Loading...
1984 03 28 - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1984 REGULAR MEETING Vice-Chairman Mike Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Thompson, Susan Albee, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Ladd Conrad and Tom Merz. STAFF PRESENT Bob Waibel, City Planner, Bill Monk, City Engineer and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. Final Development Plan Review, Pheasant Hill P.R.D., TomKay Builders, Public Hearing Public Present e John Karwarlin Laurie McRostie Darrell Hammond Darrell Johnson Harry DeSantes Reva Schmidt Mrs. Daniel (Sherry) Hughes Al Klingelhutz Merrill Steller Craig Greenwald Tom Klingelhutz Mark Koegler George Stellar 2632 Jappa Ave., St. Louis Park 1513 Spruce Place, #302, Mpls. 3030 Harbor Lane, Mpls. 1941 Crestview Dr., Excelsior 6440 Yosemite Ave., Excelsior 6470 Yosemite Ave., Excelsior 1780 Lake Lucy Rd., Excelsior 8601 Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen 1931 Crestview Dr., Excelsior 6290 Audubon Circle, Excelsior 8551 Tigua Circle-TomKay Builders VanDoren, Hazard & Stallings Waibel stated that in comparison to the sketch plan on this pro- posal reviewed last November, the present plan contains revisions of the total area of 42.463 acres as compared to the previously 38.5 acres. He stated this change is a result of the inclusion of the George Stellar property into the plan which is the northwesterly most 4 + acres of the project. He stated the total units have changed-from the previous 92 to 83 units which gives a gross den- sity of 2.08 units per acre which was previously 2.4 units per acre. waibel noted that it has been indicated that the area designated as Outlot D will possibly be sold to the property owner abutting to the east. If Outlot D is developed at the presently proposed average lot size of 14,752 square feet, the gross density of the project would be 2.1 units per acre which remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property which is low density residential. - Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 2 - Waibel stated that the reV1S1ons have reasonably addressed the Planning Commission and City Council concerns previously raised on the plan itself which included minimum lot sizes and the number of lots having double frontages. He added that other con- cerns cited at the sketch plan review were the possible park and recreational needs of the project, the timing of improvements and realignment of Lake Lucy Road, the timing of the extension of Wood Duck Lane east to Yosemite, and the safety of the intersec- tion of Pheasant Drive and County Road 117. Waibel stated that the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended that the park dedication require- ments be met through park charges collected at the time building permits are applied for on individual units. He added that the Park and Recreation Commission further recommended that tot lots be designed into the plat to the greatest extent possible and in reviewing the plan for possible tot lot location, staff finds that such would be most appropriately located adjacent to the outlots to be dedicated to the city for drainage purposes. He stated that due to the sloping borders of these outlots, addi- tional land may need to be dedicated having terrain characteristics conducive to the establishment of a tot lot. For this purpose, a minimum of 2,000 square feet should be considered for dedication. - Waibel stated that on the timing of improvement and realignment of Lake Lucy Road and the extension of Wood Duck Lane east to Yosemite and north to 63rd street, staff finds that these matters will need to be addressed when MSA improvements are scheduled for the entire length of Lake Lucy Road and in the case of Wood Duck Lane, when future platting of the areas to the east and north occurs. He noted that the City Engineer finds that the safety concerns brought forth by the Carver County Public Works Department on the intersection of Pheasant Drive and County Road 117 can be miti- gated through a combination of street widening, vegetation remo- val and/or trimming and increased signage. Waibel stated that staff received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Cox stating their concern of the traffic pattern and access to the major highways and wanted it noted for the record. Mark Koegler, from Van Doren, Hazard and Stallings was present to answer questions. He noted that the square footage on the lots was larger than first proposed and are now just under 15,000 square feet. He noted that all lots are compliant with the set- backs required and that the price range of the lots would be $85,000- $130,000. He stated that Phase 1 will be completed within 1984-1985 and it is planned to complete about 34 lots. - Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 page 3 e Koegler stated that they were not ignoring the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation of the tot lots which are not shown on the plan. He stated that they have concerns with the safety and the practicality of the facility. He felt that the concern was that locating the tot lot in one of the green areas which are fairly close to streets and intersections. He felt that since the development was all single