Loading...
1987 05 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 6, 1987 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner and Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PEMTOM COMPANY, WORM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3430 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD ON -- -- -- PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT OF 24 ACRES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO -- -- ------- -- -- ----- -- -- - --- ----- -- RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. B. SUBDIVISION OF 24 ACRES INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. D. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND -- ---- GRADING WITH A CLASS A WETLAND. 4IJ PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Basil Bastian Torn Heibert A. Adamson Jan Quist Martin Jones Thomas A. Getsch Mary J. Moore David Getsch John Getsch Jeff Souba 3719 S. Cedar 3725 S. Cedar Dr., Box 216, Victoria 7331 Dogwood Road 7331 Dogwood Road 7321 Dogwood Road 7530 Dogwood Road 3231 Dartmouth Drive 7510 Dogwood Road 18022 pior Lane, Minnetona (7530 Dogwood Road) 7302 Woodstock Curve, Bloomington (3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.) 3601 Ironwood Road 3896 Lone Cedar Lane 3750 Arboretum Blvd. 7380 Minnewashta Parkway 3621 Ironwood Road 3898 Lone Cedar Circle 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3920 Lone Cedar Circle 7034 Red Cedar Cove 6240 Cypress Drive 3607 Ironwood Road Richard Zweig Jerry Ahlman Abe Abbariao Jon Larson M/M Charles Erickson Terrance M. Johnson John P. Merz Ralph Kant Dell & Jackie Schott Lorene & Gordon Foster Bob Hebeisen fe Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 2 - Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Land Use Plan amendment. Conrad: Jo Ann, who has asked for this change in classification? The Park and Rec or the applicant? Olsen: The applicant has. family. Unless it's changed he can not have single Conrad: Park and Rec isn't recommending the change but they're just saying they don't care for it as it's zoned right now but they're not making it? Olsen: They don't need it so they don't mind if it's changed. Conrad: This is a public hearing. We'll open it up for public comment on just this one issue right now. On rezoning that land from parks and open space to rural residential. That's the one issue that we'll talk about to begin with. Public: What is rural residential versus residential? the difference. I don't understand Olsen: It's in the rural area where it does not have sewer and water so it's limited to a 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. e Public: One other question that I have was that you said that the Park and Recreation people don't feel they need the land for that but they did say something concerning the wetlands. What did they say about that? Olsen: They wanted it maintained as open area. They did not want the wetlands developed but the City has ordinances that would not permit the wetlands to be altered. Public: How much of the property is wetland? Olsen: I don't have the exact acreage but I would say about one-third or one-fourth of it. The total acreage of the site is 32 1/2 acres. This is the ordinary high water mark here and anything below that is all wetland. Emmings: Where is the ordinary high water mark on the other side? Dan Herbst: It's very low. The land on the west is very low. The high water mark is somewhere in here. Olsen: There's like a little peninsula here and the property comes up here. Public: Would there be restrictions as to septic systems that are installed? Olsen: Yes. Septic systems have to be 150 feet away from the wetland. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 3 e Conrad: We'll get into those issues as we get into the development of the land. Dave Getsch: 7519 Dogwood, approximately adjoining the area. We're just north of this area. My question was, is it normal to rezone parkland or land that is designated as park and open use to residential? Isn't there a master plan that the City has established and those were done with good reason in mind. To just periodically go through and rezone these for residential purposes. Conrad: We have just done a pretty good review of the City and rezoned a fair amount of land. