Loading...
1986 05 28 . - e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 1986 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, Mike Thompson STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Bill Monk, City Engineer, and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Meritor Corporation - Chanhassen Hills a. Preliminary and Final Development plan to subdivide 124 acres into 180 single family lots, a 6.5 acre multiple family area and to create a 7.8 acres of parkland on property zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development. b. Land Use Plan Amendment to redesignate 20 acres of Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and to redesignate 6.5 acres of Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and to redesignate 7.8 acres of Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space on property zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development. c. Wetland Alteration Permit to alter existing wetlands for drainage purposes and single family home sites on property zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development. PUBLIC PRESENT Jay Johnson Jim Curry Al Klingelhutz Pat Swenson Bud Paulson Larry Frank 7496 Saratoga Drive 4817 Upper Terrace 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. 8528 Great Plains Blvd. 3706 So. Hills Drive, Eagan, MN Dacy: On March 12, 1986 the Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch plans for the proposed PUD. That particular plan proposed 205 single family lots in 13.5 acres multiple family area to contain 107 units. In between the Planning Commission meeting and the Council consideration of the sketch plan, the number of single family lots was reduced to 181 in the multiple family area, reduced to 6.3 acres and the park area is also redesignated on the proposed sketch plan. The Council approved the overall sketch plan and specifically recommended e - e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Two that the three lots that the developer had proposed along Lake Susan, become riparian lots. The development plan proposes to for 180 single family dwellings, the 7 acre park and 6 acre multiple family site east of TH 101. Existing conditions on the site are as follows. There is Class A and Class B wetlands along the western boundary of the si te, Lake Susan on the northern part of the site, TH 101 runs north-south through the Curry property and this Curry property is traversed by TH 212 corridor. The gross density of the proposed single family development area is 1.87 units per acre. The net density of both the single family and the multiple family portion is 2.95 units per acre. The gross density of just the single family area is 2.05 and the net density is 2.49 units per acre. The density ranges are consistent with the ranges listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The lots sizes range from 11,200 square feet to 150,195 square feet. The median lot size is 14,466 square feet. The average lot size is 17,450 square feet. There are 95 lots below 15,000 and 85 lots above 15,000. Approximatley 130 of the lots contain lot widths of over 80 feet and approximately 50 of the lots have lot widths between 65 and 80 feet. However, a majority of these lots abut cul-de-sacs so the 80 feet is being achieved as a building site. Lots 4, 5 and 6 in Block 8 contain the largest lot sizes. Lot 4 is adjacent the western area, 5 and 6 surrounding the park, and Block 8 adjacent to the 212 corridor. The lot size pattern is teired from the lake and the wetland areas and the 212 corridor inward so that the smallest of the lots are contained in the center of the proposed subdivision. As I noted earlier, different from consideration at sketch plan review is the creation of the three recurring lots along Lake Susan. When the commission considered this plan, this area was designated as open space. As you will see, Lots 1 and 2 do not abut the street so they will have to be served by a private drive from the proposed street through Lot 3. The area does contain steep slopes of over 25% and Staff is recommending that detailed stablization and erosion control plans be submitted along with building permit applications as well as the house design being certified by an architect engineer. Also at the Council meeting for sketch plan review when these three lots were being considered, there was concern raised from the homeowners regarding a future public trail to be dead ending at this point on the northeastern corner of the plat. The Council recommended that a walkway easement still be retained or be recorded at least, and the future possibility that the City wouldn't want to have the trail in that area. The proposed phasing plan contains five phases. phase 1 would contain 43 lots and would concentrate on the northern portion of the plat. phases 2, 3 4 and 5 proceed south and westerly. Phase 5 being the last and containing Block 1 in multiple area. As noted during the sketch plan review, we asked applicant to revise some detailed berming and vegetative screening plans for double lots along the Lyman Blvd. and along future TH 212 corridor. Those plans were submitted and more detailed plans would be required as part of the final plan and specifications for the subdivision. The multiple family area is considered in this northern part of the area but because of the redesign of the PUD over the last couple of months, it has now been Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Three e proposed east of TH 101 and adjacent to the 212 corridor. As such it should adversely affect any existing or future single family areas. The street pattern has been significantly revised since original submission with only one access point proposed on Lyman Blvd. and TH 101. We have confirmed with the MnDot staff that the northern alingment of the 212 corridor is adequate and reflects the most recent alignment considered by MnDot. Parks and Open Space. At the Council meeting during sketch plan review, the Council directed the applicant to increase the park area as much as possible. That has now been done. It has been increased from 5 to 7 acres. This portion of the city is park petitioned area and the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that this proposed park site be acquired by the City for active use as well as extending the open space area for trail easement purpose. There are also proposed connections from the open space area into the plat pedestrian corridor proposed. The applicants have submitted an environment assessment worksheet. Any single family development in excess of 100 unattached dwellings must be processed through the City and the Environmental Quality Board. The EAW, it's purpose is to determine whether or not an environmental statement is needed. Whether more detail review is needed for a specific component for the subdivision. Chanhassen Hills, EAW lists several items that need to be addressed. e 1. The Land Use Plan Amendment. 2. Impact has been identified about the location of the drainage ponds in the steep slope area and peat areas in the open space iq the Class C wetlands along the western side of the property. This generated an eleven alteration permit requests. 3. The Shoreline Zoning DNR requries a certain teiring of lot sizes within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. DNR has reviewed the proposed plan and finds the proposed lot sizes are consistent with their standards. 4. There was concern regarding the One Hundred Year Flood Plain for these three lots along Lake Susan however, the building areas are going to be at the knoll of the hills significantly above the high water elevation level of Lake Susan so there should be no impact from flooding in this area. 5. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems will be extended into the site and water systems would have to be extended to Lake Susan Park, Powers Blvd. extending east into the plat in this area between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 4. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Four e 6. The EAW identifies as in impact as far as the Surface and Storm Water Runoff. I will leave most of the explanation to the City Engineer, but basically the tentative plan is to use the ponds to be located in the wetlands area for sedimentation and siltation basis before discharging into Lake Susan. 7. One more item they identified was Dust, Air and Noise Pollution created during construction. These impacts that are present during most construction projects and mitigative measures include water sprinkling for dust, maintenance of construction equipment and good operating conditions of the construction. e Back to the Land Use Plan. The pattern that is existing on the plat at this time is based on the previous Lake Susan plan that was considered by the City in 1980. with this new proposal what needs to be done is that this medium density residential area which covers approximately 20 acres, be reduced down to low density residential area and then a high density residential area be located in this location to accomodate 6 acre multiple family site. Also, with the creation of the park site, the low density residential should be changed to Parks and Open Space. This is not a significant change as far as drainage patterns are concerned. Staff is recommending approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment request as proposed. Finally the Wetland Alteration Permit as I eluded to before is required because of the work that will be done in Class B wetlands along the western border of the plat. At this point I will ask the City Engineer to address drainage and other issues along the plat. However, in summary, Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, the Land Use Plan Amendment Request and the Wetlands Alteration Permit Request with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Bill Monk: Noted in the Staff Report, Sanitary Sewer will be extended from an existing manhole just off the northeast corner of the plat, the easement to get into this site already exists and there are on add i t i ona 1 da ta to give as far as san i tary sewer is concerned and the line this size to handle this development. One of the things of a different matter that needs be extended down along County Road 17 to come into the west side of the site. Council has accepted a petition from Noren and has initiated a Feasibility Study. There is a condition being recommended that the Final Plat Approval be withheld until the water extension is approved and we know it is going in. As far the streets are concerned, as Barbara noted, the street layout, as far as Staff is concerned, is much improved. At one point there were two to three accesses along Lyman and TH 101 that has now been downgraded to one major access on each road and internal circulation is quite good on this plan. In addition, the developer has shown alignment of future alignment of 212 on the present plans of the City and MnDot and is applying to accomodate that right-of-way. - e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Five Additionally, the development plan allows for the possibilty of realignment of TH 101, something that has been talked about quite a bit in conjunction with 212 and the alignment that they show is a good one in keeping with the preliminary plans that have been prepared over the last couple of years. As far grading and drainage goes, the proposal is based on a plan that calls for disruption of the Class B wetlands which exists along the entire northwest portion of the site and development of a series of ponds that will basically handle the water before it is released into a Class A wetlands and eventually into Lake Susan. It is in keeping with the City and Watershed District policies for containment and rate control as well as quality control. As I considered the wetland alteration permit, something of a termporary permit because there is no question in my mind that quickly after these basins are established that they will basically return to their natural state and will act as ponds and actually function as wetlands as well so that Staff is in agreement that the Wetlands Alteration Permit is in concert with the Wetlands Ordinance. I apologize for this, but as I was driving out here tonight I saw that I had missed two conditions, I hesitate to do this and I do apologize but I would like to get conditions (i) and (j) added to the list. i. utility and drainage easements comply to accomodate all site improvements. j . Lake Susan Drive, the main street going through from Lyman all the way over to TH 101, be constructed 4 feet wider than standard residential sections to a width of a driving surface of 32 feet to better accomodate pedestrian uses, and that was the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Committee, to allow better flow of pedestrians throughout as they get down this major park which is sizeable. It will have ball fields and many other amenities. I will end it with that and answer any questions. Larry Frank: Representative from Meritor Development identified himself in case any of the public had questions for him. Bill Ryan: This has three parts with one public hearing. Rather than ask for public comment on each individual part, basically what they are asking for here is a Wetlands Alteration Permit to allow the subdivision. We need to modify the Land Use Plan to be consistent with the requested subdivision, but the question that we have is the preliminary and Final Development Plan for the subdivision itself. I would open it at this time to anyone in the audience who would like to address this question. Feel free to ask questions or make comments. Al Klingelhutz: I think the idea of the holding ponds below the bank in the Class B wetlands is a very good idea. I think it would protect e Lake Susan, it will retain the water back from the Lake and will Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Six e actually add more regeneration of the water into soil by doing that than directly letting it run into the Lake and I like that idea very much. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Noziska to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Michael Thompson: Barbara, this is a preliminary and final development plan all in one? I have not asked this question before and I've forgotten. Is this a typical situation? Dacy: Yes, our ordinance is confusing in that manner. development plan is synonimous with a preliminary plat the district, so in essence this is a preliminary plat however, it is called a development plan. A final as defined by approval Thompson: Okay, so it is a preliminary development plan, it is not the final plat approval? Dacy: As a final plat, no. The final plat is only reviewed by the Council. Thompson: Is there anybody here that objects to any of this development? I have on comments. e Howard Noziska: I go along with Al that we are doing a good job with the water. That is all I have to say. Ladd Conrad: Bill, by adding 4 feet to that street, what are we doing? We're letting people walk on the street to get to the park? Is that the idea or what is the intent? Monk: Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed it's policy regarding trails and started to look at maintenance costs and construction costs for acquiring trails behind the curbs and carne back basically with the poisition that major streets should be wided slightly to better accomodate pedestrian traffic on either side to walk, job, bike ride, and so on, but that was, at this point, the most economical way of providing for better pedestrian use on the streets. That is how they carne up with their recommendation for widening from a 28 foot street to a 32 foot street. The other option is to leave the street the way it is and put a trail behind the curb on one or both sides. They are not recommending that be done at this time. Conrad: That seems like that is going to be a major way for people to get over there are we are just forcing them into the street. I don't know if that is a lot of common sense. Bill, you are real comfortable that the disturbance to the wetlands is justified because it is going to basically rebuild and serve it's purpose. e e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 - Page Seven Monk: Yes, I bel i eve tha t every a t tempt has been made to stay well clear of the Class A and to protect that as much as possible and Lake Susan also and the watershed district is solely behind the theory of intermediate ponding as a means to settle and protect downstream waters. It is a good plan that I think will work. Conrad: Barbara, how do we get to Lots 1, 2 and 3. Dacy: There is a little flag on Lot 3. Lot 3 has a 55 foot flag abutting Lake Susan and circling north to the neighboring street and the dr i veway would be loca ted in tha t area and would be extended up through the 3 lots. Remember that to build on these 3 lots that is the last attachment in your packet, the driveway would go in this fashion. Larry Frank: I would like you to know that it is already priced out to have it done with all these utilities and the road so that it is all worked into the package. Conrad: My only two concerns on the project, which I said last time, were certainly far better and the best proposal we've seen. We're still below the average lot size of 15,000 square feet and I got the impression that City Council wanted to stick close to that. That is a concern. I see some particular lots that are 80 feet on the proposal, especially to the northeast, and Lake Susan could very easily be increased lot size wise but they are very long and very narrow and I don't know that we aren't doing justus to whatever that property is. Other than that, the lot size, I don't know, I think we've been, at least I have, been sticking to the 15,000 as an average unless I feel we are getting something in return and I think we are getting some open space in return but I don't know and I think the open space is probably, especially the wetlands, are probably not buildable, so I'm not sure in my mind that I want to go below the 15,000 on an average. The only other comment I have is the walkway coming from the high density. I think it is foolish to put people on the street when we have an option to put a sidewalk or any other source to get people over to the park. Bob Siegel: I guess Ladd touched on this. The only question I had was those three lake lots and the access to them. It seems to me that it is a marketing situation but you are actually halfing some of those lots are you, by putting the access to Lot 3 through Lots 1 and 2. Is that going to be a private road? Dacy: Yes it will be a private driveway. The subdivision ordinance allows up to three lots to be certified by private drive and as you can tell by the contour here. This area of Lot 1 and 2 is one of the Class B wetlands and this is going to be pond number 6 then the slope rises very quickly up to the knoll of the hill here and then goes down again very steeply, so the buildable areas are exactly where the Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Eight e applicant has shown it to be and to be able to install the driveway consistent with the grade, etc. Siegel: We're not faced with the situation of any more buildable lots on the other side of the private road towards the ponding area? Dacy: No, as a matter of face, Lots 1 and 2 do not have public street frontage and anything over three lots would not be permitted by ordinance. Steven Emmings: I don't have anything different from anyone else. I certainly concur with Ladd's comments about the street and forcing people into the street to get down to the entrance of the park seems to be incredibly foolish to me. Tim Erhart: Barb, what was the reservation of the trail easement on Lots 1 and 3? e Dacy: Originally, and take it is on the comp plan as well, that there was proposed historically a trail easement along the shoreline of Lake Susan but the City owns the strips of land along the north side of Lake Susan and the intent is to provide a trail easement along the west side. At Council consideration, the direction was to make these a riparian reserve along the easement and record it along the properties in this area just in case the City would like to pursue eventual use of that property. There are two points in the plat where, in Block 4 between Lots 23 and 24 of Block 4 where that would provide access to the open space on the west side from the street. Erhart: What is the width of the street that you show now? 28 feet? Dacy: Yes, 28 feet. Erhart: The width increase would be the street that runs through. How do you get to the park? What is the access? The park is not on the through street. Monk: The park access requires a wide enough strip on the east side of the park along the loop street they plan a 50 feet wide right-of- way so the City could put in a driveway and then put parking area in this vicinity, so this is the major access and this is the walkway access. The park actually has no street frontage except for that access point. Erhart: The intent of the bicycle path is to take people to the park? Monk: Basically the intent of the path is, I believe Lake Susan Drive, will contain a fair amount of traffic, all the internal traffic will have to go that way to get to Lyman and to TH 101, to make that a little bit wider so that the people walking along the street would e have room on the side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Nine e Erhart: The reason it is constructed on a through street is because there would be more traffic. What is the developer's comment regarding the additional 4 feet? The developer's response could not be heard on the tape. Erhart: I have a question, Ladd you said the lot size average was less than 15,000 square feet. Conrad: Tim it looks like the median is under, the average is 17,000 which is a little bit different and I feel a little bit more comfortable wi th the 17,000. I've been looking at that on here. Barbara, when we talk about 17,000, does that include the high density, does that pertain to that figure? Dacy: No. That is just the single family lot areas. Conrad: So when we work in the high density, what do we get. Dacy: The high density you are going to have, typically in an apartment development, it would be considered as one lot with six or seven buildings on it so the lot area is 6.5 acres. We just focused in on single family area only. e Conrad: Tim I'm comfortable with this 17,000. Ryan: The net is 2.25 density that would mean an average lot size of just under 14,000. I have a couple of comments along the same line, it was my night to attend when this came up at the Council on the path and moving it away from backyards and out into the streets with bicycles. Are you comfortable with this Bill as far as people, you are going to take one side of the street and in effect make it a no parking zone? Monk: You mean the wider street section? Ryan: Wherever you put a trailway, if you go down there and put a 4 foot wide striped off area and say that is where the walkway is, is that your intent? Monk: The Park Commission didn't get very specific in terms of striping or whatever. Whether there would be a stripe on either side, the details haven't been worked out. My point, I know that it's not good to move people necessarily to the street, but it's also on major item to think about all the issues involved with behind the curb, parkway system. Construction is a minor portion of the system. Maintenance of the system is a major one, and I'm not so sure that the City is prepared to commit to a major maintenance involved with that. In this type of proposal with the overflow, the other option would be assignable. On one side of the street basically from the multiple down to the park to allow the people to get off the street. I was not e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Ten e at the Park and Recreation meeting so I'm treading a little dangerously here because I'm telling things second hand. I'm not exactly sure of all the comments. It's been done in the city, it's what we have used before. A little bit wider street section. It does provide a little bit safer situation and whether it's striped on one side or both sides, it can be accomodated. Ryan: If the striped becomes a no parking zone and you run it right in front of a bunch of houses that are on 11,000 square foot lots where people, we get back to one of myoId bugaboos, I want to be sure that the driveways are large enough and every house has a two car garage so we don't have people parking in the street. We have a conflict between cars and pedestrians because we've just thrown all the pedestrians out in the street going in and around parked cars. Some of these are small lots with very narrow frontage lots. If you don't know whether you are going to stripe it, then I don't know why you asked for it. Monk: I don't remember that being an explicit part of the recommendation. Ryan: That's nice to say but when you buid it what are you going to do with it, just make the street 4 feet wider. The second question for you Bill is one on street names because I never really understood it, but some of these cul-de-sacs have eight lots and we give them completely separate street names. Is that consistent policy. e Monk: No, Staff will take a look at the street names as we move to final plat. As the final plat comes in we will be making sure that there are no repeat names and so on. We do have eight houses on a cul-de-sac, normally it is given a separate