family detached and all will have fairly substantial back yard open spaces and typically a household with children will either have a swingset in the back yard or will have one next door and felt that most of the play activities would occur in those areas rather than a public park. He stated that if it is the desire of the City to have a tot lot put in they would certainly do that. Terry Ryan: On the northeast part of the property going out towards Yosemite Avenue, that easement the way I understand it comes from Yosemite between the DeSantes place and it ends where I adjoin those two. It looks like that easement is picked up and going west of there. Bob Waibel: You are talking about this easement off of Yosemite Trail. Mr. Stoddart is proposing to plat his property and a con- dition of his platting was that an additional 161 feet of right- of-way be dedicated. e Terry Ryan: No, I'm talking about west of there. We I bought the property the survey showed it from here to here, this ease- ment quits right here and I'm wondering where this has come from. Tom Klingelhutz: According to County records we own that 50 foot piece that goes right back down to the cartway. The cartway that goes out to Yosemite. Terry Ryan: That easement that from Yosemite to there was. Tom Klingelhutz: That's a cartway. It is a 161 foot cartway that is on record at Carver County Courthouse. The other is a 50 foot wide strip that goes back to the west end of your property. When we bought the property from your dad, for some reason or another we ended up owning that 50 foot strip. Terry Ryan: My lot shows that my lands runs from here to here. Mike Thompson: I think this is something you will have to sit down and discuss. This is not relevant to our meeting. Art Partridge: I have a question first of all for Bill Monk. The City has needed for a long time to connect the two water systems, does this address the basic need of the connection of the well that is on Galpin and the one the City system on 63rd and Yosemite. e Bill Monk: No it does not. e - e Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 4 Art Partridge: Does it include any provision for upgrading Lake Lucy at least as it abuts the south edge of the property? Bill Monk: That is not being proposed at this point or a staff recommendation at this time. Art Partridge: The water to this comes from the same place mine does? Bill Monk: Yes it does. Art Partridge: We've got a real problem then. Are there provi- sions to connect the water mains? Bill Monk: Yes the entire water system through this loops quite well. The connection between the systems will occur when water is put down the entire length of Lake Lucy and not before. Art Partridge: You don't have any provision for linking across? Bill Monk: It won't solve the problem. Jim Thompson: Can I ask what the problem is? Art Partridge: My problem is the area that I live in, is ser- viced by the well on Galpin which pumps the water to the tower by the old junior high school and the water pressure is developed at the pump and not at the tower and therefore what we get is water pressure that ranges from 0 to unbearable. It may be that putting more traffic on it will even it out, I don't know. My only major comment is that I do not personally think that the lots are on the west side of Lake Wood Drive are acceptable and I don't see any reason that the four smallest ones couldn't appear as two. I don't see that the project as it is scaled out now lends itself to a particular mix of housing prices or types. You are basically dropping single family subdivision and houses that are all in the same price range and I don't feel there is a need to have lots that size. I don't know where you are at now with the PUD ordinances or the R-l ordinances but frankly I don't think I would like to see those. I have lived on lots in the middle of developed areas in st. Paul considerably larger than those. I think you would be jeopardizing the development of the property immediately to the west of that. That was if you remember set up last year as duplex developments. I don't know where it is at now. I know that if you have the lots the size that you have there that you are going to have the present owner of that property spitting at you to further subdivide or put larger units of house on that property. Mark Koegler: We feel the distinction between $85,000 housing and $130,000 is fairly substantial. Tom has indicated that he believes that part of the lot difference in size doesn't account for the difference in price. Just keep in mind that we also back Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 5 - up to a 7 unit apartment building on that side also and given that we feel the 9,300 to just under 9,000 is a reasonable choice in that location. Mike Thompson: Where is that apartment building? Mark Koegler: The elevation continues to go up as you go away from the site. Harry DeSantes: I live on Yosemite and he shows that sewer is eventually going to go down that cartway and the City doesn't own that property and I don't know how they are going to maintain it or is that going to be added to my property? I am right along that cartway. Bill Monk: There is no proposal to extend sewer down that cart- way. The water will go through