units by shortening the cul-de-sac in the northwest part of the site. She noted that the grading and drainage plan has also been modified because of this change. She stated that Lot 16, originally indicated as a duplex lot, has been changed to a single family lot. She explained that the land use pattern pro- posed single family lots adjacent to existing single family development on the west and the east side as well as along Lotus L-ke. She noted that toward the center of the plan are proposed 12 duplexes or 24 units. She stated that 31 condominium units served by a private drive and maintained by a homeowners asso- ciation is proposed in the center of the property. She stated that staff recommended that Lot 14 become a single family lot instead of a duplex lot in the area of the proposed cul-de-sac. This would create a "mini-neighborhood". She stated that the proposed land use pattern transitioning from single family to the condominium units across from the Chanhassen Meadows appartments was an attempt to provide a transition in land use intensity and housing styles. e Dacy stated that L-ts 2, 17, and 21, Block 1 and Lot 4, Block 2 need lot line rearrangements. She stated that private access easements and private walkway easements should be accomplished in these areas instead of creating odd lot line arrangements. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 24 Dacy stated that the average lot size for the single family lots is 20,292 square feet. She noted that the median lot size is 14,400 square feet. She stated that the average lot size for the duplex lots is 7,165 square feet per unit. She stated that this average would increase with staff's recommendation regarding the duplex lots to 7,911 square feet. Dacy stated that there have been questions from surrounding property owners regarding the total acreage of the site. She asked the applicant to verify the survey. She stated that the applicant indicated to her that the acreage shown on the plat is correct at 26.15 acres. e Dacy explained that the gross density of the site was calculated by subtracting the acreage for the park - 4.87 acres from the total 26.15 acres. She stated that by dividing the acreage by 68 units results in a gross density of 3.2 units per acre. She stated that this was at the upper end of the range of development density for low density residential which is 1 to 3.4 units per acre. She stated that the density for the single family lots alone is 2.14 units per acre, the duplex density is 6 units per acre and the condominium area has a density of 8.8 units per acre. She stated that staff has calculated the impervious sur- face area ratio for the condominium area and it appears to total 70%. She stated that because of this high ratio, the density of this area should be reduced, thereby reducing the overall gross density to below 3.0 units per acre. Dacy explained that the proposed street pattern consists of a horseshoe shaped street to connect T.H. 101 at two points. She stated that the city engineer is recommending that the westerly access point be a right-on only so that traffic won't shortcut through the neighborhood to the west to the downtown area. She stated that MnDOT is also requesting additional right-of-way to be reserved for future upgrading. She stated that the city engineer recommended that 17 feet be reserved. Dacy stated that although the applicant has shortened the cul-de- sacs, staff is recommending that the cul-de-sac be shortened again by approximately 100 feet and the grading and drainage plan altered accordingly. Dacy stated that the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing the required one boulevard tree per lot. She stated that staff would recommend one tree at the rear of each duplex unit to screen the proposed single family lots from the duplex lots. She also stated that the vegetation along T.H. 101 should not be located in the proposed 17 feet reserved for future upgrading. e Dacy related the action of the Park and Recreation Commission. She stated that the Commission recommended that the city pursue Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 ~ Page 25 e - negotiations with the developer to acquire Block 4, adjacent to the existing city property, for future park uses such as tennis courts, volleyball or basketball areas. She stated that the area now owned by the city is used by children in the neighborhood. She stated that the Commission also recommended a trail easement to be located between T.H. 101 and the condominium area. Dacy stated that should the Planning Commission approve the pro- posed planned development request that it be conditioned on the recommendations stated in the city engineer's memorandum dated June 10th as well as the four remaining recommendations in the staff report. Ryan asked if the developer would like to add anything or com- ment. Herb Bloomberg: Not particularly. We have worked with staff and have gone over the concept many times. My feeling is that it is a beautiful piece of property, I don't want to get into the boat access, but I still think it is a nice idea when you come around that bend to be able to see Lotus Lake. I hope that it ends up being approved. We have got the Meadows apartments across the road which is perhaps a good screen for the railroad. I wouldn't like to see a row of apartments matching them and making a wall out of 101. I think the use of some park and some interesting landscaping in developing this little island for condominiums where it is separated by duplex homes and then single homes next to the adjoining single homes. We tried to think of this in a matter of practicality as well as beauty and obviously saleability. We have worked on this for several years and I think this is the best that we have come up with. I feel very good about it. We were working with and agreed with the DNR and various people that are concerned about ecology. We have dropped an extra lot by the ravine. One of the problems that I get into is the sale of anything in Chanhassen is that our taxes are getting so high particularly near a lake that its gets to a real detriment in the moving of property. That is part of our reason for wanting the duplex lots facing the park. I feel that they would be relatively small. I think we are running out of weathly widows that want expensive condominiums. I think the concept is adaptable for many types of living. There is one thing that I think we have not discussed with you people, but it is a real problem I think we are facing in the future is that in zoning, the Planning Commission is going to be up against these problems about what is a family today. We have lost the definition of family, we can have a house full of people, they are all friends or something, they are not necessarily married, they are living together, so when you start talking about density, we really don't know what density we can control. There are many places where you will find many people living in a house and it used to be a family was pretty well defined but not today. I have lived e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 26 here thirty years and we feel good about the overall development what has happened on the lake and we feel we have a reasonably good contribution to it. Judy Schmieg: One of the things that I want to start off with is the meeting did last 3~ hours and there was a couple com- missioners that were here last time, but I am really quite surprised that we are missing all four that were here last time and we went through all the discussion about the proposed development. That makes it difficult for us to communicate to you that are here tonight our whole presentation. First, I want to start with the issue of the cul-de-sac. There is a way that it is not impossible to develop that area over there with having a cul-de-sac intact. There is also a way in developing that into a nice area and maintaing the zoning that it has now. It has some benefits in that you could easily put a road between the park and separating the park from the homes and keep it still single family. These are some of the points that I put together that I have a problem with. The city's comprehensive guide plan shows it to be single family detached homes. The plan was put together with some credibility, it should not be changed in every developer's individual plan. Otherwise it beats the whole pur- pose of having the council and you. The developer's can develop the city then as they wish if they change the comprehensive plan everyday. The residents of Chanhassen also should be able to trust the city. When they purchase a home here, in a particular type of zoning and not have to wake up the next day and find it has been changed. Example, I understand there was some city park land over on the north side of the lake. I am sure those people that live there thought they had a park. If it is traded to a developer they wake up the next morning and it's a development. If you buy and live in a residential area you assume according to the comprehensive plan, than that's what it is, not because some- body wants to change it and go into a 73 unit on a piece of property. The other plan it has is the traffic is a major problem for everybody. Whether it's boat or whether it's development it is a major problem for everybody, including the access from 101 straight up 77th to main street. It is a nice clean shot. No attempt has been made, in my opinion, that the developer is doing anything except for the development. We have requested and shown many concerns on the cul-de-sacs and yet you made cul-de-sacs. Let me ask a question, this piece of property, does it belong to your sister, Herb? This existing house that belongs to your sister accesses over here. Is that .77 acre part of this development and is that existing house part of this development or is it completely separate and aside from the issue? ~ Herb Bloomberg: It is part of the development. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 27 Judy Schmieg: Even though its not going to change property lines, it is an existing house and it is there now. It is now part of the development that .77 acres? That is correct? Herb Bloomberg: Yes, it is considered in the acreage. There is also a blue house on the other side of the property that is also included. Judy Schmieg: The other thing that I have a problem with is that development should be self contained. It should have its own access points, it has two of them off of 101, which is very for- tunate to have that kind of flexibility. It should be able to support its own water drainage, traffic and everything else and we had supported alot of assessments for the water drainage from that piece of property along with our own and everybody else's that comes down there and everything else that we put in. Four assessments is now on our taxes. Also the cul-de-sac as far as on Erie, the same way. I think you stated that the cul-de-sac in itself says mini-neighborhood. I think that is a good point because that is basically what it is. It is not a highway from 101 straight up 77th. The city owns a piece of land right here next to the lift station. This neighborhood is not deficient in park. That piece of land that goes there becomes a ball field, kite flying, sliding and you name it. You can chase or do anything else, ride your bikes on it if you want and every child in the neighborhood has used it. There is st. Hubert's to use up there. It is a nice open space. Neighborhoods do not want to be connected. You don't have to have more traffic, more streets, you can do it by walkways or anything. It seems like it is a super high density, on a squeezed in piece of land that is bound by a lake, bound by a highway that you can't get off. Where will those people go to party, for roads or anything else to do, or kids to ride their tricyles. No sidewalks, nothing. My opinion is it is not a good plan. I understand Mr. Bloomberg's concern with high costs today. But it is not a good plan. The drainage of the land up on the end is pure depth. It is a water drainage. Maybe that is why the cul-de-sac is that high to catch that water drainage or whatever. But it is not a great plan. Not with that kind of density. Harvey Parker: I have a question regarding, just by way of background, I was here for a meeting a couple of years ago and I can recall at that time there was a fellow from Chanhassen Estates, that got up and expressed a concern that the municipal sewer had backed up into his basement. My heart really went out for the guy, but at the time as I recall, and my information may be inaccurate, but as I recall, the city engineer did indicate that there was some problem from a capacity standpoint with the city sewer. with that as a background, has anything been done to the city's municipal sewer system from a capacity standpoint to accommodate this? It is such an obvious point, I am sure it has e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 28 but I am going to ask it anyway. Secondly, on the townhouses, will provisions be made so that the homeowners association as is done in other townhouse developments that I am aware of, will police the area sufficiently so that you will not be allowed to park boats in the yard, travel trailers in the yard, whatever else in the yard and will the homeowners association be required to do that for the townhouse portion of the development? Ryan: The questions on covenants and controls within the development, this is proposed. Anytime a development comes in of this size, it has to be by code, it is required to be sub- mitted as a PUD. It is not allowed to come in as a simple sub- division. The planned unit development process is a negotiating process where a development agreement is prepared negotiated between the City of Chanhassen and the developer. As part of that agreement, we build in the covenants and the protections that we as a community feel are necessary. Also, the ordinances that are in place today do not allow parking boats and trailers in the front yard. Recently, we had one behind the legion and one of the questions there was whether they could have single garages or do they need double garages to avoid people parking in driveways and on the street, parking boats, trailers, recreational vehicles in the streets. Those kinds of things can and are addressed by the city in the development contract and your rights are protected. We want to keep clean communities. The covenants that are developed as far as the homeowners asso- ciation for maintaining the common green space are also discussed with the developer. But that then becomes the responsibility of the developer to establish those covenants and create a homeowners association. Between the two there is a lot of pro- tection. That is one of reasons that the city has stayed with the requirement that any development of this size, what is our minimum about 25 units, anything over 25 units has to be a planned unit development that incorporates the development agreement. Now on the sewer question, I will let Bill answer. Monk: Not knowing exactly what instance you are referring to it is difficult. But this line will flow through the lift station at the northeast corner of the property and then flows into a trunk that runs down along the east line of Chan Estates. The sewer does not go through Chan Estates, it by passes Chan Estates. The line does have the capacity, the city is worried about it's ultimate capacity is with the Metro Waste Lift Station that exists down at the bottom of Chan Estates. We don't have any control over it at this time. The city system and even the Metro Waste system, at this point, can easily handle this development. Harvey Parker: One last comment if I may. Are the homeowners associations rules and regulations and covenants as it were, are they submitted to be approved by the village as a part of the overall development scheme? Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 ~ Page 29 Ryan: We don't control those covenants. Dacy: Usually, the developers will submit a copy of the restric- tions if they have them in place. Because they are private cove- nants enforced by private homeowners association, the city merely reviews the covenant.s to make sure that if they have a unique setback requirement that at least the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are being enforced. As part of this development, we have not received a copy of proposed covenants and restrictions. Harvey Parker: O.K., but at least they have to be in conformance with the zoning regulations. Is it required as part of the plan that they be at least submitted? Whether they are passed upon or not, or commented upon, are they at least required to be sub- mitted to be sure they are in conformance with the village rules and regulations? Dacy: Yes, they should be submitted before final approval. Harvey Parker: They should be but are they? Dacy: For this development we have not received a copy. ~ Harvey Parker: As a normal course of events, are they submitted? Dacy: Yes. Henry Sosin: It looks from the plan that there are four addi- tional lake lots, is that correct? Ryan: There is three. There is a fourth that is going to have a flag lot. Dacy: That is where the existing home is. They are creating three new lots. Henry Sosin: O.K., you say that the average single unit lot size is only 14,000 square feet? Dacy: No. The average lot size is 20,292 square feet. The median is 14,000. Henry Sosin: To allow the proposed, do the lake lots fit the restrictions by the DNR for lot size? e Dacy: As a planned unit development, the DNR has what they call tiering requirements as to densities and the number of lots within so many feet of the lake. The DNR has reviewed that and found that the density along the lakeshore meets their standards. I will just read off the lot areas for you. Existing residences would be 48,500, 43,000, 20,100 and this lot here would be 19,400 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 30 e : I live on the end of West 77th street and my concern is that you are going to open things up and we are going to get all the traffic going to the store, liquor store, or going to church. They are all going to go out West 77th street. Not many are going to go out to 101 because there are not many houses on 101. Another thing, if they do open up West 77th street, are they going to let ready mix trucks and lumber trucks and everything come down 77th street? Right now we have got maybe the best street in the City of Chanhassen, residential area, but it won't be that way long with ready mix trucks going down it. e Bob Dols: The concern over the traffic on West 77th street is, I think, a very real one. I don't happen to live on West 77th but I have their concerns. I just throw this out as a suggestion. You have a cul-de-sac on the plan and you also have a cul-de-sac on Erie existing. I don't see any real reason that you couldn't connect to eliminate the cul-de-sac and cut through, that would help some of the traffic out of the development down Erie which would defuse some of the traffic congestion problems that you are going to run into on West 77th, if in fact that cul-de-sac down there is eliminated. I think it is something you have to give consideration to because of the rather significant population density. You are going to have alot of people in there, you are going to have alot of cars in there, and I think you have to take their concerns very realisticly. e Dan Burke: I live on West 77th. It is a good idea, but the problem is when you get down here this street intersects with West 77th on one corner so they still end up in the same place with the same intersection. The opening up of West 77th, I think we have just got to, a plan submitted by Judy, which allows a development in 99% of its form. It gives Herb his boat access, so he sale the rest of the place. But it allows this existing neighborhood, which has been there as long as Chanhassen has to exist without having all this in flow of traffic come through and ruin what we feel is a very good neighborhood. As a personal comment, earlier one of gentleman sitting behind me said that there were five or seven developments going north on 101. As you go up there, they are all single family dwellings, they are all big lot sizes, half or three quarters of an acre each. Then you come down to this 20 acre site down here which is bounded by a nice ready-mix plant, 101, these apartment buildings here and the railroad, not the best place for development that I can see, if I was going to buy a lot, I would not buy one there unless I could get something there that I couldn't get some place else, which would be access to Lotus Lake. Now it seems to me, as a tax payer and anything else in this town, why should I