name. It is where you have a bubble situation or four, maybe five houses that you will continue the numbers around the cul-de-sac. As you get above four to five houses, you usually will have a separate name. Ryan: There are a lot of short little streets. Then the street list gets very, very long. Monk: Everyone likes cul-de-sacs. Ryan: Barbara, this is a repeat at an attempt to modify our policy to say that when we accept a PUD applicaton we expect to get something for it. This density is the same density as the subdeveloper. Are you satisfied that the city has gotten it's fair share out of this PUD? Dacy: I think a fair share is the creation of the 7 acre park site. It is proposed as an active site. The area is park deficient. We are going to be experiencing significant development in the Lake Susan area south of Lake Susan and north of Lyman Blvd. I think that is a e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-page Eleven e trade off in this proposed plan. Creation of an active, useable space which has been the concern of the commission in the past. Ryan: Is it a regional park or just for the development? Dacy: It would be a neighborhood park for the immediate area. Ryan: Ball diamonds? There would be ball diamonds. Not one that we would allow the recreation department to bring other teams into. I'm concerned about where you bring a softball league onto a field. You've got two teams playing, two teams coming and two teams going, you have six teams potentially in that area in one time which adds up to about 60 cars. Dacy: The Park and Recreation commission would have to approve a park development plan for that area and they look at that based on the number of ball field, etc. Ryan: Again, if you have any parking requirement at all, we have parking on the street and we don't want cars parking on the street. You're comfortable, the PUD, you think the city has a fair shake? Dacy: Yes. e Erhart: I have one more question. If there is a potential parking in the park, why is the car access to the park on the side street? Monk: Again, it is important to make a distinction here that if the city does consider this a neighborhood park. One of the reasons for that is that it is surrounded by collectors and potentially 212 and a lot of other streets. It will be difficult to move people across pedestrian and also you don't want to draw behavioral traffic into the area. The creation of one ball field and just a lot of active area, basically what you get with one ball field is that you don't do any scheduling because with one it is extremely difficult to use one field and schedule anything on it and you really need two to use it in any type of league play or so on. As a neighborhood park, we didn't see any drawbacks to having the access on what might be considered one of the side streets instead of the active streets. That might even be a benefit because only people in the area would be familiar with the park. So I guess the only answer I can give you is that this is planned as a neighborhood park and we're going to promote use just by this neighborhood because of the street layouts and the problem of getting down to this site. with this in mind I guess it is fair to not see it as making a major difference which side you carne in on. Emmings: The pond that is located in the corner of the park. How much water is in that pond? How deep is it? Monk: The pond will retain water, I assume to an elevation of 3 or 4 e feet because if it is any more than that it turns into a swampy area Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twelve e instead of an amenity to the site. One of the things that we look at with the park if we experience problems with it, it may have to be fenced along the park side. Emmings: I was just wondering because it looks like it would be an awfully attractive thing to kids. Monk: It will. The slope coming up from the pond will be general so you can't fall over the edge and go tumbling into the water. A fence will be looked at. We are conscience of water. It is the same as the park on Lake Susan or any other. You are always conscience of the water. Ryan: One more comment. I am a firm believer in bonding for these protective wetlands but as a form of blight, our wetlands ordinance did in fact say that the bonding was to be done on the developable land. e Monk: Yes, if you look at the letter of the ordinance that you call right-of-way with that interruptation. The interruptation that I'm taking is that right now the Class B wetlands function as nothing more than a pull across and will we continue to get that pull across even after the ponds are created so in essense we are doing nothing more than maximizing the use of the Class B in the overall drainage system and trying to be reasonable in the terms of what land is left to be developed and what is not. We did still require some of upland ponds. One is near the park and so on, but I guess it becomes a reinterruptation of the ordinance. Ryan: Interpretation of the ordinance begins to set precedence. Motion by Siegel, seconded by Erhart to recommend approval of preliminary and Final Development Plan Request #85-6 for 180 single family lots and 52 multiple family units based on the plat stamped "Received May 7, 1986" and the grading and planting plan stamped "Received May 20, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: a. Detailed landscaping plans shall be included in the plans and specifications for lots abutting T.H. 101 and T.H. 212 during final plat review process. b. Reservation of a trail easement in Lots 1-3, Block 4 and a trail easement between Lots 23-24, Block 4. c. Satisfactory completion of the EAW process in compliance with Environmental Quality Board rules including compliance with recomended conditions of reviewal agencies. d. Lot areas in Block 4 shall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-page Thirteen e e. Detailed grading and erosion control plans shall be submitted in conjunction with the development of Lots 1-3, Block 4 including certification of plans by a registered architect/engineer. f. All utility and street improvements shall conform with City standards for urban construction. g. Final plat approval shall be withheld until approval of trunk water extension that will service the development. h. Approval of the final drainage plan by the City, Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all applicable conditions. i. utility and drainage easements comply to accomodate all site improvements. j. Lake Susan Drive, the main street going through from Lyman Blvd. all the way over to TH 101, be constructed 4 feet wider than standard residential sections to a width of a driving surface of 32 feet to better accomodate pedestrian uses. e All voted in favor except for Ladd Conrad who opposed the motion, and the motion carried. Conrad: I am still concerned with the 32 foot wide street. I would like to see a more appropriate way to shuttle people over from the high density neighborhood. Public: Does the City have a policy related to either accessability or required hookup for existing landowners in the area as it relates to the water that is going to be provided to the proposed development. Is there an established policy? Monk: I'm not sure exactly where you live. The water main is proposed to come down County Road 17 into the west portion of the site. At this time we are looking at stopping the water main and ending it basically at TH 101. It would come down around and I have no plans to move it back up, I'm not sure if you live further up north or not. As far as the policy goes, if your property is benefited by the extension of water in front of it, you are liable for assessments, but as far as connection goes, the City does not require connection to the water after it runs by. Public: I guess my concern is in certain areas of this type of mish- mash there are always there is a dome access directly on TH 101. What provisions for accessability if in fact, in the future the water is there and we can't get to it? e e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fourteen Monk: In any situation the only thing the City can do is try to provide easements through the property as it develops to get to any and all property abutting where any improvements are going. Beyond that the City would have to enter into a potential condemnation which is usually not done that way. We would provide as much availability of utility services as possible. There is no formal policy that I know of. Jim Curry: Bill, where and when do I negotiate the park fee. Is that with the Park Board between the Council's looking at this and final platting or I'm just curious. Ryan: Jim, I have absolutely no idea. Dacy: Normally what is done is through the development contract process before final plat is considered, negotiations betwee the City and developer would occur. Councilman Geving: I think I can answer your question. We will decide that the night that we finalize your plat at City Council. Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, I have another ~equest. This came up at the last council meeting. It is virtually impossible for people in the back of the room to hear anything that is going on up there. We can't hear Barbara or Bill at all. I wonder if we could request that the microphones be placed on the Staff table. Motion was made by Siegel, seconded by Noziska, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment Request #86-1 to redesignate 20 acres of Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, to redesignate 6.5 acres of Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, and to redesignate 7.8 acres of Low Density Residential to Parks/Open Spaces subject to Metropolitan Council approval. All voted in favor and the motion carred. Motion was made by Siegel, seconded by Noziska that the Planning Commission recommend approval Wetlands Alteration Permit Request #86-1 for lateration of wetlands for drainage purposes subject to final drainage plan approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. All voted in favor except Bill Ryan who opposed. Motion carried. Ryan: I don't like to set precedence putting the ponds on the wetlands so I voted against that one. The Council will meet on this item on June 16, 1986. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifteen e PUBLIC HEARING Enterprise Properties - Chanhasen vista. a. Preliminary and Final Development plan to subdivide 69 acres into 129 single family lots on property zoned P-1, Planned Residential Development and R-la, Agricultural Residence. b. Wetland Alteration Permit to alter an existing wetland for road construction and single family home sites on property zoned P-1, Planned Residential Development and R-1a, Agricultural Residence. PUBLIC PRESENT e Lee Thorson Jay Johnson John Thorson Pam Guttman C. Kubik Thomas S. Henderson Joyce Henderson Helen L. Loebel Dillion Loebel Ali Brock Bill Boyt Kathy Friedlander Rick Friedlander Tom Frebiger Sandi Frebiger Donald King Dianne Needham Helen Kerber Barbara Miller 7320 Longview Circle 7496 Saratoga Drive 7320 Longview Circle 7202 Kiowa Circle 7492 Saratoga Drive 7488 Saratoga Drive 7488 Saratoga Drive 7197 Frontier Trail 7197 Frontier Trail 7203 Frontier Trail 7204 Kiowa Circle 7301 Frontier Trail 7301 Frontier Trail 7494 Saratoga Drive 7494 Saratoga Drive 7200 Kiowa Circle 7415 Frontier Trail 700 Santa Vera Drive 610 Carver Beach Road Dacy: The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan of this application at their April 9, 1986 meeting. At that time 124 single family lots were proposed. Also at that time the Type 3, Class A wetlands on the easterly part of the site was proposed to be retained and street be developed around it. The City Council reviewed the sketch plan on April 21, 1986. The council took comments at that meeting from the developer and the surrounding property owners and tabled action on the item until a list of concerns were developed by Staff. The Council considered the sketch plan again at their May 5, 1986 meeting and recommended that lot sizes and lot widths be increased and also meet certain criteria listed in the Staff Memorandum dated April 29, 1986 regarding drainage and erosion control, grading, lot design, the park issue and the street connection e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixteen e issue. The plan that you have before you differs from the sketch plan in six ways. 1. The Frontier Trail connection to Kerber Blvd. is now proposed to "T" into a new street proposed to be named Big Horn Drive. This is similar to the design that was originally considered by the City several years ago regarding the development of this property. 2. The number of lots in the northerly portion of the site on the north side of the pond, has increased from 91 to 95 single family lots. Again with the proposal of the street through the Type 3 wetland and the number of lots in the southern part of this site has decreased from 35 to 34 single fami ly lots. 3. The stormwater management plan and drainage plan has been revised to direct the runoff from the north side of the property into the drainage course that traverses along the north boundary of the plat and eventually into the pond that was established at the rear of the Chaparral 4th Addition. The City Engineer will review this revised plan later on in the presentation. e 4. Outlot B, the proposed park area, the dimensions have been increased to approximately the 952 contour on the northern side and have been pulled back in the southwestern portion of the site to allow for the creation of the sedimentation basin in this area. 5. The minimum lot size has increased from 11,700 to 12,000 square feet, and this is in both sides of the proposed development. The minimum lot size throughout is 12,000 square feet. The average lot size is 15,686 square feet and the median lot size has increased from 13,850 to 14,000 square feet. 6. Approximately 101 of the lots are 80 feet in width and larger. The remaining number of lots are located around the cul-de-sacs. However, all of the lots are 80 feet at the building set back line. I would like to review the density of both portions of the development. The gross density over all the entire property is 1.84, the net density is 2.77 overall. For just the southern part of the site, the net density is 2.4 and the average lot size is 17,847 square feet. On the north side, the net density is 2.92 with an average of 14,902. e Street Pattern. Outside of the change to the Frontier Trail connection that I mentioned earlier on your revision through the tit - e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventeen wetland area, the plat is still proposing a Santa Vera and Frontier Trail to Big Horn Drive connection. Staff maintains it's previous recommendation that these connections be made for street continuity and public safety concerns. There were grading and drainage concerns identified during sketch plan review process. I will start with the north side of the property along the drainage course and the steep slopes there. As you may recall, the Frontier Trail connection went through this area, proposed to intersect Kerber Blvd. south of the existing cut that is out there on this site now and there was a cul- de-sac proposed into this area along the steep slope. Now what is being proposed is to use that existing connection to Big Horn Drive down to the east. While the street pattern allows for buildable area not infringing on this steep slope in this area, we still remain concerned about Lots 1 and 2 in the corner of the plat. What we are recommending on the proposed lot pattern for Lots 1 and 2 is that the creekbed would be realigned in a more easterly, east-west fashion instead of having bend to the south. That is a recommended condition of approval. If not, then these two lots should be combined. Also during sketch plan review there was concern regarding the slopes in this area. However, now that the street has been realigned and a lot configuration created that was different, those concerns in here are not raised. The third area was the area along the Santa Vera, Lots 11 through 15 of Block 4. Staff maintains that this area is over crowded and that at least one lot should be eliminated. The applicant did realign Santa Vera further to the south however, to increase or maximize the buildable area between the street and the steep slope in this area, Santa Vera can still be moved further to the south without adversely affecting Lots 1 and 2. Also, as detailed, plans and specifications are being prepared to double frontage lots should be shown as to what types of protection for berming and vegetative screening that should be addressed. Parks and Open Space. Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a certain area around the front be acquired by the City. Basically what their recommendation was, for the City to acquire all of this area that is colored red, green and blue. In order for the City to carry out an acquisition process, an appraiser has to be consulted as a standard procedure. Staff did consult with the City Attorney and an appraiser and their findings were that acquisition costs would have to include estimation for damages for any lots to enlarge dedication. An alternative to acquiring all of this area as shown in red and green would be to acquire the area shown in green, basically to the body of the slope, and then obtain an easement that is shown in red which would prohibit grading and building activities. The plan does propose pedestrian corridors from Cascade Trail to the school property and down to the proposed easement area at the existing check dam. Also we are recommending that two lots, 6 and 7, a pedestrian trail be installed in this area to provide access to the easement on the north side. Originally there was a recommendation that Frontier Trail have an enlarged pavement width of 32 feet, that is being maintained and being recommended at Santa Vera, Big Horn Drive and Frontier Trail e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Eighteen contain standard pavement width for pedestrian pusposes. The applicant has submitted a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The one that was previously submitted on March 20, 1986 and went through the full 30 day comment and review period. The comments that we received from the EAW was included in your packet. The most recent EAW has been submitted, as a matter of fact, at the same time that the previous subdivision was considered. The EAW listed the following issues: traffic, construction impacts and stormwater runoff. As far as the traffic issue, the applicant has submitted a traffic analysis which states that because of the new development, traffic in the area through the development and adjoining neighborhoods will increase. However, the traffic report identified that the increase traffic counts in the adjoining two neighborhoods would be primarily due to change traffic patterns because of the extensions of Frontier Trail and Santa Vera. Construction impacts, the mitigative measures that have been identified by the applicant includes sprinkling of water for dust control, maintaining and muffling of construction equipment in good operating order. Finally, the stormwater runnoff issue. The revised drainage plan is one of the major concerns and this leads right into the wetland alteration permit request. As I eluded to earlier, what is being done is the Type 3, Class A wetland in this location is being filled in for proposed street and additional buiding sites. As you know the ordinance is intended to protect and enhance the quality of wetlands as well as reducing the needs for pipes and sewer lines. In past applications, for example, the Piper Ridge subdivision on the north side of Lake Minnewashta, the plat was amended so that the street and lot areas were realigned out of the wetland area to mitigate the impact on the wetland. However, what has to be pointed out is that the revised drainage plan can meet engineering standards but because of the proposed ponding area, the Chaparral 4th Addition and the proposed drainage, and I will leave the details to the City Engineer, however what I am trying to say is the condition that the Council has to decide is whether or not what is being proposed meets the intent of the wetland ordinance. The wetland will be filled in. It was very hard for us to judge the impacts on to the wildlife and ecological quality of that particular area. At this point I would like the City Engineer to make his presentation. Bill Monk: I will be brief. We have been through this before, I think everybody is very familiar with what I am going to do. As far as the drainage goes, there has been a lot of talk at sketch plan at both City Council and Planning Commission level, the plan is being amended quite a bit starting south of the ponding area. Basically the plan is committed to creation of a ponding area, a portion of which will be off site and undoubtedly will include the City as far as acquisition of property to allow the pond to be created to its full potential. Basically what is being done the storm sewer plan has been amended so that there is no longer a direct access into or discharge into the pond area but instead the water is being brought back into two locations brought over to this ponding area which will allow e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Nineteen sediment treatment before it discharges into the existing pond. In addition, there has been quite a bit of comment, and rightly so, about drainage. The situation in the Saratoga addition as it abuts the lots in Block 3. The developer is proposing that a swell be created along the backside of these lots in addition to an extension of the storm sewer system which will eleaveate the problems here. Some of the water still runs to Santa Vera but it's approximately one and half lots or the back portion of one and a half lots. The rest of the lots will be a new low area and with the berming should stop any water from having a detrimental affect on these houses that presently exist. On the north drainage area, again, there have been significant revisions. Basically what has been worked out on this site is that direct runoff to the existing pond is extremely limited and basically includes front yard and street areas across the portion of Block 10 and portions of Block 5, it would come down into these two catch basins and be discharged. Back lot areas has been changed to this area and some catch basins have been moved in an attempt to allow the backyards in here to free flow across the backyard areas and be caught up in two open pipes to allow some sedimentation of the water before it is picked up from this drainage area and discharged into this system or discharged down to the south. The most predible change from the sketch plan which did include preservation of this existing little bit smaller than 1 acre, creating a cul-de-sac in here with some lots around it which did allow preservation of this wetland. What has been done in here now is that the wetlands is basically being filled in. Discharge between existing lots on Kiowa Circle is going south with the creation of a berm and the runoff from this area is all being rerouted over to the pond to be created in joint effort between the developers of Chaparral 4th Addition and this subdivision that is being acquired along this creek alignment in this area right here, so we get filtration and sedimentation coming from the creek and also in this low area. All water will be treated before it gets to Lotus Lake and before it gets to this pond except for this area which basically would be direct runoff to these basins and out of there, it does represent a net decrease in the direct discharge from this site into the pond. As Barbara had noted, filling of this wetlands is contrary to the details of the wetland ordinance. The trade-offs associated with this proposal are that the wetland as it presently exists, does have a limited drainage area and that draingae area can be accomodated within this newly created basin which will function as a pond one step short of a wetland basin because of the way it exists now there is a low, marshy area. Any correction of the discharge problem that presently exists with tile. Again the City in the past has gone out of its way in efforts to protect wetlands as Barbara noted, Piper Ridge being the most notable example of that, where the road and lots were realigned to protect any Class B wetlands as a buffer between existing houses and a new development. However, this will work from an engineering viewpoint as far as handling water, and I believe quality and quantity control, but this proposal is basically contrary to the wetlands ordinance in doing away with this pond you are doing away with the asthetic and environmental benefits that are being e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty derived at present. Both streets, Barbara has noted I think the Planning Commission went it over in a fair amount of detail, Staff continues to support both streets being extended through. This proposal does put another kink in what people have referred to as the Frontier Trail extension, which I can't believe would do anything but help slow traffic down and help with the overall traffic movement. Also, as was noted earlier, we do expect the increases in traffic on Frontier Trail to come about mainly from a reorientation of traffic in the existing neighborhoods who will come out this way and basically try and get to Kerber Drive as they would head to Excelsior or points north or west. The parks, Barbara did note it, at the meeting with Lori Seitzman and getting a handle on the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation on this area. It should be noted that the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that City review and take a hard look at acquiring all of the property noted in here in green and red which represents not only the active walkway area shown in green, but also the steep slope area shown in red. We did not get an appraisal, time was short and I did not get one but I did have a meeting with the City Attorney and a certified appraiser who we have worked with in the past, we sat down, we did go through this and there is no question that in his appraisal of the value of the sloped area shown in red, that if any lots were basically made unbuildable and the plan needed to be revised to offset that loss in lot area, any reduction in lots on the new layout would be considered and a valuation of the slope areas. Staff continues to believe that it would be more economical to work out a strick easement agreement on the area shown in red that would restrict activities within that area. The other option would be more expensive than the benefits derived. Dacy: Do you want to mention that the Park and Recreation Department wants to use their own money to acquire that area. Monk: I guess I assumed that would go without saying that any property acquired, be it sloped or the active areas proposed to be plotted as a part of the plot, I do not believe there is any compensation at this point involved that the City has not talked with the developer about, any compensation for the area shown in green. The Park Commission, if the sloped areas were acquired, I just assumed but perhaps it should be stated, that if those slope areas were acquired, that would either have to be through negotiation and induction of park charges or through simple payment to the developer which would come through the Park and Recreation Department and funds for park development. with that, I know there are a lot of questions and I will attempt to answer questions as they come, I know there is a lot of public here who would like to speak. Ryan: Before the developer makes his presentation, Barbara I would like you to make your response to our very general condition, again this is a PUD, what is your position as the Staff, what does Staff say as far as this PUD. Is the City getting its fair share out of the PUD request? Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty One e Dacy: What is being proposed similar to the last application that we just reviewed is the creation of a park area to be acquired by the City with active trail areas in and around the pond. That is part of the proposal. The other aspect of the development is that it is attempting to preserve the slopes along the north side, however, the issue that remains is whether or not the wetland on the east side of the property should be maintained or if it should be filled. Ryan: The dens i ty tha t you s ta ted in the summary is net dens i ty of 2.77 units per acre which equates to just over 15,000 square foot average. That is based on how much bare land being given up as park space? Dacy: The net density does not include any park space. e Ryan: I understand that. In order to get to that density which equates to 15,000 square feet which is very close to the "standard" of the subdivision, if we wanted to set a standard for the subdivision rather than saying 15,000 square foot lots, it would be a net density of 2.88. That is 15,000 square foot lots. In order to get to that you have to assume that out of the gross acreage there is some land being dedicated to park and there is some land that is going to streets. What the city is getting in return is that land dedicated to park. What Bill is saying is that there are certain parts that the Park and Recreation Department that we have to buy, that doesn't sound like it was given to us. What are they giving us in return for the PUD? How much land are they giving us for parks. Dacy: The acreage of Outlot "D" is approximately 10.1 acres. As far as the useable portion, I can only say that the trail areas in and around the pond is what would be able to be used by the community. Ryan: The Ci ty does not now own any acreage in and around the pond? Dacy: On the east side. That is part of the City. Ryan: Nothing in green is owned by the City now. Monk: Not right now, no. We basically have had a park. This was platted for the City as part of the Saratoga addition. You see that the edge of the plat comes to this. The city does own from that line to an extension of the lot over to this vicinity which is over here, so the City does have this and the developer is showing his lot lines coming down to the area shown in green. The 10 acres that Barbara was eluding to would basically be from the edges of the plot to the edges of his building lots which would incorporate the ponding areas and the areas shown. So the City has had a park down in this vicinity right now. e Ryan: So in summary, in return for giving them a density equal to subdivision standards, net density, subdivision standard lot sizes, we e e e Planning Commissin Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Two are getting 10 acres of park, and the question is whether we want to take and have to maintain for ever 10 acres of park as our fair exchange with the maintenance requirements that go along with that. Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Greg Frank, Applicant: I have additional drawings of the different renderings that you have in your packages, some of you might refer to them if you want to bring them out. I will try to make my comments quick. My name is Greg Frank, I with McCombs Knutson Associates, we are the engineers and planners representing Enterprise Properties. Mr. David Seigel of Enterprise Properties is here also. To touch on some of the comments again. The plan is 70 acres of which 10 acres or a little over 10% is being proposed to be dedicated for park purposes. The design, as Staff mentioned, all of the lots would be at least 80 feet in width at the setback line. In the case of the single family lots against existing development in the northern portion of the project, all of the lots are in excess of 15,000 square feet and also 90 feet in width. In the case of the seven lots in this area, all of the lots are larger than the existing single family development to the east. One of the major concerns expressed many times, and obviously expressed again here tonight, was drainage. I would like to say that the drainage problems that do exist in the adjoining neighborhoods exist today without development. The proposal is a mitigation of existing problems. There is concern about the flooding in this area where basically we are collecting the water before it gets there, stopping it from getting to these homes and collecting it and running it in different directions. This wetland here, one of the mitigation measures that we have proposed, is that in filling that pond, is that pond does present a drainage problem to the properties east at the present time as expressed by the homeowners at Planning Commission and Council meetings in the past. We are going to mitigate that by providing the berming and filling in, collecting storm sewers before it gets to those properties, and then carrying it to the north proposed upon the constructed in conjunction with the Chaparral 4th Addition project. Again, the drainage areas then that do drain into the existing neighborhoods will be substantially reduced in size as well as the water being collected before it gets out to the property, and again that will benefit the adjoining property owners as well as the City. We realize that we have to work with the homeowners in solving these problems. Another point is the area along the north. The City Staff mentioned again, the problems with Lots 1 and 2 being combined. Again, the design for this creek is still in the design phase by the property owners to the north. It probably will be decided in conjunction with out project and joint venture. Right now it appears that that creek may be redesigned in the form of a culvert or a pipe instead of an open ditch. That is a review that still has to go through the watershed and the City. If, in fact, the watershed should direct that developer and this developer both jointly, to construct storm sewer pipe, then Lots 1 and 2 would probably be built and those lots would be two lots. If, in fact, the creek should e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Three remain as it is today in its natural force, then those two lots would be combined to form one lot and we would go along with recommendation from Staff. Staff had a comment about the lots along here, making this one lot. Our intention would be to comply with their recomendation eliminating one of the lots in this area also. Basically when we report to the Planning Commission and Council, the Council suggested that one of the lots should go off of here. The last time we felt at that point that a shift to the north would give us more area in this area so we would lose the lot here and pick up with the additional area the savings we got here. Staff still feels that we have problems with the design and we are certainly willing to deal with that and we would propose that one of those lots be taken out. The project, just from a development framework, timing, I want to touch on that, approximate development is the three phases. phase 1 would be the southern area. phase 2 would be basically this area here, and phase 3 would be here. Our intention again, would be to go to phase 1 with site grading and utility construction yet this summer. phase 2, perhaps some site grading, if sales were good, yet this year, more than likely phase 2 would be spring of 1987 construction season and phase 3 would be a late 1987 or 1988 construction season. We are here tonight again, asking for your approval. We would like to proceed, obviously as quickly as possible. I think the meeting with the residents over the months and also with the Planning Commission and Council, if there are concerns we certainly would like to move with the southern half of the project where we think the problems of the design and concerns are minimized now and the direction is rather straight forward. There hasn't been any major changes in design in that area other than drainage consideration since the first day that we had an opportunity to meet with the City Staff, Council and Planning Commission and homeowners. The other point that we would just like to touch on briefly, is the traffic concern. Again, the developer with respect to the access from the existing Kiowa Avenue to Kerber Drive is willing to agree with whatever the recommendations are of the Planning Commission, Staff and Council, and whatever is recommended by these parties. Again, there is no, if that access, I know it is a concern of homeowners again, if that access site should be eliminated, we would be willing to accomodate that design change. The park area that we have discussed again. We would repeat dividing the park land as an indication in basically two phases. The first phase would be with phase 1 of the project and this area would be dedicated with the first plat. The remainder of the park dedication would be done with the second plat as is being proposed. With that, if there are any comments or questions, I will be happy to address those. Thank you. At this point discussion was opened up to the public. Rick Freidlander: I live in the Sunrise area in Chanhassen and I represent to some extent a group in our neighborhood that has gather to work with the developer in working out the best possible solution for his needs, our needs, and so on. We have collected about 90 e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Four signatures that back a position that talks about the quality of the neighborhood, traffic flow and so on. We have come to three meetings now before the Board and City and first I would like to ask you not only listen, but hear us. We have a distinct frustration in our meetings so far that you are not listening to what we're saying, so please do. Neighbors, some of the people will talk and I will ask you don't venture rath even though I know you would like to based on what we see here, but express the concerns that we do have. Welve got concerns, the developer has concerns. He needs to turn a profit on this and we respect that. Developers, you have come so far, you cooperated, searched for solutions and you had come so close. In this last plan, is really a step in the wrong direction. You hit some minor concerns but the overall flavor and approach is back to the wrong direction. You are stepping away. You are turning away from the intent of the Board as we understand it, the intent of the Council as we understand it and frankly away from a lot of the good will that we have been generating between each other for the past few months. It feels like we are back to square one. You know better than this I believe and I think you know how to work with civic groups and I don't think you are doing it. I know that you want to get started by September and I think we need to see a realistic plan rather than back to ground zero. There are things in here that are throwbacks to 3 to 4 years ago approval that just aren't even in play. I know you can do it and that is why you deserve the big profits you are going to get from this. This plan does not show the respect this land is due. The wildlife or we, the neighborhood. You will hear from others on several of these other issues. I would like to just touch on the traffic issue. We are adults, we pay taxes in the City, we make our own decisions, we control our own destiny, yet we keep hearing from planners, from people who are trying to take control of our lives and tell us that you need this for your safety. You need to have a road go through here for your safety. We've decided, and we have 90 signatures saying this, that we believe you are wrong, whoever you are, and we don't want to see it go through. If you insist on planning to put a road through, we insist that stipuations be made that this be done so as to bring the street to some sort of safe standard that we don't even see now. Thank you very much. Sue Boyt: I live on Kiowa. At the Park and Rec meetings, I thought they told me that land dedication didn't include water in acreage and they included water in the 10 acres. Have I been told wrong? Dacy: I believe it is a public water, the land is not included in the amount of the total acreage. I do not know what the acreage of the pond is? Monk: 5 acres. Sue Boyt: So they don't usually talk about water when they are talking about dedication? e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Five Dacy: If it is designated as a public water by the DNR, and I believe this is. The total area of the outlot is 10 acres and if the pond area is 5 acres, then they would only be dedicating 5 acres of land. Sue Boyt: So when they give numbers for land they should include land and not water to the Park and Rec Commission. Dacy: Correct, and the acquisition cost would have to be based on the land to be acquired. Bill Boyt: One of the things that has occurred to me when I have been to other planning meetings, there aren't alternate plans. So I thought, and the developer mentioned, we met with the developer several times, those of us you have children have made a considerable investment in trying to do something to enhance the value of the property out there and bui ld Chanhassen the way we want to see it develop. I would like to show you an alternative. This isn't drawn up by an eng i neer and as you will note it shows up the the TV screen, I know it is light so it might not, it is something I just sketched together with some of the kids markers. Now, one of the things that this does is it gives the park people all of the land that they are asking for so I took that out and this is over here. Then what I did was I took all the lots that they have adjoining the pond, which I will agree are some of their most valuable lots, and I just moved them over which turns out to be a half inch on their scale, or about 50 feet. Then I took all of the lots on the creek, which they will also agree are the most val uable lots, and move them onto the thing, so I have all of those lots, I knocked out two. I don't have any lots that under 15,000 square feet and one of the things that we asked for as residents of this area was they there not be any lots under 15,000 square feet which is a very different figure than an average lot size. If you will notice on the original proposal, there are lots in there with 50,000 square feet of which maybe 8-10,000 are building and the rest of them are down an fairly steep slope and when you figure that into your average, it certainly throws it off, so we don't have any of those here. I think I get something like 66 lots. Well, I'm reasonable, I'll negotiate from that. I think maybe we could probably up that. Maybe quite a little bit. But you get to 91 lots. I don't think so. Now I want to show you what I compared it with. Maybe this isn't a very clear picture either. You will see Sunrise Hills in one form or another written allover this and I unfortunately have only one copy but I will pass it over and you can look it over later. I think you will notice that there aren't any lots in there under 15,000 square feet. Now I didn't figure out all sizes but I figured out pretty much some examples of them. If this developed over a number a years and they didn't put any lots in there under 15,000 square feet, I think it is reasonable that those those of us who moved into the area would assume that future development would follow along the same lines as existing developments. This is quite a bit different from some of the other projects you will get where there aren't neighbors around them and if they want to come in and develop them that is a e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Six different matter, here they are adjoining established neighborhoods. As the developer said, they came in to the other end of the development and they now have lots that are bigger than the existing lots. I can assure you that they haven't done that to our end. If you look on the plan that the develper provided to the lots directly touching the property, you will see that there, there are no lots under 213,131313 square feet and I would expect that we would at least have a buffer zone of 2 or 3 lots deep that would be comparable size. I think it is reasonable that when I moved into a lot that happens to abut upon an empty lot, that I can assume that when that empty lot is developed it will be developed with lots comparable to what are already next to me and that is really what I am asking you to do is, we've tried to communicate to the developer that we want good size lots. We started, seems like in January. We started a long time ago send i ng tha t message. Wha t you see in fron t of you is more lots than the developer had in last plan. Jay Johnson: I am representing the neighbors on the Saratoga Addition side of the project here. The developer has asked for our input but we aren't exactly sure if he has listened to what we've said. He has gone through and looked at some of things that we've said on specific drainage and storm water on our side of the area. There are a few problems. Minor little things. Putting the drainage catch basin not at the lowest part of the land, things like this. We can work these things out. There has been some indication that Santa Vera is going to be increased in size. Is the existing Santa Vera 32 feet wide or are we going to go from a 28 foot wide street and expand it 4 feet all of a sudden. I'm sure of the need for that at this point. This is something that is new to us. We didn't hear about that until this meeting. We definitely want Santa Vera to go through. There was some indication, some of the notes from the city that the Saratoga people were against Santa Vera going through. We want to deny that. We want Santa Vera to go through. My church is in Excelsior. That cuts I 1/2 miles off my trip to Excelsior. plus that is going to reduce the amount of traffic going by the grade school where our kids go to school. We would rather see them going down Santa Vera Street than down Loretta and pass the grade school. We are very much in favor of Santa Vera going through and could care less about Frontier Trail because you don't live there. We support the people on Frontier Trail to the extent that it is their area to talk about and not ours. One issue that we talked about was neighborhood disruption during construction in our original petition that we brought in to you and the City Council. I have not seen anything so far to satisfy us on this. We ask that the construction traffic during development come in from Kerber Blvd.. We have not seen that as a condition of this development. We asked that Santa Vera Street be blocked off. The developer says he would do that but words are one thing. I want to see something in writing. I want to see conditions to the plat and stuff that says that we aren't going to have parking on Santa Vera Street from the construction workers as they go to their earth movers parked in that area. We suggest that they put a parking area for the e e . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Seven workers and the earth movers over by Santa Vera and Kerber Dri ve. We would like to see that in writing sometime instead of verbage, and we haven't even heard the verbage except from ourselves so far on these points. As Lynn said that lot size issue is not an issue with the Saratoga group. We must admit that the lots adjacent to us are pretty much the same as ours. When I averaged our lot sizes we averaged 14,400 for the lots abutting the project and I took their lots and the average is 14,000. That is pretty much the same. They have pretty much the same width as us. The smallest width lot on our entire subdivision is 80 foot wide and the ones abutting us, the sma 11 est i s 90 f 00 t w i de . Wh i 1 e I'm tal kin g lot s i z e he reI w 0 u 1 d like to show you a few things here. We are still concerned, many of the people. Everyone I've talked to is concerned about lot size and the general design of the lots. A 12,000 square foot lot isn't too bad until you make it 60 foot wide at the front and 150 foot deep. What you end up with is a garage with a house behind it and if you go down TH 101 there is a street I believe is called C1earview up in Minnetonka, you look left as you are heading north down that street and all you see is garages. One after another, garages. We first want to show you an example. We had his plan reduced here and my wife took some colors and did some marking on it. As I read the ordinances, the lot width in the ordinance is a minimum of 90 feet and as a PRD we can relax that ordinance is we want. What I have gone through here is some fancy color coating. The green, like a traffic light, is lots that are between 80 and 90 feet wide. The yellow are lots, that at their 25 foot setback that they are requesting for every lot here, is between 70 and 80 feet wide, even though the developer says there aren't any lots under 80. The ones here in yellow are between 70 and 80 at the setback and the ones in red are less than 70, down to the lowest one is about 60. Then you will see some fancy striped ones here and there. Those are corner lots that have some real problems because of their narrowness. Once you put the corner lots and you have a 25 foot setback on two sides of it and the lot itself is only 80 feet to start with, you end up with a buildable area of a total of 50 feet in some cases. My house could not sit on that lot, I have a 55 foot wide house and City ordinance also calls that every home in the longest dimension of the house has to be facing the street so this means that the biggest dimension of the house to go on these lots is 50 feet. What I am saying is that we have a considerable number of lots that are being requested to be under our 90 foot minimum lot width and I'm not exactly sure what we are getting for that. Mr. Johnson then put up another map. This drawing shows the lot areas. The red lots are between 12,000 and 13,000 square feet. The yellow area then are 13,000 to 14,000 and 14,000 is the median. Exactly 14,000. Actually the median comes as the first lot about 13,000. Then the green ones are the 14,000 to 15,000. We have a consierab1e number here. The 12,000 to 13,000 square foot range is the mode, as we engineers call the crazy stuff e . e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Eight here when you get into statistics. The mode here, there are 45-12,000 to 13,000 square foot lots. It is the most numerous. Then you drop to 19-13,000 then the 15,000' s are smaller. A great curve the statistians would love it when they see the curve. It drops off to almost nothing. 2 at 30,000 we finally end up with. The lot sizes are a concern. We are concerned that Chanhassen is developing a lot of small lots and not developing many larger lots. Eventually I want tom 0 ve 0 u t 0 f my h 0 use i n to a 1 a r g e rho use on a 1 a r g e rho use and I would like to do that in Chanhassen and it is getting to be quite limited. The last time I was up here, there were alot of small lots also, Chaparral. Chaparral, which the developer has compared himself to quite a bit, the development coming in on this side, they have some small lots in there, down to 11,700 but they are also designed primarily being wide lots that are not as deep which is the opposite of what we have here. Narrow lots that are deep. Now the last issue that was on our petition and we still have concerns on is our park. Our pond, and when I say "our", I'm not talking just our neighborhood, I'm talking our city as a citizen of Chanhassen. There has been a lot of talk about how worthless this thing is. How little bit of wildlife and stuff there is. I don't know how many of are familar with the pond. I will pass around two panoramas that I taped together. Also a little wildlife photography that I did out there. The biologist says there is no wildlife there. I went out one Sunday afternoon for half an hour and one evening for about half hour and shot the various pictures there. You can see from the panorama in the pictures, we have a very pretty little area. As you look at the panorama, you can see where the ridge line is and that is what the Park and Rec Board is asking for. We keep hearing about an eaesment. We see nothing to tell us what this easement is going to give us. Is this going to give us lawns and grass and swingsets down over this ridge line to where our park is now including grass and stuff or is this going to give us a wildlife area like the Park and Rec Board is requesting be revegetated and will provide habitat for wildlife and things like that. Ryan: Which would you prefer? Johnson: I would rather have habitat for the wildlife than grass and swingsets for the private individuals living on there. There are some beautiful areas in here. The City Administration has a unique opportunity to provide the citizens of Chanhassen with a passive park to be enjoyed for many future generations to corne. Envision a revitalized pond encircled with a walking and jogging path, maybe even a vitacourse as the Park and Rec staff member has talked to me about, putting a vitacourse in the area. If you know what those are. A vitacourse is where along the jogging path you have stations where you do chin-ups or sit-ups or some kind of exercise apparatus. There is part of that in the existing school yard. We would also have along here critically placed overlooks. We have one overlook right now. There are some beautiful areas. This area right here is a beautiful little plateau. You can probably see it on the panorama there is a e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Twenty Nine great big tree sitting there. Just a perfect spot for an overlook right here in these folks backyard. I would love that lot if you are going to allow that. That has a drop off on the back and then has a nice little plateau where you can put in a overlook. It is where the path would probably would go if we get the area to put a path in there. We don't know if we can put paths on this easement because we have never seen what the easement said. Put up some vegetation. Help stop some erosion. We have some real erosion problems in there. Maybe even as a amateur photographer, I would like to see some photographic blinds in the area. With the critically placed overlooks and photographic blinds and paths, we can watch the Heron, Geese, Ducks, Terns, Muskrats and other wildlife that currently are living at or visiting our pond and also the increased wildlife we will have there. with a good park established, this will be a benefit to our school children as we asked for the outlot to go from the school grounds, or the path, and now we can bring the kids and go to the pond. We need adequa te pond space to make th i s a good wi Idl i fe area for the kids to go in and work on. I would like to see my children and your children and their children enjoy this pond over the years. Sedimentation. We as the public have not had a chance to see this drainage plan because it was given to the city May 21st and it is not what we were gi ven when we asked for copies of the drainage plan. The one thing that we really want to see is that future pond not be a future pond. The area that says future ponding area on the map. As phase 1 goes in we are going to get drainage, we're going to get sediment coming in the end of this pond. We don't want sediment in this pond. There is already too much sediment in the pond. We have some severe erosion problems from nature that the park is going to help us stop with the property planting of vegetation. The future pond needs to be a pond as part of this project and should be specified to be built as part of this project. I know there are some problems that half of this pond is owned by another person. That can be worked out, but I keep seeing future pond. I don't like that. I would like to see it as a pond so we don't add sediment there. I see a problem in the phasing in phase 2. We were unaware of the phasing because we asked for the development plans and the development plans we were given had nothing about phasing so the phasing we became aware of only tonight so we have no chance to review it so what I am looking at here from what I saw their phasing, is phase 2 they are going to construct streets and there is going to be no storm sewers. I believe Phase 2 comes in this area and the first storm sewer comes in here. They are not running in any storm sewers. We are talking a lot of sediment problems here. I need to see some solutions to sediments problems during phase 2 construction. Like I said I didn't see the drainage plans until right now. I also see a problem with this drainage course during the construction, after construction of the streets and during construction of the houses. We have the biggest sediment loads during the home construction. Well we have miscellaneous builders. We have no idea who the builders are going to be here. We don't know what type of houses we are getting, but if it Planning Commissin Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty ~ is a typical builder, he's going to pile his dirt up and the rain is going to come and wash it down and into the pond. We need some means, some control of the sediment until the houses are built and the grass is in, and we don't see anything of that in the preliminary development plan or the final development plan. Ryan: That's in our Standard Jay. silt screens or something to stop silt is in our Standard in relation to development. Jay Johnson: I believe it is suppose to be in the develop plan also. I would like to read something from your Standard if I may. Section 14 of the zoning Ordinance is Planned Residential Development District. The objectives. 1. Environmental Design is provided under the strick application of the zoning and subdivision ordinances without compromising health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare of the village and its residents. I ask you and the people here, do you people think that this plan provides a greater creativity and a flexibility in environmental design? Okay, a few no's and a few yes's. 2. To encourage a more efficient allocation and innovative use of common, open spaces adjoining residential buildings in order that the greater opportunity for better housing and recreation may be extended to the residents of the village. ~ Do you think this plan does encourage more efficient allocation and innovative use of common open space? I don't. I do not think that this plan does that. There is very little open space. We have 90 some houses here with no tot lot. We have 90 families who will come in here and they have no way to get to a tot lot except up Kerber Drive which is one heck of busy street and is getting busier all the time. The original plan the City asked for an Outlet on this end of the development, the north end. That is not here all of a sudden. I don't think this developer is providing hardly anything to the City for him putting in alot of small lots, a lot of narrow lots, a lot of lots that don't meet the requirements of our zoning ordinances. The zoning ordinance provides that the developer go through a very rigorous means of developing this property. He has a sketch plan, then a proposed preliminary development plan, then a preliminary development plan and than a final development plan. We are here tonight to consider, or you are here tonight to consider the preliminary development plan and final development plan. I thought it was interesting. I asked the City to give me the preliminary and final development plan. There is none. It is three drawings and that is what I have been told. We have three drawings and that is the e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty One ~ development plan. Your preliminary development plan as defined by your ordinance is: The preliminary development plan shall conform to and include all of the information required under subsection 3 of Section 14.05 of this ordinance which subsection 3 is the proposed preliminary development plan. ~ That specifies two things. Maps and drawings in a skematic form. Pretty much the maps and drawings are here. We got those three. They are suppose to show population density on the maps and drawings. The maps and drawings that I was provided by the City don't show population densities. They are suppose to show the existing topography. They showed topography. I don't know if it is existing or not. I took out the transit and surveyed some of the area myself and found that after I got over the known area that their surveyer knew exactly what the elevation was and I knew exactly what the elevation was, we started differing on what we thought the topography was. It is somewhat close but there is some differences that might be there. It is suppose to show the existing tree cover, streets, buildings, and other site improvements. The plans that I was given did not show the existing trees. The plans show primarily the trees after development. There are some areas where the existing trees are shown. There are some areas where the existing trees are not shown. I believe to point it out, along here there are trees, there is no circle cut into these trees. There are trees that come all the way out here. They show it then it just stop, and they show a circle here and I don't remember there being a circle cut in there. I believe the trees just go straight across. Technicalities of a development plan. We've got standards, let's live by them. Then the second main thing that is required under the proposed preliminary development which is suppose to be part of the development plan, is a written report or statement which includes the nature of the applicant's ownership or control on the land that is to be development. I was not provided this information so I must assume that there is no development plan that has that information in it. Well, there was no written report when I asked for it so there must not be a written report. Now in addition to subsection 3 of section 14.05 which we just went through. In addition the following shall be required: 1. A detailed drawing of land uses showing proposed buildings, parking, garages, common open space, etc.. They pretty well did that. 2. Preliminary elevation drawings of all proposed structures. That was on there, with the exception of single family dwellings. e e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Two 3. Prospective drawing or model which fully shows the architectual style of the development. I don't see how they can do that with single family homes. It would be nice to have that so we could have some idea of what we are expecting to come into our area. We are trying to review the development plans according to the ordinance here. 4. The proposed agreement, provisions, covenants, regulations be established regulating the establishment, use, maintenance and continued stability and plan development in any of it's common open spaces. In other words, the covenants and stuff for the development, we don't see those. These easements, we don't see the easement. What is the easement. I don't know what we are getting. We are buying something in the dark here and this is supposed to be in the preliminary development plan that we are approving here. I don't see that here. 5. A schedule showing the estimated progression of the development. The first time I saw it was the drawing that Barbara had that it was on, so I guess that is here but that was not made available to the public for public review. That is what is suppose to be, according to your ordinance, in the preliminary development plan. Your are also considering the final development. The final development should include the preliminary plat in accordance with ordinance 33 including agreements, revisions, covenants, specifications for approval of the final development plan. Again, we don't see any covenants or agreements or anything that really shows what is going on here. Final building drawings and specifications. You can't do that with single family homes obviously. Final site plans including a landscape schedule. There is no landscape schedule. Where do we have a landscape schedule. I would like to see what landscaping the developers are planning on doing. There are some things that it appears, there are some areas, if you look at some of the elevations he has given that they are raising some areas 7 feet high. This street for example, over in this area, the circle on Cascade Trail, is shown that it's elevation to be 1,005 when it is sitting at 997 right now. That is being raised 8 feet higher. This area here is being lower, so right now we have a natural break between Kerber Blvd. and this project, but this area of the houses being considerably below grade for the front of their houses, so they are going to have to lower that area. Are they going to then put in landscaping to cover these houses from this main drive, Kerber Drive? So we need to see the landscaping schedule that is required in the final development plan. Engineering plans and reports as required by Council. Council hasn't had a chance to require anything so obviously you don't have any engineering plans and reports. Any other information, documents required by the Council for the final development plan including a plan unit development e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Three contract and any bonds, deposits of monies or security. The plan unit development contract will have to be made up at some time and that is a document that we would like to make has a lot of provisions in it. The construction provisions in it and stuff like that. We as the public need input into that. It really is affecting us. I've have gone through a lot here quickly. There is also your subdivision ordinance which I'm not going to waste your time going through all the things in the subdivision ordinances that are required for the preliminary plat that are not here and the preliminary plat is required for the final development plan. I have highlighted in green as I went through the ordinance what isn't here. section lines, grading, street lighting, electrical easements, all sorts of other good stuff that are in this ordinance that are required for preliminary plat and the preliminary plat is required for final development plan. It's not here. So I have a lot of concerns over not only what is going in but how it is going in and is the public getting to review the documents that are going to come here or are these documents going to be made sometime later and we aren't going to get to review them. Thank you very much for your time. Jack Thorsen: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Staff, my name is Jack Thorsen. You have a very difficult job and I thank you for what you are doing. I will be brief. I live in Sunrise Hills and look over the entire area. We have a couple of things. First I would like to compliment the engineer on several things that he has done well. One is to change the drainage area. Another is the flexibility on the streets and wha t he is will i ng to do there and the th i rd one is the access and walkways around the park. Our major concern is that the lot sizes adjacent to Sunrise Hills still look to be quite small compared to those lots in Sunrise Hills and we would like to see those lot sizes increased to be compatible with our area. Thank you. Tom Frebiger: 7494 Saratoga Drive. There is just a couple of points that I would like to emphasize. Some everyday concerns that most of us on Saratoga have, not necessarily getting into ordinances or documents or any things like that. All most of us are concerned about is, and we would like to reemphasize the drainage issue. We feel it is a step in the right direction but we just want to make sure that the grading is done properly. That any swells are properly in so we do not get any of the excess water over onto our property. I know the Kubutiz's and myself are awful concerned about that this get put in properly. Also, concerning lot size. I simply agree with what Bill Boyt had to say about their end of the new development is concerned with the buffer zones. I know the lot we are on is approximately 18,000 square feet and that is larger than anything that is going to be next to us. There are some bigger lots that are buffering the new development on the south side of the development here and I would just like to make that point. Another point I would like to make is concerning drainage and runoff from the new development. In looking at the plan, I did not notice any storm sewers in this area right here to take care some of the runoff. There seems to one up here but e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Four everything may run down this road here all the way down to Santa Vera- Loretta intersection and that could be a lot of water running down there. I don't know if that has been addressed or not. I just wanted to make that point. There probably should be something right in here to catch all of that. Also, the concerns that were raised the Chanhassen Pond Park. We do have a great concern to keep that in it's natural state as much as possible. Dennis Scarkenson: I live at 7482 Saratoga Drive. I would like to show you on the map where it is because it is right on here. The panoramas were taken in my backyard. So if this area is developed to the north and to the west concerns me alot because I will be looking at it. When I first got here, I've been here for about 1 1/2 years now, when I first moved into Bungalow, it was here for 5 years at the time, I asked the city what was going to be developed to the west around the lake, what was to the north of my property now, what is Saratoga Park. Everything to the west was going to be developed as parkland, at least in their master plan, so the idea of the park land that has been submitted by the Park and Rec Board is not a new plan. It has been in the works for a long time already. I want to point that out because I checked that out a year and a half ago. We, I'm part of the Saratoga group, we totally support the Park and Rec Commission's request for the park going in there. The idea of putting in a conservation area up to the owners doesn't sound very reasonable to myself. Since I live on a solar ray and I look at my neighbors homes, everyone has developed their backyard differently. We all have steep slope going down to the pond. Some people have preferred to let it go just natural, some people have planted grass and trees down to the pond. In my own case, they actually filled a ravine that was there and put a terraced garden down the side. If there is an easement there, I agree that they can't do everything that has been done to the lots that are there now existing, but they won't be as much of a master plan as far as the conservation of that area. Erosion is bad along those steep slopes now and I think you could master plan to put that all together. I think the State or the City of Chanhassen could do that a lot better than each individual so I totally support that portion for that reason. Ryan: Would you prefer on your lot to have the city own the slope and take care of the maintenance of that slope there. Scarkenson: I really would. It really is useless to me. It looks good on paper because I have one-third of an acre with it there but the last part of it is a 45 degree angle and it is grass at this point. There are two terraces back there. The last one they filled in, there was a ravine there at one time. Ryan: Do you think the City is diligent enough to take care of something like that instead of someone like you who has a vested interest in it because it is yours. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Five e Scarkenson: I think it could be put together as a master plan a lot better than having every individual owner try and do something with it. The backyards of people are the last to be developed anyway. My backyard is always the last to be done. Ryan: It is someth i ng you don't wan t to see wash a way so you would take special care to do something. Scarkenson: I'm not so sure about that. Some people think we care because we put in the back end. The other thing I am concerned about as you look across the pond, the density lots over there and particularly the width because the width gives you a feeling of spaciousness. If you can see through the homes instead of homes right next to each other. Again, I have to look down on the park that is left there as well as homes built across the pond from me. If they were spread out, even for the same size lots along the pond there, but were more square instead of rectangular, it would give a lot more open appearance and the whole area would be a lot more open. One more thing about the parkland. If it was really developed into a parkland, I think the elementary school could really benefit. There could be actual natural studies done by the students. Last year they took first graders one hike to Lake Ann which if they had one closer like the Chanhassen Pond would be, they could almost have a weekly type excursion out there to watch things grow and I think again, if it were developed into parkland instead of a conservation area would be a lot more benefit for educational purposes. e Pam Guttman: We own the property, Lot 2, which is adjoining the wetland that they are proposing to fill in. I am really confused as to why anyone would want to fill in a wetland. It offers a uniqueness to a neighborhood. The wildlife habitat and everything else that is back there including a few mosquitos at time, but you can't find that in every neighborhood in Chanhassen or anywhere else. We've got ducks, muskrats back there in that wetland that really can't find in every neighborhood around here. The uniqueness is one reason why we bought where we did. I don't think we would have bought there had it been filled in with a bunch of houses behind me. Ryan: You are referring to the wetlands on the north end. Pam Guttman: Exactly. That they had originally had zoned that way, they originally had an area around it set aside, now it is filled in. Helen Kerber: My husband and I are property owners of about 38 1/2 acres of this development. The south and up to about here on the north end and we feel like we've been dumped on. In about 1978 or 1977, Kerber Blvd. was planned and built. We did not ask for Kerber Blvd. to be built. In fact, we objected to it at the time. We couldn't really see that it would do a whole lot to our property, but the City Council in it's wisdom and foresight, decided that it was for the good of the comm un i ty and bui t the road and I see Counc i lman Gev ing here e e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Six this evening and I would like to quote from the Council meeting of August 31, 1981. Councilman Geving said "As you know when we initiated this project some time ago, it was probably the most difficult deliberation and decision that I had personally had to make because it meant forcing the Kerbers out of the family farming business." My husband and I are not farming the land personally, but we were renting it to his brother and dad who live on the adjoining property. Then we also argued about the assessments which came about after the road was constructed which in our view were quite excessive because we felt that because of the deep slope along the road there, this would not be buildable property, but we were told that it was usable and it is in here somewhere too, but I won't go into that, but anyhow, it was decided that this would be buidlable property. However, in this area where the proposed ponding area. That was part of the buildable property. Originally the pond wasn't that big but Sunrise Hills or somebody was having problems with the water so they put in a dam in the creek that raised the water level in the pond and it is now getting wetter and wetter and what I am saying is that you have already taken some of our land without anything we can do about it. You can't fight City Hall. Anyway, when Mr. Seigel approached us to consider selling our property to him, we were concerned because we didn't want just any old body to come in and put up a shoddy looking development. We did investigate Mr. Seigel. We looked at several of the developments that he has engineered in other areas and have found them to be really attractive and if any of you here would go to see them I think you would be impressed. We also investigated him financially because we want to be sure he could finish the job. I guess what I am getting at is I don't see why it is so darn hard to expand Chanhassen. I can't see where this community should be considered one in which you wuld have to have home of a minimum of $120,000.00 to $150,000.00 on large lots. I don't see Chanhassen as that type of community. Sunrise Hills people are concerned with theirs. When I go to Sunrise Hills, I drive through Western Hills. Western Hills abuts Sunrise Hills. I don't believe Western Hills is the same type as Sunrise Hills. I think that is about all I have to say. I think this project meets the requests that the Council had made of Mr. Seigel at the last meeting where they said they were not as concerned with reserving the amenities as they were with the sizes of the lots and I think the new design meets their request. That is all I have to say. Jay Johnson: I missed one point and Tom almost pointed it out to me. The drainage swale and I would like an engineer to look at this at some time, you are proposing the drainage swale to run up the hill and drain water into the Outlot or into the school. This is in the area of where they are adding 7 feet of dirt or something. Somehow they are going to raise this high enough to run this water uphill and then into the school. I realize the water is a causing big problems in the schools now but I have some problems with this drainage swell here myself also. I also would like to say that I believe the Kerber's have been dumped on. They are good friends of the community and Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-page Thirty Seven e Saratoga Drive and we all feel for them and we believe there are plenty of developers that are going to develop this land. It's the primo land in Chanhassen to develop in Chanhassen right now in my opinion, and we could really make a good development out here. We are not trying to stop development. We are trying to get a good development that meets the character of the city of Chanhassen. Jim Penning: I live at 2440 Burns Road in Minnetonka. I own 13 acres which is immediately northeast of the subidivision. I was concerned the engineer say there were going to pipe the creek all the way down and I guess I am curious what the City's position is whether it's piping the creek or just leaving it as a creek. Monk: There are two proposals being looked at by the developers at the present time. One involves piping of most of the runoff through the creek and the other one involves improvements to the creek. If the pipe is put in, basically the creek will remain over the top to carry runoff from the land or whatever. The pipe would basically take only the runoff that would be directed to it from a storm sewer so that either way the creek would remain. e Jim Penning: My other would be you show the street going to Big Horn Drive which terminates at my property and we talk off and on that someday there will be a connection to Carver Beach Road. There is a severe slope there. I would say it is somewhere between a 12-15%. It seems like it would be difficult. I'm not sure that I need Carver Beach Road when this phase is done but if the City and Staff want a connection I think it would be now or when they develop. I think that connection should be graded in if you want. I would be willing to pay my share of the assessment. Ryan: If there was another development that was proposed, yours is the Molton property. Are you going to run the road in from Carver? That was the understanding. Monk: What we wanted to make sure that the right-of-way was fully plotted so that it could be extended. At this point in time, this developer is proposing to put in improvements privately. As such, the City does not normally require or have basically the authority unless it wants to enter its own project to extend roads and whatever off site so they would basically be building to the cul-de-sac on Big Horn, I believe. If it was a municipal improvement project, then the City would then take a look at extending Carver Beach Road and at least grading it in at this point. As a private project, it does limit the City in terms of how far we can run that street right now. Ryan: If a plot comes in on Molton Property and we have some idea where the roads are supposed to be, we are negligent if we don't so some type of master planning to service where the road fit. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Eight ~ Monk: Again, the right-of-ways do line up and basically give us the right-of-way. Ryan: There is a 15% slope in there? Monk: There is a steep slope in there. There is nothing the City can do about the lay of the land. Whether we will have a 10% slope on the street when it is actually constructed, has little to do with the right-of-way. There is very little that we can go to either side. Basically the right-of-way position is set through the way it has been platted in Carver Beach and the way it would have to come from this development. I will indeed be a steep grade. Ryan: So we have to accept that steep grade rather than ask these people to put in a reasonable grade just because it is platted? Do we only deal in two dimensions in this City? It's getting late Bill, I apologize. e A women from the publ i c: I would 1 i ke to say one th i ng tha t Mr s. Kerber sort of triggered and I can understand how she feels dumped on but she said something that really started me thinking. I have seen the new redevelopment plans for downtown Chanhassen and driving through Western Hills and some of these sections of Chanhassen as they exist today. I agree with what you are saying. However, with the redevelopment that we have in mind, I don't see this subdivision, which is a competitor to the Chaparral type housing, as the direction that we are looking at and my concern is to upgrade our integrity in our neighborhood. We don't have to keep going in that old direction. I see that we are going in a new direction with the redevelopment design. I think it is exciting. I think it is upscale and I don't see any reason why we have to stay the way we have been. I think we can move forward and I think we can have a new look. Bill Loebel: I live at 7197 Frontier Trail. with all due respect to Mrs. Kerber, 90 of her neighbors disagree with her and you have the signatures in front of you. We are not opposed to development per se, but we want it to be beneficial for Chanhassen in the long run and we don't see the long run being in small lots as proposed for the 129 lots. The idea that Bill Boyt brought forward is much more to our thinking and we have the 90 signatures to prove it. Minimum lots of 15,000 square feet, the protection of the wetlands, retention of the contours of the land as it now exists because it is pretty, and the retention of the cul-de-sac on Frontier Trail is what we would like to see with indifference to the City Engineer, an emergency exit to the other cul-de-sac which might come in from Kerber Drive. We have enough small lots in Chanhassen we think and as the lady just said, this piece is property is probably one of the more desirable in Chanhassen because it is within walking distance of the school, the post office and the downtown area and if Enterprise Properties isn't interested in exceeding to our wishes, maybe in a year or two somebody e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Thirty Nine - else will come along who has an idea and develops sizable lots which will enhance the beauty of Chanhassen. Dennis Fenadem(?): I am related to the Kerber's by marrige and they have asked me to make just a couple of points on their behalf. I think it wonderful that the community wants to grow and build large lots but if you can't sell them, the community hasn't grown. All you have done is chop up the land. If you can present a market survey that indicates that you can sell those lots and that is the direction that Chanhassen will grow, go ahead and do it but I don't think the market will bear it. That is all I was going to say. e Don King: 7200 Kiowa Circle. I am the one that has the swimming pool going through my yard and I must complement the engineer and also Dell for they have certainly done alot of work in planning and making some changes over all the various plans we have seen to deal with this. The thing that I still object to is the fact that you are going to be going over this marsh land in this particular proposal and again dealing with the wildlife situation. I support Bill Boyt's plan that he put out here. It certainly is probably not an economical from the standpoint of going from 90 down to 66 but I think someplace in between those two there is a compromise. I think we the people of this community have a responsibility to use this community as a benchmark. We have a prime area to develop and has a good location to it and really blend into what you are planning in your long range plan goes rather than continue on and make a bunch of rinky-dink homes, low income, trash, whatever you want to call it, but we don't want to go that direction. I think we want a fine community here and I think it needs to grow that way. I've been here 12 years. I moved out here because it was a big space, it was open and I said this is where I wan t to stay 12 year sago. Now I am get t i ng very concerned tha t I live here and now we are going to go this direction with these small lot sizes, etc. I certainly think we can do alot better. Greg Frank: First of all, the intention of Enterprises Properties has always been to develop a quality development for the City of Chanhassen. The projects that they have elsewhere in the Twin Cities, Minnetonka and Plymouth, if you did visit those I think would see that quality and it is the same quality that they propose in Chanhassen. Tonight we have heard a lot of discussion on the project and the project, because of the pond that goes through it, is basically divided into two projects. The sewer, water and storm sewer are each separate. You have a northern portion and the southern portion. utilities and grading each stand on their own merits. Tonight I think most of the discussion related to the northern area. The developer looks at an opportunity that exists today in the marketplace. That marketplace obviously with financing the way it is, means more of a house can be built than could be two years ago for the same dollar because of the financing. The opportunity is there and he would like to proceed. The first phase is the southern phase which again does stand on it's own merit. We do intend to work with the homeowners. e e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty We have, we felt, worked with the homeowners. We would like to continue to work with the homeowners. The problem area does seem to be property to the north. I think the concerns on the south are pretty generic in the sense that it is drainage problems, and I think we responded significantly to those concerns in the revisions that we have done today. I would request that you would approve the development for the southern portion and give us the direction to work with the homeowners on the norther portion of the project. I would further request that in your approval, if you should so desire to approve it in that fashion, that you also put the conditions on the development that we would limit access to the site only from Kerber Drive during the construction sequence. That we would install erosion control measures that you normally would require and that you would also require to limit parking for construction vehicles only off of Kerber Drive. The concerns that the homeowners have, we have understood them, we have heard them, we have not put them in obviously, we thought those would be standard conditions and we certainly intended that they would be conditions of our development. At this time I would propose that you put those as conditions and we would like, I guess we certainly request, that you would approve the development for the southern portion of the project with the deletion of the one lot that we indicated that we would do tonight. The norther portion we would still like to work with the homeowners and hope to come back with a development that they are satisfied with as well as ourselves. Thank you. Thompson moved to close the public hearing, Noziska seconded. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Erhart: I would like to get straight in my mind what the developer is giving up in exchange for the smaller lot sizes. The overall development plan is 70 acres? 129 Lots? The average lot size is 13,600 and 46.3 acres of sellable land so there is approximately 24 acres that are being used for street. Is that 24 acres in the pond? Dacy: Supposedly that is what has been mentioned tonight. I have not calculated the pond. Ryan: The pond is listed as 4 acres by 5. Erhart: Alright, so there are 20 acres of streets and a 7 foot area set aside for semi-public or public use so I think the question is, regarding that, is the 20 acres what we get in exchange for the smaller lots in the northern area and quite frankly I don't know how to judge that. In reviewing the comments here on behalf of Chanhassen, you can see that this pond is pretty important to the City because of it's location and it's unique size. While all the other lakes are large, this one is small and different. Sue, you mentioned that the Park and Rec Board were interested in buying additional land? Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-page Forty One e Sue Boyt: If the developer did not donate it, we are so concerned about acquiring that land that we would use Park and Rec money to purchase it. Erhart: I guess it would be inconceivable to proceed with the plan without giving the Park and Rec the option to purchase this land. It seems to me that is the logical way to approach it. Thats not necessarily saying that I'm in favor of spending money that way, but if that is what the Park and Rec Board is set up to do, then I would like to see. Sue Boyt: First of all, we would like for him just to donate that area but if it doesn't work out that way, there are funds around. Erhart: I think the developer has already given us 20 acres. suggesting that you may get more, you may not. I'm not Dacy: You are talking streets. Erhart: I understand that, but he has given us some acreage and if you go by what the ordinance says, it seems to be a fairly good plan. On the other hand, if the Park and Rec wants to purchase additional land for the City of Chanhassen, this is the time to do that. At least I would recommend that we do that at this point. By the same token, is that land on the north side or the south side. e Sue Boyt: It is all around. Erhart: If the Park and Red Board wants to purchase land, isn't this the time to give them the chance. Ryan: That is one option we will have later on when we make a motion is that we table this until that issue is resolved. Erhart: I guess if the developer wants to get going as fast as possible, I think he ought to to that. A question on the idea of an easement basically to break down this water. What flexibility do you have in doing the striping as to what people can do with that land? Could you get to the point where you could restrict their use to allow it to grow naturally and essentially control the master plan in that way or is that feasible. Dacy: What is being proposed is that the easement would restrict any grading or building activity and would only allow sodding, planting of trees, vegetation, etc. It would become, if it was a condition on the plat approval, it would become a condition of the development contract. I would also have to believe that the homeowners association to be created as well, would be a policing force as well to make sure to notify the City if something is happening in that area and then we could enforce it to prevent. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Two e Erhart: Do you feel as easement is potentially to make the area surrounding up to the house, or close to the house, controls the uniform look. Dacy: That is what is being proposed to prohibit grading or building activity in that easement area. Sue Boyt: Could I say one thing from the Park and Rec Board. I understand that easement, there is no public access. It is not open to the public. The public is restricted to that green area. Erhart: Where do the trails lead to. Sue Boyt: The trails would have to be right next to the water. There isn't a lot of space in there. Dacy: There is an outlot at the end of Cascade Trail and it is my understanding that the trail area would be located at the bottom of the slope below the 952 contour where the limits of Outlot B is being proposed. The easement would still be under the ownership of the individual property owners but the trail would be part of the outlot. Erhart: What are the lot sizes along the northeast side of the pond? Up against the hills. e Dacy: Lot 1 of Block 6; that is 21,800; Lot 2 is 22,300; Lot 3 is 15,100; Lot 4 is 15,100; Lot 5 is 17,000; Lot 6 is 19,400; and Lot 7 is 15,200. Erhart: Regarding the lot sizes, I guess one of the biggest complaints I hear is that the houses are not affordable in the city. I personally think we need a variety of housing and I do like the plan from the standpoint that the house size and the lot size are comparable. I guess I don't object to the fact that when you get towards some of the other development that they do get smaller. On the other hand, the importance of the pond area, we should get something in return for that. Do you know what the average lot size in Western Hills is? Dacy: No, I do not. Erhart: I guess I'm a little surprised too that we would take the swamp area, weIand I should say, and turn it into a lot. I guess that is a question that the developer reassess his position on that and regarding the ponding area and the Park and Rec. I think we should give them the chance to buy that land. At lease they should have the chance. e Emmings: Bill, maybe you could help me to understand a little better exactly where that wetland area is on this new plan. I think maybe I Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Three e can see it on the preliminary grading agreement plan but I'm not sure. It looks like it sits on 4 and 5? Ryan: The plans we got in our packets are next to worthless. You can't see anything. Monk: The existing wetlands covers Lot 4 and 5 of Block 6 and into the house location for 16 and 17 of Block 10. Emmings: Alright I can see it on there. I don't think there is any way the wetlands should be filled. That seems to me something we simply should not do. I think that the southern phase, I didn't hear many comments about the southern phase tonight, and most of the comments that Staff made, the developer seems willing to comply with and I th i nk it would be a good idea to let them go ahead on the southern side. The northern end there seems to be an awful lot of problems with and the lot sizes don't bother me except that last time. References to people who live in small houses or in small lots, to call the lots trash and people trash, appalled me. I find it disgusting and I think we do need a variety of opportunities for people to get into houses in this community and I don't have any problems with the lots at all from that standpoint. e Siegel: I agree with what has been said already. I have real concern with filling in the wetland in the northern side otherwise I would comment to the developer on his willingness to possibly table that portion of the design or development and proceed with approval for the southern portion of the development and let the developer come back with a different configuration for the alignment of that norther development area where we do have concerns about wetlands and I agree that I hope we don't fill in that wetlands. I think we should leave it natural. It could be a benefit to that area and possibly increase the value of the lots surrounding that and I also agree with the position that we look into the possibility of developing the parkland around the pond for the use of Chanhassen residents. Conrad: When this got to the City Council it is my impression that they asked for less density, at least that is my impression yet I see in this we have increased it by 4. I guess that is sort of a contradiction in what the City Council wanted or reviewed in the sketch plan. My general comments are these. I don't know that we are getting anything for PUD. I really don't. I think we've got a design, I don't see that Chanhassen is getting anything in this particular PUD. I don't think that the wetland can be, should be altered at all. I don't see any rationale for doing that. I think that the area should transition into the neighbring community doesn't have to make the same lot sizes but it has to have a good transition into it and I'm uncomfortable. I guess I am uncomfortable with the general overall lot size in the area. I would like to see a better plan for parkland. I'm real uncomfortable that we are doing the designing tonight. I thought this was a preliminary and final plan. I think we e --~-- Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Four e are doing designing up here and wasting a lot of time. I guess I would like this to be considered as a PUD and I'm real comfortable that we are treating one piece as separate from the other. This is a PUD and we have to treat it as a PUD. It is all or nothing. Otherwise the developer can come back with separate PUD's if it is appropriate, but I think we have to review as one PUD. Generally I am not comfortable with the materials I was given tonight. e Noziska: First of all, there appears to be at least, some willingness on the part of the developer to work with the neighborhood but on the other hand there are several points. Ladd made it very crystal clear on what is Chanhassen picking up as a result of allowing these relatively small lots in an area where they aren't so small. I guess I am a little uncomfortable with that too. Perhaps a little more work on this transition, going from one to another is appropriate. I don't know so much about the wetlands. Lands that used to dry are now wet and lands that are wet can become dry if you fill them in so I don't know where that balance is. Obviously the pond was not what it used to be today and it sounds like tomorrow it's not going to be like it was today. So things keep moving. I think in general perhaps we could do something a little more with that density, the size of the lots. Like Ladd, I am surprised that we were asked to review this and decrease the density and all of a sudden we are increasing the density. It doesn't seem to be quite in the spirit of cooperation but I don't disagree with the fact that Chanhassen has really forged this developed and obviously there is going to be a development there and we want it to as quality a development as we can have it. Maybe we can't have our cake and eat it too, but I think we can get closer than this plan. I will go along with Ladd. You almost need a microscope perhaps would be helpful in reviewing some of the handouts tonight. It is very difficult to review something that you can't see. Dacy: I apologize for the lack of clarity on the reductions of the plat. They did not copy well and we will make sure that doesn't happen again. Thompson: I unfortunately did not have the opportunity of being here the first time when this was before us and I must say that I really appreciate the job that everyone did here particularly the neighborhood in presenting the issues. I want to compliment all oL you on the fact that you did such a good job and I appreciate hearing all of these issues because I know from reading this packet the past few days and trying to look through some of these comments, I could see there was a fair amount of controversy involved in this but I wasn't quite sure how everybody felt about it. Sometimes you come to these meetings and, like on the first public hearing, there was nobody here who objected. It doesn't necessarily mean that the plan was perfect but if nobody objected, if we don't hear from people, so the fact that you did have a lot of input here is important. Also, there are going to be two openings on the planning commission in the next 30 days, and we will be looking for applicants. We'll be looking for e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Five e applicants. We've gone through periods of time over the past few years where we have had a lot of applicants and then we go through periods of time when we don't have many. Obviously everyone in the Planning Commission is very high caliber but we also find that the more applicants we have the better caliber of people we have and some of you look like you could possibly do a good job up here. Anyway, I have a few questions here I just wanted to go over. Kerber Blvd. Is that a State Aid Road? Monk: Yes. Thompson: On a State Aid Road, does the State pay for part of that road. Monk: Yes, when Kerber Road was constructed, State Aid Funds were used to pay for between 50-55% of the construction. Thompson: As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, what the state is paying for is the oversizing of the road. In other words if we were going to build a simple city street there in whatever dimension it would be, the State comes along and says if you enlarge this road and do certain things, and you can have a 30 or 35 MPH speed limit, and so on and over size it, they will pay for the extra price. e Monk: Yes. Thompson: As far as the Kerber family, were their assessments deferred at all? Monk: Yes, I believe all of the assessments were deferred for 5 years I believe in 1981. Thompson: So their assessments are deferred until next