the cartway and basically to con- nect with the system that exists, the watermain that exists in Yosemite right now, it is not proposed to extend sewer any further than necessary to service the lots in this subdivision. Harry DeSantes: What is necessary? e Bill Monk: The plan right now is to extend the sewer to this point servicing all the properties, but to continue the water through and for a connection in Yosemite so that the entire water system is looped with three connections to the existing system. But sewer is not proposed. Harry DeSantes: If they come through with water do they have to pay interest back to ten years like we have to? Bill Monk: The cost for the improvements that would be put in here would be picked up by these lots and it is not proposed at this time to include any other properties outside of this sub- division. Reva Schmidt: pay your sewer will it be and father had his house has only interest on it pay that? What I want to know is are you going to have to and water sytems, granted sewer is not in now, but when, do you have to pay the interest from when my sewer and water put in that I have to pay. My been there a year and a half and I have to pay the for the last ten years. Are you going to have to Bill Monk: By you do you mean the people in this area? Reva Schmidt: Right. e Bill Monk: They basically will pay for the improvements in here for some municipal improvements. They will pay assessments over a number of years. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 e Page 6 Reva Schmidt: For the last ten though? Bill Monk: No, they will pay the cost for whatever this system costs. Reva Schmidt: Then why are they priveleged and I am not? Bill Monk: I am not sure of your situation, I have a feeling that goes back to the North Service area and all the problems that the City had in reassessing the North Service area project. Reva Schmidt: I don't even have sewer and water to my house. We had to run 270 feet of sewer and water lines to connect into the next door neighbors sewer and water line. Bill Monk: It is proposed only, that the cost of the improve- ments to this system would be paid for by this plat and no one else is proposed to be assessed. If you want to come in, I will take a look at your situation, but I can't address it tonight. Art partridge: To rephrase that question what she is asking is does this project which in effect taps in to the sewer that is being paid for by the North Service Project area contribute to the North Service debt? - Bill Monk: Yes it will indirectly. Trunk sewer and water payments that will be made or assessed for each line here totaling roughly just under $100,000 will be going into the debt retirement of the North Service area project. Art partridge: This is what 60 acres? Mark Koegler: 42 acres. Bill Monk: per unit. $100,000. I am just going by the number of lots. It's $1,250 If he's got 80 odd units that would be just under Art Partridge: Her question is that people are paying anywhere from $7,000 to $8,000 to require sewer there. Bill Monk: Well, I'm sure by the time this subdivision is done, the assessments on each of these lots is going to run $10,000 to $12,000. e Harry DeSantes: What about the streets on Yosemite, you've got about a block and a half that is still dirt. You are going to have trucks up and down that road and we have been living with dust and we are paying high taxes and all we get is a bunch a dust. Every time we ask somebody, they say oh we can't do anything about it. Now we are going to have alot of traffic down on Yosemite. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 7 e Bill Monk: This connection is not proposed to be made at this time. There will not be a road going through there. Granted there will be some traffic coming down and using Yosemite. The City does now have a program where we do dust coat all those roads and we will do it at least once a year, possibly twice. That should help to alleviate the situation, but until we get a request where the City has not in the past moved to paved roads unless they get a request from the people in the area to have them paved and assess them back to the properties along the road- way. All I can assure you of now is that this road this spring will be dust coated with calcium chloride at least once. Craig Greenwald: This is the first meeting I have been to. I don't know how many meetings there have been on this proposal, but I am curious to know if there have been any studies done in this on the amount of traffic that is going to be on West 63rd street. Another question, Lake Lucy Road, is that going to be upgraded then? - Bob Waibel: As far as the traffic on West 63rd street, no detailed studies have been conducted at this point in time. Just from the overall street system in the area, it is reasonable to expect that perhaps there will be a divide here for a fair amount of traffic to be using Cardinal Ave. to north and perhaps 63rd to go southeast. It is staff's feeling that a good portion of the traffic from the development would be going out this route to Co. Rd. 117 to go north and south to Hwy. 5 and 7. Likewise there would be the secondary route off of Lake Lucy Road taking the more convenient route of 117. It is hard to determine at this time how much the third phase of this development will generate going south and east. Being so close to Co. Rd. 117 and considering the condition of Yosemite and Lake Lucy Road I would believe that the fair amount of traffic would be using 117. Harry DeSantes: Well they will still use Yosmite because it seems like everybody comes down there and we can't get anything done around there. Now we are going to have twice the traffic. Bob Waibel: There will be some traffic increase. S. Albee moved, seconded by H. Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson stated that looking at the plan, Wood Duck Lane seems to go through a substantial stand of trees and asked if it could possibly be done to lessen the destruction of that stand of trees. e Mark Koegler stated that the plan is somewhat misleading in terms of the density of tree cover. It is our understanding that at one time there used to be an orchard but there are only a couple of apple trees out there. Other than that we are also trying to minimize the grading in the development. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 8 - J. Thompson was also concerned with the traffic pattern, that Cardinal would have alot more traffic considering that was the only paved road there. He would like to see Wood Duck Lane to Lake Lucy as part of Phase 1, so that it would possibly lessen the amount of traffic on Cardinal. S. Albee felt that this was not her idea of a Planned Unit Development. She felt there was no concern for adjacent access, and felt that there were too many roads in the development. She felt that the maintenance cost to the City would be high. She felt that the tot lot was ludicrous. I question why the Park and Recreation Commission thinks that a tot lot is a fair trade-off for a planned unit development. She felt that this site would be appropriate for about 60 units only. B. Ryan wondered if all of the water mains were going to be put in first or by phases. B. Monk stated that just the mains through Phase 1 would be done. He stated that the system will be looped with other existing lines in the area and if anything the problem in this area is pressure that is to high and will have to be addressed as houses are constructed. He stated that each house will have to be constructed with a pressure reducer in it to make sure pressure surges do not happen in this area. - B. Ryan stated that until the access goes through on Wood Duck Lane, it is one very long dead end street and felt that if something wasn't done about getting more right-of-way, we may never have a street going through there. He wanted to know if we could guarantee that there will never be a completion of that street to open up that end of the property. B. Monk stated that he could not guarantee that. B. Waibel stated that staff is recommending a condition that a right-of-way be dedicated in the northeast corner of Lot 25, Block 2 that would go to the north with anticipation of the pro- perties developing in the future as it connects to 63rd Street. B. Ryan stated that he is very much against approving Phase 3 until we could have some assurance that something would be opened up to that end because we will wind up with a 800 foot dead end street which could cause snow plowing and fire problems. Also he was concerned about the double facing lots and what the plan was for landscaping these lots to protect from traffic on Lake Lucy Road. e Mark Koegler stated that they have discussed buffering with evergreens. He stated that if Lake Lucy Road improvements including water go in, it would greatly alleviate the traffic conflict and the need for some of the buffer. , , . ,- - Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 9 J. Thompson moved, seconded by B. Ryan that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary and final development plan approval including rezoning to P-l, Planned Residential Development District based upon the Pheasant Hill P.U.D. Final Plan marked Official Copy and contained in Planning file 83-1 P.U.D. with the condition the applicant submit a revised final plan showing the following: 1. Additional right-of-way and improvement plan as recommended by the City Engineer for Stellar Circle and the Pheasant Drive connection to County Road 117. 2. Location of tot lot facilities. 3. Dedicated right-of-way to the property north of Lot 25, Block 2. 4. The inclusion of the intersection of Wood Duck Lane and Ringneck Drive in Phase 1 with completion of Wood Duck Lane south to Lake Lucy Road. 5. A revised location for the right-of-way line between Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 8, Block 3 as determined by soil conditions. 6. That Phase 3 not be approved until a suitable connection of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite be made. 7. That suitable vegetation be provided along Lake Lucy Road. Vote in favor, J. Thompson, B. Ryan, H. Noziska, and M. Thompson. Naye, S. Albee. Motion carried. S. Albee stated that this plan was not a P.U.D. 1. That there was no concern for adjacent access. 2. There are too many roads in this development causing high City maintenance costs. 3. That Wood Duck Circle, Teal Circle and pintail Circle is a gross waste of land. 4. That the total grading plan was inadequate. 5. The tot lot is ludicrous. 6. That approximately 60 units would be acceptable and appropriate only. 7. The proposed plan sets a precedent for the area and needs to be rezoned. Conditional Use Permit Request to Construct a Communication Facility and Tower, M.C.I. Corporation, Public Hearing Public Present Franklin W. Lash Jerry Bialecki Clarice D. Presnell Bill Roberge Arlington, VA Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. washington, D.C. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 10 e Waibel explained that the request is for subdivision variance and conditional use permit approval for the construction of a cellu- lar radio communication facility and tower in the southwest corner of the Audubon Road and Chicago Milwaukee st. Paul and Pacific railroad crossing. He stated that M.C.I. Air Signal, Inc. is requesting a lot area variance to subdivide a one acre parcel as shown on the attached site plan for the construction of a 300 foot tower with accessory generator and equipment shelters. He said that staff finds the 2, acre lot area requirement for unsewered properties is mitigated by the fact that the facility will be unmanned thus not requiring anyon-site waste treatment system. He added that the only other possible consideration relative to lot area requirements would involve appropriate set- backs to surrounding properties due to the height of the struc- ture proposed. He stated that in review of this item, it was a concern that the tower location not pose safety questions to surrounding proper- ties and in response to this M.C.I. has obtained an opinion which states that once constructed, properly designed self-supporting towers constitute safe structures and do not differ from high rise buildings as far as safety is concerned, however staff finds it prudent to error on the side of caution by placing the tower in a location more central to the proposed property lines. e Waibel added that in addition to the tower an 80 square foot generator building is being proposed for use in the event of power failures along with a 264 square foot equipment shelter containing transmitters, receivers and other equipment. These buildings will be secured and will be monitored through an electronic surveillance system. S. Albee moved, seconded by H. Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. Ryan mentioned that his concern with this proposal was that the gas tank and access be located closer to the access for reasons that in the winter that if there was a need for fire trucks to reach the gas tank and also possibly Minnegasco could not reach the tank with deep snow. M. Thompson brought up the fact that he felt no one in the com- munity was aware of this proposal even though property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified. He felt there would be concern after M.C.I. started to build the tower and wanted to have 'more citizen input. S. Albee moved, seconded by B. Ryan that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a subdivision lot area variance and con- ditional use permit for the construction of a cellular radio com- munication facility and tower as presented in Planning Case 84-3 e , Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 page 11 Subdivision and 84-1 C.U.P. with the following conditions: 1. That a revised site plan be submitted showing the placement of the tower in a location more central to the proposed pro- perty line. 2. That the plans submitted for building permit approval be cer- tified by an architect or engineer registered in the state of Minnesota. 3. That an on-site soils investigation be conducted in accor- dance with the recommendation of the Soil Conservation Office. 4. That the tower be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. 5. That the applicant obtain all necessary local, state and federal agency permits and approvals. 6. That the subdivision be recorded in the form of a plat. 7. That the fenced in area be screened using dense landscape e materials. e S. Albee also wanted to emphasize that possibly the site access be turned due to public safety. Vote in favor, J. Thompson, S. Albee, B. Ryan and H. Noziska. Naye, M. Thompson. Motion carried. M. Thompson felt that based on the presentation made by the City and the applicant that there isn't enough information to deter- mine the impact that this tower will have on that particular area and that the property owners that were notified were not adequate even though they were adequate by law he felt that there are alot of people that would be interested in this issue who are not here this evening. He felt that possibly the impact of the tower as compared to the rest of the use of land in the area could affect future property owners or future proposals. Final Development Plan Review, Fox Hollow P.R.D., B-T Land Company, Public Hearing Public Present e e Dawn and Bill Hulett Pat McMahon Craig Opel Brenda Welch 6450 Pleasant View 151 Choctaw Circle 105 Choctaw Circle 101 Choctaw Circle Waibel explained that this request is for final plan amendment approval for a 95 unit single family detached residence P.U.D. to be located on the property. He stated that the plan amendment e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 12 being sought is relative to the Lotus Lake Manor Homes proposal which was approved in August of 1982. He added that the Lotus Lake Manor Homes plan contained 140 fourplex and eightplex units to be located on that portion of the property lying north of the wetland area and that the presently proposed plan is similar in that it also proposes to restrict development to the same area. He stated that the entire site contains 47.5 acres and has a gross density of 2.0 units per acre with an average lot size of 12,100 square feet which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. Waibel also added that the request also includes the proposal that the units to be constructed be allowed a 25 foot front yard setback along with side yard setback minimums of 5 feet on the garage side and 10 feet on the house side. He added that the minimum lot width at the building setback line is proposed at 67 feet. Also, Outlots Band C which contain most of the wetland area on the property, is proposed to be dedicated to the homeowners association and a blanket construction easement is proposed to be granted to the City of Chanhassen along the edge of the wetlands for trailway purposes which is consistent with previous approvals. Waibel noted that the plan reflects the provision of access to surrounding properties with the exception of the Hulett property. (Noted as the Thomas E. Murphy property on the attached plans.) He said that staff finds that the most appropriate location for access to this property would be in the vicinity of Lot 21, Block 1, however, other alternatives may arise when more is found out about the layout of the street system for the City park property to the west. He added that with respect to this concern, the applicant is proposing that the northwesterly most corner of the property not be platted into individual lots until a more detailed street and development plan for the park property has been put together and until such time that the streets to the west are developed the property will have a single access situation similar to that of Chanhassen Estates. He stated that staff finds that there is no other reasonable alternative for secondary access to the property in the interim. Waibel noted that the City Engineer has recommended that all non cul-de-sac right-of-ways be 50 feet in width. Pat McMahon stated that he is in favor of the proposed change. Dawn Hulett stated that she has concerns about the access in the northwest corner of this proposal. They own the land noted on the proposal as the Thomas E. Murphy property. They are going to subdivide this property but have no immediate plans and are afraid that this proposal is going to landlock their land because of the access being proposed. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 13 e H. Noziska moved, seconded by B. Ryan to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. s. Albee was concerned with the imperviuos surface areas, erosion control and filling in of any wetland and if there was a need for skimmers in the ponds. Waibel stated that there would be no alteration of land until the plan would go through the standard watershed district permit approval process and as far as the impervious surface areas as proposed, it will not exceed the D.N.R. standards. J. Thompson felt that the proposal was a significant step back- wards in what has been proposed for that area. He felt his acceptance of Near Mountain's proposal was different in that there were trees and some separation of the homes where as this proposal being out in an open field he felt this was not the type of development that would be significant for Chanhassen. He felt that this proposal has more encroachment on the wetlands than in the previous proposal. e B. Ryan stated that this is a P.U.D. and a P.U.D. procedure is available to contractors for two reasons. One it gives them some flexibility in developing a plan, but it also gives use of the cluster concept which takes up less of the land and gives us more open space and that is one of the reasons we encourage a P.U.D. It lets the contractor save development costs associated with streets, sewers, development of the land and that is the main reason people go with a P.U.D. It is suppose to let contractors save money and in exchange for that savings the community receives some green space. He stated that what he sees here really violates the concept of the P.U.D. but at the same time recognizes that this is an attempt to meet a market that is there right now. He prefers to see single housing as opposed to fourplex and eightplex units but he hates to see P.U.D.'s abused in this way. He also commented that in the northwest corner next to the Hulett property, if you try to provide an outlot there you are going to provide an intersection that is awfully close to the first cul-de-sac in the development. He felt that they were getting street intersections far to close together and he recom- mend that we incorporate all the way back to the first cul-de-sac and see if there is some way to eliminate the cul-de-sac and extend it out as a street. B. Ryan felt that there should be built in the covenants of the homeowners association some means of cleaning the sediment basins. B. Monk stated that there is no question that the drainage