feel that the City Council has been good winged by Herb to get this development in here. The only way he is going to sell this, in my way of seeing, is if he gets this, it is a major selling point for him. He has made alot of money in real estate, but he has always had a selling point. e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 31 Frank Kurvers: I would like to know about this Mrs. Fenger's property, was that piece of land in Herb's ownership and now is she part of the developer? The association of one large tract of land that all of a sudden gets tied to a plan and used as den- sity, is she getting assessed by herself at the present or is it one large tract? I don't know how many acres this is? Is the lift station part of this? These are questions I would like to have answered because it sounds to me we really don't know how much land there is and who the owners are. Dacy: The city owned portion where the station is, is not part of the plat. The existing home toward Mrs. Fenger is part of the plat. The total acreage of this area, and we confirmed that with the surveyor's office, is 26.15 acres. There was a question and the surveyor confirmed that it is right. It is not unusual to have more than one property owner involved in a development. This property owner will have to sign off on the plat before it is recorded at the county offices. Does that answer your questions? Frank Kurvers: No. How much land is there in that parcel at the present time? e Dacy: I beleive it is .77 of an acre. That is the acreage amount on file with the county assessor's office. It is part of the plat. Frank Kurvers: What about the lift station? Dacy: That is not part of the plat. Monk: The lift station is in the park itself and what is pro- posed to be the park. The lift station in no way influences this plat. Frank Kurvers: It's incl uded in the density. Monk: No it is not. It is part of the park. The park land is not included in the density figures that the city planner has given tonight. Dacy: As I stated in my presentation, it was made clear at the previous meeting that the acreage and the park should be subtracted and we have done ~hat. So we take 26.15 acres minus 4.87 which results in 21.2 acres. Sixty-eight units divided by 21.2 equals a density of 3.2 units per acre. e Judy Schmieg: Is it normal that it should be on a situation like this, where it is so close to an existing neighborhood that it should be closer to a medium between the 1 and 3 density. Especially, when the lake, where you are taking out, the problem e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 32 with this plan is you are taking out huge chunks out of this and you are jamming everything left, roads included. You are taking huge pieces out and then you are still dividing all of that which is o.k. because that is a formula but you are really jamming it. Doubles to singles, 57 feet from a single family you have got a double. You have got a double that abuts to a single family. Ryan: The average development that we have come through here in the last two years has been, we have really had to fight to keep the median lot size anywhere near 15,000 square feet. We have had many of them try to go down to 9,000 and 10,000. Judy Schmieg: I agree and the thing that we fought in our neighborhood hard because of that 15,000 square feet. We are the old part of town and we are small lots. I am not as concerned about small lots, small single family lots. I know in the paper you had mentioned that 15,000 to 10,000 you are basically getting down to 10,000 square feet for housing. But you are jamming things on 7,000 and then the quads and stuff, your 8.8 density. Overall it fits but I have a real problem with that much density on that end of town that is single family homes. e Ryan: Next door to you. Judy Schmieg: Single family homes are o.k. with me. I don't have any problem with that development except you are taking doubles, towns, singles and public access, just about everything and say here this is a great thing you people should get excited about. Why? Why is that so great? Has this trade already happened? I had talked to somebody who should know from the city and they said it was all cut and dried. Is this true? Dacy: We have received authorization to spend the LAWCON funds for the park improvements; however, the item just before this a motion was made by the Planning Commission for consideration to the City Council. It will go to the Council on July 1st. They could not approve the park access at that lake. That is still an option. We would lose LAWCON funds but they could still deny it. The Council has to approve the boat access and officially sign the LAWCON funds. But if they don't do that then there is no park or boat access. I don't want to talk about LAWCON funds. I am just asking is there any trade that has taken place. Dacy: No it has not been officially consummated yet. ~ Eleanor piper: I don't live on this end of the lake. I am addressing the idea of single family homes as opposed to high e Planning Commision Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 33 density and I tend to agree with this lady here that we used to live just over the border on the "s" curve in Minnetonka. There are alot of new developments currently under construction and because of that the density and the traffic on 101 is noticeably heavier and I am concerned that if you start adding more people, more cars, and more traffic what provisions have been made within Chanhassen and the abuttment of Eden Prairie, which I assume you share 101 and maintenance. People are going to go to 7 as much as they go to 5 and any development off of 101 is going to add to the confusion and wear and tear on that highway. It is a state highway, but are we planning enough ahead to take care of the density of the traffic as these homes are built and all of those people. Can we control it? Dacy: Hwy. 101 is still a state highway. I don't know when they are going to make the decision to have it go to the county or the city. e Monk: There are no plans for upgrading or changing 101 at this point. There is no question that within some time frame the cities of Eden prairie and Chanhassen are going to have to get together and put pressure on the state to see whether something can be done. At this point in time, it is maintained by the state and the only maintenance that they will do is just that, maintenance, to keep it functioning but they have not set funds aside for the improvement or widening. It is definitely something that will have to be addressed, but at this point there are no plans. Ryan: That is the way it is quoted in the Minnesota Department of Transportation letter on this particular issue, is that they do not intend at the present time to upgrade T.H. 101 in this area. They recommend that we provide in the developments for future right-of-ways but they do not intend in the forseeable future to spend any money. Judy Schmieg: Did the members receive the petition on the single family requesting that they maintain single family homes? Ryan: Yes. Frank I would say that the best plan you could have there is to run the large lots all the way around the lake to give up the public control and put it on the DNR property which they already own. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e J. Thompson stated that 101 is going to be used more with all of the new development. He would like to see the density lessened in this area and he would like to eliminate the park here and have Lot 16, 18, 19 and 20 be the park area. He stated that he e Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 Page 34 would eliminate the double units as staff recommends. He also would like to see a decrease in the duplex units. Merz felt that the plan does meet a PUD. He felt that with a higher density neighborhood to be an influence of the traffic along West 77th street would be a detriment. He felt that this development should be self contained. Conrad felt that staff's comments are appropriate. He feels the density is too high for the neighborhood. He stated that staff recommended under 3 units per acre is appropriate and felt it should even be further under that because of the traffic problems. He is still concerned about the drainage. He felt that Lotus Lake is going to suffer a great deal. He felt that there should only be one access on Hwy. 101, he is also concerned about the 70% impervious surface ratio in the middle of the development. e Ryan felt that density is too high and that it should be cut in the condominium area to take up to 6 units out, which is approxi- mately a 10% reduction in density. He felt the proposal as pre- sented with the two accesses off Hwy. 101 is sufficient for the protection of the public welfare and the safety of that com- munity. He sees no reason why it would have to tie into West 77th street but suggested that an easement be dedicated across an outlot in that area. He stated that West 77th street should not be connected until it found that there would be a value in doing that connection. Conrad moved, seconded by Merz, to recommend approval of the Planned Development Request #85-4 with rezoning to P-l, with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's memorandum of June 10, 1985, including revised drainage and grading plans; 2. Elimination of Lot 6, Block 1; 3. Lot line rearrangements of Lots 2, 17, and 21, Block 1, and Lot 4, Block 2; 4. Lot 14, Block 1 should be a single family lot. 5. Identification of a trail easement in the condominium area. 6. That the gross density be 2.7 units per acre. e 7. The impervious surface ratio in the condominium area be reduced to 40%. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1985 ~ Page 35 8. Drainage from the site to the lake shall cause minimal degra- dation. 9. The West 77th street access not be connected at the present time, but there should be provision for a future connection. 10. The City Council should consider retaining a traffic consultant to advise the Council of the most appropriate access to TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Merz, seconded by J. Thompson to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 1985. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Merz, seconded by J. Thompson to adjourn the meeting. TIME: 11:25 p.m. Barbara Dacy, City Planner ~ Prepared by vicki Churchill on July 10, 1985 e