year. So up to this point other than the fact that the value of their property has to increase by the amount of the assessment because the deferred assessment will have to be paid someday. They haven't had to go out of pocket up to this point. Sometimes when we get involved in the plans and the details that I don't understand about these plans, we sometimes forget to talk about the applicant. Who is the applicant and what are his credentials. I guess I am unaware of who he is and what his credentials are. Whether he is a land developer/builder, whether he is there to develop lots and sell them. I wonder if somebody could tell me about the developer. David Seigel: I am one of the two partners in Enterprise Properties. Primarily Enterprise Properties is a land developer. We develop single family home sites and then sell them to buiders or a builder as the case may be and we have developed two projects over the last 5-6 years. One project is in Minnetonka. It was a planned development which incorporated single family townhomes, doubles, two multi-family e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Six e buildings and a strip shopping center all on a sizable site. That is primarily what we do and we have been in the development business for the last 15 years. Thompson: Mr. Seigel the last 2 or 3 developments you did. How many lots were you involved in? Mr. Seigel: Our last project which was the last 3 years or 2 1/2 years, is 83 lots. Thompson: How many builders build houses in your projects there? Mr. Seigel: The one in Plymouth that is being developed now is one builder. Novak-Fleck. Thompson: Have you dealt with some other builders before? Mr. Seigel: Yes we have. Thompson: Thank you very much. When we look at something like this according to this environmental assessment worksheet. This is about a Ten Million Dollar project. I'm not sure how far we can get into this, but how do we know, and I'm not questioning anybody here, but how do we know the financial capabilities of all the people involved as to whether they can perform the proposals they have given us. e Greg Frank: At the time the contract is processed and before the plan is recorded, the City requires the development team to come up with a letter of credit to guarantee, backed by financial institutions, guaranteeing performance of the development requirements placed by the City. In order to obtain guarantee from the bank or financial institution basically gives the City the guarantee that we have the financial backing to do the project. If we do not complete the project, the City has the power to go against that letter of credit, to take the resources to complete the project according to the development contract. Thompson: Another question, and I'm not sure I follow this. Did you say that the developer is going to finance the improvements privately? Greg Frank: All of the improvements would be constructed by the developer under private contract, yes. All the sewer, water, storm sewers.l All of those improvements would be done by the contracter. Thompson: So the City is not going to be asked to finance that. Based on current interest rates, wouldn't it be a lot easier for them to ask the City if the City were willing or able? Greg Frank: No. Typically most developer find that it is more ~ beneficial to develop themselves because they have control over the e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Seven timing, which is critical. When you go through the City process, there is a public hearing process again, substantial waiting time that is required by law and is substantial, and not only a time period loss but financing is available. Most developers find that they can complete a project more timely by doing it themselves with their own financing. Thompson: If they build privately, don't they still meet the same standards that the City would want. What savings would there be, they choose their own contracters? Monk: Two savings. One in time alone will save, they can move a little bit faster and don't have the same interest costs and whatnot. The big savings though is the City is no longer the middle man. When the City does a project, the City charges administrative charge to handle that project to handle the financing and so on, so there is a savings in not only time but also in actual money to the developer because they don't have to pay the city for doing all the same services they would do otherwise and those two factors seem to have a lot of people going privately but they still have to guarantee to the City that the improvements will be put in according to the plans and specs with a financal guarantee. Thompson: When you draw up the contract for that, is there a letter of credit for 100% of the cost or for 10% of the cost? Monk: 110% of the construction. Thompson: Another question is the land just west of this. Who owns that piece. Does it go to the Kerbers? On the other half where the pond is going to be created? Monk: That is a part of the John Kerber Estate. I believe that Della Kerber is the owner right at the moment. Ryan: Mrs. Kerber can you tell us who owns that piece? Mrs. Kerber: The John Kerber Estate. Monk: 91 acres. Thompson: We must be talking about the wrong piece. Ryan: All we want is the little piece that is inside the semi-circle. Monk: You see the road goes through there. Basically the road in one on both sides. The whole parcel is about 91 acres. The usable space of the John Kerber Estate on the east side of the Kerber property is about 2 1/2 acres. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Eight e Thompson: In looking at that. What would be planned for that. It is kind of sitting outside, you've got Kerber Drive there? Monk: It is extremely difficult sizing up any of the proposed land as of yet no. Single family or anything else we've seen. Thompson: included. Wouldn't it seem to round out the project if that were It just sort of sits out there. Monk: Again, it is a separate owner and we can't force the issue. It might but 2 1/2 acres of usable land does sit as an island. Thompson: Do you mean they would have to provide an access? Is it buidable land? Monk: Yes it is but very difficult to service from utility standpoint. Thompson: Like sewer and water. Monk: Yes, it would be very difficult. Thompson: Is it even possible to get a road to it? e Monk: Basically there would be a separate drive off of Kerber would have to be permitted for that. There is no other access potential. Thompson: The other thing is, you said part of the land is P-l and the other part is R-l. Can you show me that breakdown, because that P-l has some approval on that now, right? Dacy: It was rezoned when the Western Hill, 3rd Addition was... Barbara then went to the overhead projector to show the area that P-l and the area that was R-l. Thompson: And that little pond we are talking about is right below it? That is about 2 1/2 acres. What is that zoned? Dacy: That is zoned R-la and the 2 1/2 acres we are referring to is as buildable area is a portion of White curve. Thompson: You mean there is more than 2 1/2 acres there. Where is the Kerber farm? Dacy: Right now it is in the Saratoga Addition at the end of the cul- de-sac. Thompson: I just thought I would make some comments then finish off. A couple of things that came up I would like to reiterate. I know a e little bit about lots in some of this development because I have had e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Forty Nine some association with some people that have been involved in this. I know this, that at least as of recently, and I'm not small lot person, in fact this kind of reminded me tonight of coming 7-8 years ago and one of the reasons I eventually got on the Planning Commission because it was kind of exciting to see all of the people involved and things going on and the issues coming up, one of the issues I was always hung up on was small lots. I didn't like small lots, I didn't like Ladd, I always thought there should be standards. At that point we opposed to some developers. Since that time my outlook on lot size has changed a little bit, but I will just say this that small lots don't necessarily mean less valuable. I think they have proven recently what is more important than your lot size, possibly is the design of your lot, the location of lot obviously and what type of housing style is proposed for the area and the possible amenity package so if you happen to see some small lots it doesn't necessarily mean a less valuable area. The other thing too is we as a community have a responsibility to provide all types of housing so even though nobody wants certain types of housing next to them, I don't think we should go on public record saying that just because you are going to build on a small lot you are necessarily going to have a low cost type housing or trash. I don't think that is a real thing. I think the citizens brought forth a lot of issues here that I don't feel have really been resolved and it seems to me from my past experience that sometimes it is difficult for some of these developers to hear everything that the neighborhood groups are saying. Obviously they have talked about lot size, about lot design, about the park and pond, about their drainage issues, filling in the wetlands and the fact that Ladd stated, that when you talk about PUD you like to see more creativity. I'm not a designer, I'm not an engineer. I can't necessarily go into a piece of land like this and lay it out but I don't think he has really met the concerns of the neighborhood. My belief would be that since he hasn't, I also believe that possibly our Staff has had to struggle with this too, so my feeling that this whole issue should be tabled for further review and revision until a future meeting and put the Staff, the developer and the neighborhood together. Ryan: Just a couple of quick comments. One thing that happens when you have a PUD, PRD, is you do attempt to do some negotiations in the preliminary phases. However, it should be pointed out to the people here that the current ordinance as it stands requires a developer of a development over a certain number of units to request a PUD. He doesn't have a choice. He can't come in for a simple subdivision. He has to do the PUD, so whether they wanted a PUD or not they had to file one. Whether they wanted to negotiate or not, they had to negotiate. We also have a process that says there is a preliminary plan review and a final development plan review. The developer takes the risk when he wants to move fast. He can ask for both at the same time. The risk that he takes is that both will get turned down. If he comes in for preliminary comment and gets that and then goes back and makes the corrections and comes back for a final plan review, there is a better chance of coming in. In my opinion we have seen two e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty requests tonight. One was done quite well. One was put together in a hurry and has not been done well. We have seen the request on the Lake Susan side a number of times. It has been through before it got here. Everyone knew what was going on. This one we are still confused. We are extremely confused about what the Park Department is doing in our City. We have absolutely no idea. There are some people here who have absolutely no idea what the Park and Recreation Department is doing. I live very close to a pond and I think the most eroded, poorly managed, mismanaged part on that pond is the part that the City has. You can't get back there many times. The trails are washed out. We are not maintaining the park there. I don't think that we ought to look at arbitrarily accepting another 6-10 acres of park unless we have a maintenance plan for it. I think that plan has to come to the Commission as part of this whole program. I guess what I am saying is that, in my opinion, it is just not complete yet. It is not ready to be here. That all has to be resolved before it comes in here. The plan for the City to purchase parkland and then build a sediment basin to serve the subdeveloper. Why should we buy parkland then build a sediment basin. It just does nothing. That's not a trade. If they need a sediment basin to serve their subdevelopment, it should be a part of their developable land dedicated to the sediment basin to protect the subsequent buyers. We shouldn't relieve them the burden of the sediment basin. I'm getting a little bit strong on this thing. The proposal to me is just not complete. Not well done. Whether that is the developer's problem or the City of Chanhassen's problem I don't know but that is my position on it. Conrad: I'll make a motion, and I'll give you the reasons before I even make it. We have three choices. To approve it with conditions, and I think we can make some conditions out there, however I see the changes we are asking for will significantly change what we have in front of us and therefore I am not real confident that is a good alternative. We can table it as Mike suggested, but then the developer doesn't get the wisdom of the City Council and I guess I would like to have this go up to City Council so the community can talk to them at the same time and the developer can get some direct comments from Council as to this particular project. Therefore, what I am recommending, because I want the developer to be talking to the Council, therefore I am recommending that we turn this proposal down. Thompson seconded the motion for discussion. Thompson: I understand what you are saying. It goes on to Council. We really haven't put the ball back in the developers court or the neighbors court to get back together and try and resolve the issues. I think some of the input they brought up is valid and possibly aren't going to get their chance to say much because when they get to the Council then they will lose their public hearing and they won't really have the opportunity to speak like they do at a public hearing. Noziska: I would have to go along with Mike on that somewhat. Why should be kick it upstairs when we really haven't got all of the Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty One e answers, or we don't have an awful lot of answers. We aren't even beginning to corne close to them. Ryan: What we do Howard is, by denying we give the applicant, he has to take the chance that it he goes on to Council and wastes another two weeks that they are going to do the same thing we did and he is just going to be two weeks further down the line, or he can take his package back and do a better job of it and request another hearing. He doesn't have to go on with it. We can say any number of things with what we do. Noziska: I understand that. I would go along with the motion. Conrad: I think it makes sense. They can do a lot of things at the Council level but I think the developer should hear what they have to say and I don't think we have provided the developer, I think we spent a couple of hours here talking about it. I'm not sure if they have a real clear definition of what we would like there and I think the Council can add to some of the things that we have said. I don't know if we lose control. Noziska: Did we not through our City Council, through their last indication to the developer, say that the density should be decreased and then it was increased. I guess why should be kick it upstairs when they didn't pay any attention the first time. e Thompson: He does have a valid point, I will support you on that. The fact is that we kind of like to complete the package and send it on. Once in a while we run into an issue maybe we can't because of the political ramifications. I don't think there are any particular political ramifications. This is a pure planning issue and we are the body that supposedly does the long range planning and we can ask that a presentation be brought to us in an acceptable form. There are no political ramifications in this. If it were something else I could say yes, I would support your motion but I guess I would rather have you withdraw it and table. Conrad: I will withdraw my motion. Do you want to make a motion Mike? Thompson moved that the Planning Commission table the proposed preliminary and final development plan and wetland alteration permit for another meeting and in the meantime send the developer back to the Staff to corne back with some specific things as outlined: Ryan: I'm concerned and I think Staff needs to understand my concern that the City of Chanhassen in doing their master planning of the park system for the City of Chanhassen is being negligent. If we don't resolve what we want here we can't ask the developer to do his things. We have got to make some decisions and build them into the plan. I e don't see anything wrong with the south half of the development if the Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Two e park were straighten out. If we were taking care of our water wetlands the right way. I don't want to bui ld that into it. It's not the developer's problem, it is the City of Chanhassen's problem. Thompson: I think we can be general or specific. The only thing I find hard in reading the Minutes here, and all respect to Bill, but I see the Ci ty Counc i 1 has to sit there with the developer and take a plan and say here is 175 lots. You should take Lot 3 and Lot 9 and Lot 11 out. I don't think City Council should have to do that. By the time it gets there those decisions should be made and they shouldn't have to be making those types of decisions. I would take that in the spirit of the fact that obviously the neighborhood wants to cooperate, the developer says that he wants to cooperate, that they get back together and resolve most of the major issues and any other issues that the Staff has, and I felt that Staff has some issues here that should be resolved, and this should come back here as soon as it can. I don't know if we can continue the public hearing. Ryan: To go back to Ladd's three options. You can reject the preliminary plat for lack of sufficient information and ask them to come back. A very general rejection. e Emmings: I don't think it should be sent onto the City Council because I think it is in too early a stage as somebody said before, I guess after hearing your comments, I don't think we should go ahead with the south end until the whole thing is done. I guess I wuld be in favor of rejecting this preliminary plan. That sounds to me like what we are doing. We don't havethe information we need and I think that the preliminary plan should be rejected. Ryan: What is the fastest way for the developer to come beck before us? Thompson: I don't know if it is necessarily how fast, it is the fact tha t he has to get down and meet with some people. He could be back next meeting but that doesn't mean he has talked with anybody. Erhart: I understand that but will it be delayed 7 or 8 weeks? Ryan: The developer has the right to go on if he chooses to go on with the understanding that we have some reservations on the content. He can attempt to correct those things in between. Then we get into a problem because Staff, if there are major changes, should insist that it come back to the Commission. Dacy: If I can it seems, and correct me if I am wrong, I am picking up on three major issues with the plan. 1. That desire of the Commission is that the northerly part of the property be redesigned to preserve the wetland area. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Three e 2. The Frontier Trail street connection. Staff maintains its recommendation that connection should be made. The neighborhood is opposing the connection and would prefer a cul-de-sac from Kerber Blvd. in. I believe the applicant as far as that situation is concerned, and correct me if I am wrong, he did state at a previous meeting whatever that the City would recommend on that issue, they would comply with, so we are going to have those issues between neighborhood, developer, Staff and Commission and Council. 3. Am I hearing further clarification on the proposed use of the parkland as far as the process. As it stands now, the Park and Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council to acquire the land that has been depicted on the Exhibit and the Minutes are in the package so as far as the final determination as to whether or not the City should acquire that land would be the ultimate decision Qf the City Council. Ryan: There are other directions that you can go. The City does not have to acquire that land but the City can require as part of the PUD negotiations that that land be set aside as green land and maintained as a common area by the homeowners association. e Dacy: I just wanted to identify that the park issue still remains an issue for the Commission and that you want further definition of options as to what the park area can be used as. Ryan: We don't want option. We don't control the Parks and Recreation Commission. If the City wants to take on that responsibility, that has to be decided somehow and stated to us as the preferred negotiated settlement. Right now it is ambiguous. It may go this way, it may go that way. Well, that is not enough for us to go on. Dacy: The fact of retaining Outlot B for the park issue to be improved in whatever manner that the Council may so choose, is or is not the type of information that you want the developer to come back with. I'm trying to list things they should revise a plan or address or you want Staff to address. Thompson: Lot size. Monk: You state your intent, there has been a lot of talk back and forth about small lots and large lots, buffering and so on. We can move to resolve the park issue and some of the drainage concerns and the street issue is the cul-de-sac or through street, but the lot issue is also important. The number of lots, buffering and some type of just general statement whether you table or deny should be made on lot size just so we have some direction. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Four e Ryan: Bill, if we take some of their lots for the park, we split some of those lots down. Then we have a lot more small lots. Then the lot size issue can become a very serious question. Do you want to poll the Commission and ask what our positions are on lot sizes? Monk: No, but the thing is that if a segment of the Commission believes that larger lots should be provided where it ties into the existing developments and those types of things, that would be the direction Staff would have. The park issue and how the lots are around the park is one thing. It remains to be seen, depending on whether the Park Commission acquires the site or not. Just some general statement in that area might be good just to give us some direction in terms of whether we should be pursuing a reduction in lots overall or having more for a larger buffer area or just exactly what intent there is. Ryan: When we did the development for Chanhassen Estates we looked for transition sizing to match the lots behind them and gradually make the transition to smaller lots. Noziska: If that wetlands area is not developed, that is going to eliminate alot of that property. It is going to wipe out a couple of lots for one thing, so it is going to reduce the number of lots and it is also going to make a better transition between Sunrise Hills and the northern park. e Ryan: As far as the official density, it doesn't change things. They added the acreage, they added the right number of lots so the density stayed the same. They really didn't change density. Dacy: To go on further, Staff recommended, in regards to the south side of the property now, do you have any additional concerns in that area beyond what we have talked about as far as eliminating the lot in Block 4 and realignment Santa Vera to the south. Anything specific in that area. Noziska: Somehow we are proposing to put someone elses land under water here. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that situation. It doesn't seem like it makes an awful lot of sense to me that we should be creating a pond on someone elses land without even getting any input from them. Greg Frank: That pond was at the direction of the City. We originally did not propose that pond. It was at the direction of the City so we were responding to what we thought was direction from the City thereby imposing upon with the understanding that the City would be working with us and those adjoing property owners, to acquire that property. e Noziska: I understand that. That is fine but I am still saying that is an issue. Where the direction came from I understand. The fact Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Five e that we are still putting somebody under water when we really haven't heard from him, that is still an issue. Mr. Seigel: We haven't talked to the owner. Bill Monk was going to talk to the owner at some point. We intend to in the meantime, until the City was able to obtain that land, we can dig out a portion that falls on our property and use that as a sedimentation basin until they acquire the land west of that and also we we are willing to provide for slope stablization that was recommended by a wildlife naturalist and we would work with Fish and Wildlife in setting up wildlife habitat around the new sedimentation basin. e Ryan: We are concerned about sedimentation basin in all of our community. First of all they are sedimentation basin and they are going to fill up sometime and be serviced. That means you are going to have to get at them. If you have them at a bottom of a hill and there is no way to get back there to do anyth i ng with it, they are not going to get service, they are just going to build up and pretty soon it is going to carryover into the pond. The other part is that we would prefer to have the Homeowners Association carry that responsibility rather than building in a recurring maintenance cost to the City. If we have enough of these questions I think what we have to say is that the kind of questions that Mr. Johnson was asking, we should be able to answer. Should be able to see, follow the plans, to see landscaping plans, the final development plans. We don't have that stuff. This is just not nearly clear enough and perhaps we should table this and let them come back in two weeks with a better proposal. Ryan: Let's take a straw poll of the Commissioners here. How many favor putting Frontier Trail through. Erhart Emmings Siegel Ryan Conrad Noziska Thompson In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against Ryan: Howard, are you going to waiver here? Noziska: Yes, I would really like to see before I go the voting to see the overall area. Again, we are just looking here at one area. Ryan: We just had a three hour sketch plan review and they discussed an awful lot of that. Thompson: Why would you vote for it? e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Six e Ryan: I think it is necessary to make sure we can provide that part of the town with the public services it needs. I think that area of town has been deficient up until now. Does that help you? Dacy: Yes. Thompson: Should we take a straw poll on lot size? How many people are hung up on 15,000 square feet lots. Preferred? Ryan: 15,000 square feet minimum? Conrad: I'm not hung up that but I think that goes back to the negotiation and again that goes back to my comment that I don't know that because this is a PUD, I don't know that we, I can go down to 10,000 square foot lot sizes if I think we are getting something in return and I really don't know that we have in this particular deal. Again, the lot size doesn't make much difference to me as long as I am comofortable we are negotiating from the 15,000 square foot standard. It just doesn't appear that we have negotiated very much in the particular PUD. Noziska: There are an awful lot of holes in this whole thing. e Conrad: There also has to be a transitional density too going into that area. Ryan: What I would like to suggest is that we have a number of items on the agenda and it is not the commission's fault that this presentation was insufficient in support information to make a decision so we should let them carry the brunt and come back another time so we can get on with the rest of the items. Noziska: So if we table it does it come back as a public hearing? The public hearing stays open. Emmings: Isn't there a motion on the floor right now? Dacy: Yes, Mr. Thompson has a motion. Ryan: Would the public hearing stay open if we table at this point? Dacy: If you would like it to be, that is fine. Thompson moved and Emmings seconded to table the proposed preliminary and final development plan and wetland alteration permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. Ryan: It will come back then when Staff thinks that they have a presentation. e At time point there was a short intermission. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Seven e Ryan: We are going to jump to Item 7 on the agenda. Site Plan Review #86-2 for a 31,320 square foot shopping center, located in the northwest corner of 64th Street and Highway 41, Tomac Development. Tomac has requested this item be tabled until the June 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting so anybody that is here for that item, it will be first item on the agenda on June 11, 1986. Dacy: What is going on is the applicant has just asked that the Tomac Site Plan be tabled for the Planning Commission consideration until June 11, 1986. The City Council still intends to meet on June 2 on the rezoning and preliminary plat and this would be just the site plan issue to June 11th. Ryan: Do you (the applicants) want it tabled? Tomac: Yes. Ryan: If we run out of things that we can cover, we will adjourn and not get it covered anyway, and we won't get that covered tonight so it will be the first item on the 11th. We would have preferred to have the City Council act on the zoning decision before we saw this anyway, but that is not why we are tabling it. It's because we ran out of time. We may have gotten through two hours of discussion and tabled it anyway. Now we will move onto the item the rest of you are apparently here for. e PUBLIC HEARING Amendment Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No. 47 to amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04 (Recreational Beachlots), Ci ty of Chanhassen. Public Present Dave Broder Ali Brock Kathy Freidlander Rick Freidlander Marge Spliethoff Pat Swenson Dianne Needham Mel Kurvers Franklin Iurvers Barbara Miller Jack Melby 640 Pleasant View 7203 Frontier Trail 7301 Frontier Trail 7301 Frontier Trail 113 Sandy Hook 7415 Frontier Trail 7240 Chanhassen Road 7220 Chanhassen Road 610 Carver Beach Road Dacy: I would like to read the cover memorandum briefly. e As you may know, the City has been challenged by the Lotus Lake Estate Homeowners Association regarding the recreational beachlot Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Eight e requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. Complicating this issue was a recent application of Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and the approval of the Plocher/Geske variances for additional dockage and overnight storage in conjunction with the 18 unit townhome development at the old Leach property adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. During this entire timeframe various amendments were discussed by the City Council. The Lotus Lake lawsuit can best be seen as hastening that process. The City Council met with the City Attorney and the attorney assigned by the insurance carrier to review the pending lawsuit. It was recommended by the attorneys that the existing ordinance should be modified. The City Attorney has prepared the proposed modifications to the Water Surface Usage Ordinance and the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. The amendment to the Lotus Lake Estates Conditional Use Permit is based on the revised Recreational Beachlot Ordinance amendment. The lawsuit will remain pending until a decision on the three items addressed by the Planning Commission tonight and by the City Council at the June 16th meeting. The City Attorney is here to answer questions regarding the three proposals. As the lawsuit is still pending, the City Attorney's Office has advised this office that he cannot publically discuss the Lotus Lake lawsuit and has suggested that the Planning Commission address solely the ordinance amendment issues. e I was just going to say that if you would like, as was done in the report, just go through what exists now in the Beachlot ordinance and what the proposed ordinance does if that is how you would like it? Ryan: What is the driving force behind this? Is the City Council requesting that the Planning Commission make particular action in this case? Roger Knutson: The City Council has entered into an agreement that basically says that if the City Council approves these, and they are not committed to approve these items before you, the lawsuit will be dismissed. They have not committed to passing them. Ryan: Has the City Council asked us to prepare the ordinance in this particular fashion. Knutson: The Council has asked you to review them in the capacity as land use advisors, the Planning Commission, and to relate what you want. This is how it has come down from the Council, in this form. Ryan: This is what Council would like to see? Knutson: They would like to see you consider this. Barbara, can you tell us what they want? On that note, e e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Fifty Nine Thompson: It is my understanding that you can't discuss the merits of the lawsuit because of there is a lawsuit. Isn't there a possibility that we can discuss the merits of the lawsuit with the City Attorney in a closed session? In other words what we are looking at is a possible settlement of a lawsuit based on this not really discussing the merits of the lawsuit. Knutson: what the Council would like you to look at is the ordinance amendments. Thompson: Can we discuss this with you in a private session? Knutson: First of all, before I could discuss it with you I would have to discuss it with Council to see if they would allow me to discuss my private thoughts. Thompson: Let's assume they would say yes. Is there anything illegal about you discussing this in a closed session as far as the merits of the lawsuit. If the lawsuit has no merit and the Council is being forced into this, it is your job to advise them as to what the merits of the lawsuit are and we don't really know what they are. Knutson: I have advised them on the subject. Thompson: But we don't have that information. Then I don't see how we can sit here and discuss this. Are we not suppose to discuss this. It isn't like we haven't looked at an ordinance on this things many, many times and what they do is they keep shoving this back at us and I'm not saying that the Lotus Lake people don't have some justifiable merit based on some things the Council has done, but not what the Planning Commission has done. The point is I have a hard time discussing this issue and looking at this ordinance because I don't agree with it anyway because we went through this thing how long ago and how many times... Ryan: Barb, can you just quickly, we went through this in 1982 we drafted the ordinance. In July we tried to send it through and Council didn't want it. Tell us what is happening. Dacy: What is happening is that basically overnight storage is being allowed on a beachlot for up to three boats per dock. Also what is happening is the size of the beachlot is being regulated beyond the current ordinance. The current ordinance says that they have to have 100 by 100 size beachlot and a minimum in order to have a dock. The new ordinance is saying that you have to have at least 200 feet of frontage and 100 feet in depth and at least 30,000 square feet of area. Then for additional dockage beyond that, you have to have another 200 feet of lake frontage and another 20,000 square feet in area and no more than three docks is permitted per beachlot. So it is the overnight storage and three boats per dock and the specific lot area requirements are the main differences. It also provides for a e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty minimum 200 feet of frontage for the beachlot if a sailboat mooring is desired, and every mooring beyond that is also based on a 200 foot increment. Everything else remains the same except right now Staff didn't like the facilities that are allowed on the beachlots. with certain provisions however proposed, are not allowed period. There is still being maintained that inner lot should go across the beachlot. So frontage area and overnight storage are the basic differences. Erhart: Paragraph E says up to 4 sailboat moorings and paragraph I says one sailboat mooring. Dacy: What (~ is saying is that it allows up to 4 as a maximum and what (I) is saying that you have to have at least 200 feet of frontage for every sailboat mooring. Ryan: What is the significant difference between this current ordinance and proposal and the ordinance in July? Dacy: I believe the difference was that the amount of overnight storage last year was still contemplated as five boats per dock, where as now it is three. The lot area and frontage requirements are the same but the overnight storage issue is different. Ryan: I thought we were looking at that point in three per equivalent recurring lot. The DNR standard. Dacy: That was discussed as an idea however, we were looking... Ryan: When we got done the Commission decided we didn't need a new ordinance. Dacy: Right, and you recommended denial of the proposed amendment and then it went to Council. Ryan: This is a public hearing. Can we get some comments before it gets too late. Henry: I thought heard Mr. Knutson say that he could not discuss the legal aspects of the case. That doesn't mean that you cannot discuss or that we cannot discuss the case. Knutson: As far as I am concerned you certainly can discuss anything. Ryan: We can venture out into some deep water but I don't know that any of us have any information on it. We are not party to the suit and we don't have any, it's pure speculation. Henry: I thought you might not be able to respond but you can talk about it among yourselves or anyone can. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty One e Noziska: It's a public hearing. You can say anything you want to say. Tell us about anything you want to tell us about. Georgette: I would like to start out by, first of all, saying that we had a number of people here earlier who, unfortunately because of the hour., ~ad to leave. Two of those people were very important and I am sorry that they couldn't stay. Court MacFarlane and Jack Vogel, both of them were authors of the present ordinance. I know that some of you have been on the Planning Commission before and the rest of us have heard it over and over again however, there are members of the Planning Commission who maybe don't know the history or the purpose of the ord i nance was and for tha t reason I would 1 i ke to take over at least to express the feelings of these two gentlemen that had to leave because of the hour. First of all, the Lake Study Committee was appointed by Council and Planning Commission a number of years ago, about 5 years ago. People that were on that committee were lakeshore homeowners and outlot owners and people who had no lakeshore at all. In other words, the people who wrote the ordinance in the first place were people from allover Chanhassen. There was no vested interest in the way that the ordinance was written. The purpose of the ordinance was to control the number of boats and usage of boats on our lakes, all of our lakes, so that there would be a safe number and so that everyone in our community could enjoy the lakes so that we would not have over crowded conditions. That was the purpose of the ordinance. The ordinance took several years to write. We were in on the end of it in trying to amend it and change it. To make it fair. We came before you many, many times, those of you who are still on the Planning Commission will remember this. As early as last August, as you remember Mr. Ryan, we went through the ordinance again and it was unanimous with the Planning Commission that we had a good ordinance, that it was constitutional, that it was defensible in court, that we were happy with it. It went to Council and with the exception of one Council member, it was also supported. It was checked over and decided, almost unanimously, that we had a good ordinance and indeed we will stand behind it. So I guess the question before us tonight is what has happened since July or August that brings us before you again and that really makes the authors of this ordinance extremely depressed, as they were tonight, that they had to appear before you again, to remind you of the purpose of the ordinance and to encourage you to stand behind what is a very good ordinance and an ordinance which has been checked by other lawyers besides our City Attorney, who feels it is defensible in court and should be tested. e Ryan: I'm not sure if you are asking a question who would be able to answer that question. That is a valid comment. Georgette: I was just stating an opinion. Ryan: Yes, you also said something about what got us where we are and I'm not sure about that. I appreciate your opinion. Does anybody else want to state an opinion or ask a question. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Two e Carol Lynbar: My husband and I are relatively new comers to the lake. We've lived on Lotus Lake for the last year and one of the things that attracted us to this area, and particularly this lake, was the peacefulness and serenity that we saw on the lake. We are concerned about the safety factors on the lake and the potential over crowding that may result with the changes in the beachlot ordinance. It is my understanding that the DNR allows for their guidelines calls for essentially one power boat on the lake for every 20 acres, which I think would give us somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 13 power boats on the lake. If you mix that with additional canoes and sailboats, which don't navigate as rapidly or as well, I think there really is a potential for some danger and I would be very concerned about that myself. As I said, the concern for safety and over crowding on the lake is one that I think most of us all share and we certainly don't want to have any hazardous accidents occur. Jack Melby: To elude a little bit to what Georgette said. Our Association, the Lotus Lake Association, has had the ordinance reviewed by our Attorney who has given us an informal opinion that stated, and I think you mayor the City Council may have received copies, of that informal opinion that said the ordinance was reviewed in detail, was found constitutional and defensivible. Our Associaton would like to see the City, the Planning Commission as well, stand behind that ordinance up to and including going to Court. Ryan: I think his opinion was presented at the City Council meeting a month or so back. e Marge Spliethoff: I just have a question. Where did the 200 feet of lake frontage come from? Is there some guideline or do you have any idea if that would make it more constitutional or more fair? Dacy: The lake frontage number and lot area was created basically as a general guideline. We looked at existing beachlots of record and so on, and when we applied the new regulations, only three of those beachlots would be able to have docks so in tha t sense the lake frontage requirement is more restrictive. Marge Spliethoff: You mean what we have now? Dacy: what is being proposed as far as just the lake frontage issue. Marge Spliethoff: What would happen for an individual owner, somebody that had maybe 500 feet of lakeshore. Would they then be allowed to have more. Dacy: No, it would not apply to individual owners. It only applies to recreational beachlots which are owned and maintained by Homeowners Associations. Jack Melby asked about individual lot owners. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Three e Dacy: Individual lot owners, through the Water Surface Usage Ord i nance under 73 wh i ch would be on the next i tern on the agenda allows riparian owners to have a private dock. Whereas the beachlot ordinance is proposing to regulate beachlots owned and maintained by Homeowners Associations and is setting up certain criteria for the number of docks. Marge Spliethoff then asked a question that couldn't be heard on the tape. Dacy: If they have the required amount of frontage area. Marge Spliethoff: That's what I mean, the same amount of frontage. Ryan: What are you proposing for riparian lot owners, three moorings? Dacy: Correct for overnight storage. Public: I have a question. I'm not quite sure of the measurements. Lotus Lake Estates has a parcel of property about 1,000 feet long, the beachlot is 1,000 feet of shoreline and it has a certain depth that I am not familar with, it varies, it is kind of irregular. Is there any way to tell, based on the information that you have given us, as to the square feet for the number of docks that can be built based on the this measurement. e Dacy: What Staff did was to take the final plat of Lotus Lake Estates and perimeter is in the instrument to determine lot area fairly accurate outlining the perimeter of the outlot and determined that the lot area was... Public: 92,000 square feet. Was there any point along the length of that property where 600 can get more. It doesn't look like it to me. Dacy: If you can hang on a minute I can check my packet but I do believe that it did measure 100 feet in depth at one point. At the top of the beachlot it is approximately 200 feet and then it graduates down to it's smallest point down at the bottom at 54.97 feet. So the northerly half portion of the beachlot does contain 100 feet. Public: So that would give an area for shoreline length of about 500 feet that meets the requirement ordinance which would include the remaining half of that peice of property in terms of depth of the shoreline. Dacy: What is being proposed is that the beachlot does at one point contain a depth greater than 100 feet as the lake frontage and the lot area and that is what is being proposed. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Four e Public: So if I am reading you right, you are saying 500 feet of that shoreline meets the ordinance or about half of the shoreline meets the requirements. Dacy: Apprxoximately 513 feet. Jack Melby: Can I have clarification on the last question. The way the ordinance is written, it can be at any point in that lot being 100 feet deep to qualify. It doesn't have to be continuously 100 feet deep. Roger Knutson: That is my interpretation of the ordinance. That is correct. e Harvy Barker: In discussing when the announcement was made of the proposed changes of the ordinance, I discussed it with some friends that live on other lakes in Chanhassen and so forth, and it seems to me, the mood seems to me, that if exceptions are made to the ordinance, we are going to end up with a lot of legal action, as it were, from other people on other lakes in the village. I think that you may be opening Pandora's Box if this thing is allowed to go through and I guess I wuold concur with what was said earlier, in letting the ordinance go to court. If it is a good ordinance it will stand the test of legal scrutiny. If not, it won't and it will have to be changed. I think by allowing the changes to already existing, realtively new ordinance, I think you are just going to be creating some additional problems. Georgette: Just to elaborate a little bit on what Harvey is saying and be more specific. There is an outlot on our lake, that we know for a fact has had a meeting, has 150 feet and feels they are going to be discriminated against by this new amendment and would feel that they deserve to have dockage and overnight mooring of boats as well, which is just as arbitrary as 200 feet. So it seems to me that we should consider that 200 feet should maybe 175 or 150 or 300 or whatever figure you are going to pic, there are going to be groups that are going to decide to have lawsuits and challenge the City and are we expected to come back again each time and try and defend our ordinance or are we going to tailor it for each lawsuit that comes around. This is a question. Ryan: I can answer part of it. I think once you, at least state, what you choose to be that arbitary number, then you have become definitive and it becomes defensivible, but when you don't state something and you begin to grant rights without any clear definition, then you are not defensivible. 