faci- lity shown in this plan will be taken over by the city. They will be covered by drainage easements, the way we have been pre- ceeding on all plats to date. e Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 14 e H. Noziska felt this was an improvement to the previous plan in that he would rather single family housing as opposed to fourplex and eighplex units. B. Ryan moved, seconded by S. Albee that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Final Development Plan Amendment as presented in the Fox Hollow P.R.D. and as marked Official Copy and contained in Planning Case 84-1 PUD with the following con- ditions: 1. That the applicant submit a revised final plan showing proposed street names consistent with the theme for this portion of the City, increased right-of-ways of 50 feet for all non cul-de-sac streets, right turn lane off of T.H. 101 as recommended by MNDOT and the access to the Richard Kartak property being dedicated as a right-of-way. 2. That the final plat show the area in the northwesterly most por- tion of the property (Lot 17 through 23, Block 1) as an outlot until more information is available concerning the transportation system for the park land to the west. Vote in favor, S. Albee, B. Ryan, H. Noziska and M. Thompson. Naye, J. Thompson. Motion carried. 4It J. Thompson felt that a better use of land had previously been proposed and that there was no encroachment on the wetlands in the past proposal as is shown now and feels that a right-of-way to the landlocked area should be settled before the proposal receives approval. Beachlot Conditional Use Permit to Construct Canoe Racks, Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Public Hearing Public Present Charles Hirt Lotus Lake Betterment Homeowners Pres. Waibel stated that the request is for conditional use permit approval to construct two canoe racks on the beachlot having a storage capacity of six canoes each. He said the association intends to construct the first rack 50 feet landward of the ordi- nary high water mark and the second rack is planned to be constructed only if demand exceeds the capacity of the first rack and will be located north of the sanitary sewer lift station. He stated that staff finds the proposal poses no adverse impact to the recreational resources of Lotus Lake or the neighborhood itself and is furthermore consistent with the spirit and intent of Recreational Beachlot Ordinance 47-AB. e S. Albee moved, seconded by H. Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 15 - S. Albee wondered in who's name the property was deeded. Charles Hirt stated that Herb Bloomberg owns the property but said that it is about to be deeded over to the Homeowners Association. s. Albee moved, seconded by M. Thompson that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Lotus Lake Betterment Association Conditional Use Permit request to construct two canoe racks as presented on Attachment #2 marked Official Copy and con- tained in Planning Case 84-2 C.U.P with the condition that the ownership background is brought out more clearly before going to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Subdivision Request, 7705 West 78th Street, Don Reed Properties (Conform Building, Inc.) Public Present Jim Hurd 5387 Widgewood Drive, Excelsior e Waibel stated that this request is somewhat unusual in that the division of land being reviewed has already been recorded and additionally lies in both Carver and Hennepin Counties. He stated that in reviewing the background on this item in November of 1980, Contracts for Deed were filed with both Carver and Hennepin Counties conveying the easterly 149 feet of the property from Automated Building Components, Inc. to Conform Building Systems, Inc. who at the time owned only the portion of land shown as Tract C. He stated that the problem is that Hennepin County is not able to split the tax parcel without the consent of the City and the previous owner (Don Reed properties) of the pro- perty conveyed is requesting the City's consent authorizing Hennepin County to reassign the tax obligations to the present owner. J. Thompson moved, seconded by H. Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson moved, seconded by H. Noziska that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for City authoriza- tion for Hennepin County to split the existing tax parcel to con- form with present ownerships. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Discussion, Draft Wetland Management Ordinance ~ The Environmental Protection Committee was present to review the changes made before the draft went to the City Council. The . e e Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 Page 16 Planning Commission agreed with all the changes made. S. Albee moved, seconded by B. Ryan that the present revised draft of the Wetland Management Ordinance be forwarded to City Council for approval. Approval of Minutes B. Ryan moved, seconded by H. Noziska to approved the minutes March 14, 1984 with the deletion of the words "sound walls" on page 3, in the first line and last line of the first paragraph. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Adjournment S. Albee moved, seconded by H. Noziska to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.