200 would be just as defensivible as 150 once we choose to set one. Right now we have set no mark so you can't defend something you haven't set. e Richard Wagner: I am what is left of the Minnewashta contingency. The late hour took care of all our people and I guess I just wanted to e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Five make sure that you are aware that the Minnewashta people were here and is concerned. When the ordinance was passed, we really supported it. We tailored our docks, we tailored our ramp, tailored our use of the lake, and it really was for the benefit of the lake as I see it. As a lakeowner I was happy. I didn't have any complaints. I was happy to comply with that. One issue that wasn't resolved then and hasn't been resolved now, is this outlot issue. We can show you outlots on Minnewashta that are out of control. You can scream about it but I can show you what a 50 foot lot with 15 homes will attempt and is attempting to do and it has in fact done, and because of it we are taking action out in Minnewashta because unfortunately these people have literally taken over and they want something for nothing so I am very down on the outlot situation and I don't feel it has been resolved. I feel it is still a problem. I think it needs control as do the lakeowners. That is not the issue. These people for the people, lakeowners, not lakeowners. You simply can't have the entire non-lake public have access to the lake on their 25 foot, 200 foot, 300 foot, whatever arbitary figure here. It appears to me the ordinance's real weak point is in respect to these out lots. I would like to see the Planning Commission just put a halt on all of this and go back and re-evaluate the outlot situation and work with the DNR and solve this issue once and for all to come up with a realistic position. I'm not opposed to outlots, I think there is a fair position that can be taken. A position that is fair to the lakeowners and a position that is fair to the non-lake owners, but it certainly is not resolved. There is a sore point in an issue here that is going to come back again and I don't know what we are doing and I don't know where we are going. I don't know where it stands. You people don't seem to know either and we are changing this ordinance because of a lawsuit, we are really are kind of lost here and it really is a dead issue already. We are working on redoing an ordinance because of a lawsuit and I think the statement earlier here about so what. Let's let the lawsuit go rather than try and solve the lawsuit by quick changing the ordinance which automatically brings people in to complain about the changes you have already made, resolved. The issue here tonight obviously is the outlot issue and it does need control and I support that control. Frank Kurvers: Whatever the Lotus Lake Estates people are asking for is fair. They have a piece of land that is unique. It is high elevation they can't get to. They are asking for nine boats. I think they should have them then we won't have to have lawsuits. Mr. Wagner: What is the ordinance? What is the control? How can you say that when the ordinance doesn't allow that. What do you do about the other lots. It's fair yes, according to the ordinance, no. Public: I've heard the point made several times about the density on the lake and the over usage of the lake. I don't think any of us in the Lotus Lake Esta tes would argue the fact that the lake has to be maintained safely. I think we argue the fact though that the usage of e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Six the lake has to be equitable. There are a lot of lots on that lake that are not very wide that have more than one boat or in fact, three or four boats on their dock. Either single family homes with multiple boat usage of the lake, yet I don't see anybody saying that that seems to be a problem with boat usage on the lake. It seems like if you are going to control any property, you control all property and you control it equitably. I think looking at square footage, looking at area is a reasonable thing. I remember Lotus Lake Estates coming and asking for 40 boat once. That is not equitable, I didn't support that. I'm not sure I support this or not but I do support equitable use of our lakes. I think we pay taxes, in a sense purchase that land and it is a very large piece of land and to not be able to store any moored watercraft while private homeowners can store several crafts, the issue of safety on the lake doesn't seem to be a viable one. If the lake needs to be quieted, it is quieted for everybody and by taking only select groups and saying that you are going to overuse the lake but I can use it, one does not seem to be an equitable solution, and keep in mind we are not asking for nor does this even begin to hint at one boat per resident that has access to that outlot. It seems that the restrictions they have placed upon that outlot in size and linear footage along with how close the homes have to be, substantially protect the outlots from what has happened to some of the outlots on some of the other lakes, which is obvious over usage. My only negative comment about what is in this proposal is that it would seem to me we are defending some other folks who have been before you from other outlots, that every outlot ougth to have at least a minimum standards that every other lot on the lake has. If it is three boats on a dock, I don't care is the outlot is 50 feet wide, we are not measuring private properties right now on the lake to see how wide they are. Whether they can have five boats or four boats or two. Every outlot ought to be entitled to at least the minimum standard that any other lot on the lake has and because of the size, there are certain modifications to that. I think a good job has been done here to find a common ground. Henry: I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. Two words were used by the gentlemen who just preceeded me. Taxes and utilization or equal utilization. I know the hour is very late and I don't want to go through a long litany, but when I hear taxes or utilization. The taxes are not equitably distributed if you want to talk equal. Ability and utilization and every citizen in Chanhassen could use the lakes. It just is a question of where they put their boat in and how they use it. The question of number of boats per family that the gentlemen brought up the fact that riparian owners now have five and if you preceive that on the next issue, possibly three boats per dock. utilization of those three or five boats, or however many boats each family has, is far different in utilization for the same number of three or five boats per dock that a homeowners association would use because one boat would be used by one family whereas one family may use three different types of watercraft. The chances of all three of the private owners watercraft being on the lake at anyone time is e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Seven extremely small. The chance that three boats on an outlot dock would be utilized as an afternoon on the lake, so utilization is not equal. What I really came to say though I guess, was that all of this, as we have many times as you well know, the last time was only nine months ago. That request was from I think Lotus Lake Estates again, they requested a change in their outlot permit. The Planning Commission and Council at that time both denied that request in a sense agreeing that the current law is valid. The current law was beneficial and that it should be upheld. You have heard some arguments tonight and I'm not going to reiterate. I would think from what I have heard and from what I know from other beachlot meetings, the proposed change will in general, more lawsuits for the City rather than protect the city from them. When I stop and try to figure out what the difference is tonight as opposed to what it was nine months ago when we were here last, the only thing I see is the legal action brought about by Lotus Lake Estates. I don't know as though there is any new information. I don't know that there is any change that has occurred. I don't know that the law is any less defensivible then it was when it was recently drafted and upheld nine months ago. I guess, from my prespective, with the lack of any real new information or input, I would suggest that the Council simply table this until they get whatever information they need. Noziska moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Thompson: It seems that parties that want this ordinance change. What they do is they keep bringing this up and hoping along the line something will happen but when we originally went into this, I think if you look at part of the statute ordinance, it goes back and talks about the years when we started this and we had the committee was formed and many people were involved in it and the input and public hea ring s were held here and I remember I used to dr i ve up and you couldn't find a parking place anywhere. The room was full of people. All of the issues that were discussed and I don't think the discussion or the merit of the discussion has changed at all. I can't see why we would have to even consider this at this point. I am certainly insulted that they continue to bring this thing to me and I think that the people that were interested at that time. I don't see many of them here tonight. I think there is a problem. I don't know what it is, possibly the hour, but also I think many of those people that were involved at these public hearings probably went away from those public hearings and went away with the idea that we came to a final resolution of this ordinance when we passed this ordinance and they have trust and faith in the City officials, and the fact that they don't have to come back here every 90 days to figure out what ordinance is changed. I'm sure there was some notice that went out on this issue but I don't know how it went out and I'm sure that I could go out and raise more people tonight if I knew what this was all about ahead of time when you got here as far as this issue goes. I don't think we have fair representation of the public here to even discuss Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Eight e this. The other thing is that the City Attorney or the Council doesn't feel that we have some merit in discussing the merits of the lawsuit, then I don't care to discuss it. At this point there was a tape change. ...ask the City Council to allow us to discuss the merits of the lawsuit with the City Attorney in closed session, or that we uphold the ordinance as it is as we have in two other cases. e Noziska: I guess Mike said a mouthful and having been here at the same time that Mike was discussing. The room was full, we went through many, many hours worth of public input on the ordinance. At that particular time it was a consensus document and now all of a sudden at this particular time, it isn't a consensus document or at least for some reason for which we can't discuss evidentally, it is no longer a consensus. I'm with Mike. I'm a little bit confused as to, if it was good nine months ago, what is wrong with it now and we perhaps need to know more than what we do. About why something that was a community consensus document isn't anymore a community consensus document. I feel Mike's problem with discussing it. If we are going to discuss it, let's get the cards on the table and get all of the input that we need to take this change seriously. We had a committee of very dedicated people who went through this. In addition to that, the whole community had input on it and now we starting from scratch, or from somewhere, I don't know where, but we are starting out with wanting to change it in the middle of the stream and I guess I go along with Mike's tabling it until we are somehow privleged to more information than we are right tonight. Conrad: Who was the attorney who reviewed the previous ordinance when it was proposed? Was that a different group in 1982. Dacy: The City Attorney at that time was Russ Larson and Craig Merz was the Assistant City Attorney. Conrad: They are no longer employed by the City? Dacy: That is correct. Conrad: I guess the Lotus Lake Estates folks have an interesting perspective and I sympathize with what they are asking for. The Lake Study Committee spent four years gathering information and going around with us and the City Council and then tonight we have two pieces of paper, comments, and our City Attorney can't comment. . Roger Knutson: I think you can appreciate my stand. Conrad: I understand, but we don't have any information and asking us to react. We thought we had a good ordinance and somebody is trying to tell us we ha ve a bad ord i nance and you can't te 11 us why we have a bad ordinance and we can't talk about it. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Sixty Nine e Roger Knutson: I guess my only suggestion would be that you concentrate on the merits of the ordinance and look at it as you would any other ordinance coming by you to review. That is all you can do. I can't sit at a public meeting and discuss the merits of the lawsuit. People are out there taking notes. Conrad: Tell me how these numbers are going to be defensivible Roger? Tell me why we aren't going to have another lawsuit? All I can see are the lawsuits. Now you can't comment. Roger Knutson: No one can stop from suing you. Conrad: Was it your advice to City Council that our ordinance is not defensivible? Roger Knutson: I really can't discuss that subject. For publication, I will say it is defensivible. I am prepared to go to Court and defend it. A lot of things went into the City Council's decision as to where we are at. The final decision has not been made. They are not committed to passing this. They said that if it is passed, then the lawsuit is over so all they want is not an analysis of the lawsuit but an analysis of the ordinance. If you think the ordinance stinks, tell me. e Ryan: Let me ask for one clarification that may help us here. In July, we went through this thing and it was the opinion of the Commission that we didn't really want to change the ordinance. We passed it onto the Council that we were not in favor of changing the ordinance. I think that motion was that we were recommending that the ordinance not be changed. Was that the way it was worded? Dacy: The minutes should be attached here. Ryan: Recommends denial of the proposed Recreational Beachlot Ordinance Amendment. That recommendation went onto the Council at the time? Dacy: Yes. Ryan: And they still had a choice to vote. us. It went to them. It didn't just die with Dacy: Right, and the Council denied the ordinance amendment at their August 5, 1985 meeting by a 3 to 2 vote. Ryan: It was a very similar ordinance amendment? Dacy: Yes. e Ryan: The point is, no matter what we do it can go with recommended approval or we can recommend denial and it can still go to Council and Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventy e they can do whatever they want anyway. This is a procedural item we are setting here. Dacy: If you recommend denial it is going to go to the Council. If you recommend approval it is going to go the Council. Thompson: We can recommend tabling it and ask Council permission. Ryan: That's the thing. You can table it and hold it here for a while but I don't know as though that does anybody any good. Conrad: We could talk to Roger in private if that is possible. We could reinstate the Lake Study Committee and get another group going if that is what is necessary. We could be two or three years. Siegel: I don't know. just going to... This is all pretty new to me so I think I'm Ryan: You probably aren't going to understand what is going on with this. Siegel: No, it's pretty confusing but I can understand the legal ramifications here but there are no answers to be had so I can't really contribute too much to what has already been said. e Emmings: I can't contribute anything either but I am going to say it regardless. Somebody has written this language to settle the lawsuit. I guess that's clear to everybody because we keep hearing the Attorney say that if it is passed the lawsuit is over and obviously the Council wants us to pass this and I think they intend to pass it to resolve the lawsui t. I think it is a real poor reason to do it. I think it is the worse possible reason to do it knowing what we know so I think we should deny it. I don't like tabling it because it makes me kind of mad and I would feel better about denying it than tabling it. Erhart: Listening to you fellows, it would indicate to me that this is an issue that is going to be acted on apparently through a lot of public participation the last time. It would seem to me if we are going to act on this thing, we ought to put it in some type of environment where we can get the public in because I think it is very unfair to change it within less than one year and you have four or five people commenting on it. It doesn't mean I don't think it's a better ordinance. If it was that interesting a year ago and we came up with what we have, then it ought to be that interesting again and we should listen to some of the public comments, so I would table it. I would it so that we could get it first on the agenda of a public hearing so people can be invited to go through it again and we might have to. e Ryan: It almost initiates a whole new study because of the references to the DNR and their standards and do you develop the standard or do e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventy One you not develop any standard at all. The current ordinance says that there are no beachlots so you will need a standard because there are no moorings allowed on the beachlots. There are beachlots but there are no overnight moorings of motorized craft. The DNR has a standard but we tended to ignor that because we felt, the community as a whole, felt in 1982 that we were going to be more restrictive and now we are beginning to be more permissive. A lot of work went into this. We have an ordinance. I haven't seen any basic statement of good community planning that says that we need to change that concept. Good planning still holds that typical, small beachlot problem we shouldn't have. If that is what we decided in 1982 represented good planning I don't see any underlying changes that would make me change on that. However, on the Lotus Lake thing, that beachlot was accepted as a Conditional Use Permit tied in with the PUD which was a negotiated position and so was the Red Cedar Point on Minnewashta. The PUD was negotiated and as part of the PUD you give and take. The people on Lotus Lake Esta tes knew when they got lot si zes and they got densities and they got everything else that goes in the development, that they weren't going to be allowed to park their boats. Erhart: What did the Planning Commission recommend a year ago? Was it to allow boat parking? Ryan: It is all about boat parking. Erhart: Yes, but apparently something happened nine months ago. This was reviewed at public hearing. What was the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. To allow. Ryan: To deny. To leave the ordinance the way it is right now. Erhart: And the City Council essentially accepted that? Ryan: They accepted that but at the same time there was another item on the agenda that was a request for overnight moorings on residential beachlot and those were also allowed. So now we've got conflict. I'm not sure. Again, my opinion on Lotus Lake Estates is that that was a PUD that was negotiated long ago and that was the accepted negotiated position at the time and to come back now and ask for more is reopening negotiations. I feel like we are being asked to do something here that is reopening a negotiation rather than establishing good planning practices for the community. Thompson moved, Emmings seconded to recommend denial of the proposed Amendment Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No. 47 to amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04 (Recreational Beachlots), City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and motion carried. Thompson: I supposed somebody, if you wanted to, if they felt there was a need to have this discussed with us further, they could add an Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Two ~ amendment to the motion that the City Council saw fit for us to become involved with some more information, we could. PUBLIC HEARING Water Surface Usage Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73, City of Chanhassen. Public Present Pat Swenson Mel Kurvers Franklin Kurvers 7240 Chanhassen Road 7220 Chanhassen Road Dacy: Mr. Chairman, we did call a public hearing on this item. Maybe somebody someone would like to address just this specific issue. Ryan: Good point. Each of these i terns is a publ ic hear ing separate. Does anybody have a comment on the... Dacy: What is being done is that the Water Surface Usage Ordinance is being revised to reduce the number of boats that can be docked overnight from five down to three and the proposed amendment is Attachment No. I in your packet. e Ryan: Does anyone wan t to make a commen t on that? Those 0 f you with regular riparian lots will be reduced from five to three. Richard Wagner: Lake Minnewashta. I totally support that amendment. I think it would be an excellent idea. Ryan: Is this enforced immediately or are people grandfathered under the al ready. . . Dacy: Roger and I talked about this earlier. If you have five boats now, the way the ordinance is written would have to reduce the number to three per dock. Ryan: boats. It's retroacvtive. Anybody that has a dock can only have three No grandfathering? Roger Knutson: Correct. Jack Melby: Our Lake Association supports that amendment changing the number of boats from five to three per dock. Frank Kurvers: I'm against it. I think all you should put on all lakes is a 25 horse power limit and forget about all these rules and regulations. All the big power high powered boats instead of 25 HP on all lakes, we wouldn't have to set these regulations. -- Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Three 4It Noziska moved, Thompson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Water Surface Usage Ordinance to amend Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73, City of Chanhassen per the Staff Recommendation. All voted in favor and motion carried. Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings established prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall moor overnight, dock overnight, or store overnight more than three (3) watercraft on any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lakd. Overnight docking mooring and storage is further restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lakeshore site home to which the dock, storage, or mooring site is an accessory use. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a total of three docks to be contructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage of these docks of a total of nine watercraft without restirctions as to whether said water craft are motorized or non-motorized, Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners's Association. 4It Public Present Ali Brock Marge Spliethoff Pat Swenson Dianne Needham Franklin Kurvers Barbara Miller Jim Parsons 7203 Frontier Trail 113 Sandy Hook 7220 Chanhassen Road 610 Carver Beach Road 6800 Brule Circle Ryan: Item 3. I guess we don't have item three because we don't need to discuss Lotus Lake's Conditional Use Permit if we don't have an ordinance. Roger Knutson: The public hearing schedule. I think it would be advisable under the circumstances to hold the public hearing and I know the sentiment of the Commission is to turn it down because it is inconsistent with the present ordinance, you don't like it anyway. Ryan: Yes, we don't want to be inconsistent. e Dacy: What is being proposed is three docks and a total of not more Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Four e than nine watercraft to be stored at those docks without restriction as to motorized or non-motorized. Ryan: Is there anybody that wants to make public comment on this item that hasn't already done so. Larry Constitino: I am a resident of Lotus Lake Estates. I would like to make it clear to the Commission as well as the other members here that Lotus Lake Homeowners Association has not, I repeat, has not asked for a change in the Conditional Use Permit. We as the Homeowners Association have not asked for this. The City is suggesting it as a potential settlment for the lawsuit that is pending. If that is a commentary on the defensivibleness of the ordinance. Ryan: You are saying that you are not the applicant on this? Larry Constitino: I'm on the Board of Directors and I am unaware that we have petitioned a change in the Conditional Use Permit. The City is suggesting it as an alternative. Thompson moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Thompson: Since the applicant hasn't made an application how can we react to it. Since the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association hasn't made application or indicated that they aren't interested in the conditional use permit. Thompson moved, Noziska seconded recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a total of three docks to be constructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage of these docks of a total of nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said water craft are motorized or non-motorized, Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners's Association. All voted in favor and motion carried. Ryan: It's obvious the City Council wants to get a Conditional Use Permit. Knutson: City Council set it before you, that is correct. Ryan: Well, they have a reason. We can't just pass this by and say because they haven't asked for it the thing is not there. That surprised me, I thought you people had asked for it. It was part of the agreement. It's getting late in the evening and I don't want to offend people. The City Council felt it was important enough to take Roger's time and the Staff's time to prepare the request. Thompson: The discussion is that one obvious reason for not continuing to pursue it is because the interested parties aren't interested. e Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986-page Seventy Five 4It Conrad: They are interested. Ryan: We don't have an ordinance that allows it in the first place. Noziska: The main reason would be because we don't have an ordinance and this would be in violation of that ordinance. Ryan: If the City Council should over ride our recommendation and approve the ordinance modification, then this will come back and we can. Ryan: Do we need to elect a new Chairman of the Planning Commission? Should we elect a new chairman. Dacy: You can do that now. Yes, if you are going to be gone by the next meeting. It would normally go to the Vice Chairman. Thompson moved, Siegel seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried. Ryan: Would anyone have anything on the Minutes that they would need to discuss. e Dacy: You should have two sets. The March 19, 1986 one you should have gotten in the mail later. Siegel: One thing. 12.310 a.m. In here you have 12:310 p.m. when it should be Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting on March 19, 1986 with the correction that the meeting adjourned at 12: 310 a.m. instead of 12: 310 p.m.. All voted in favor except Conrad who abstained. Motion carried. Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting on May 14, 1986. All voted in favor except Ryan and Noziska who abstained. Motion Carried. Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn meeting. All voted in favor and Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner. Prepared by Nann Opheim June 9, 1986 e ~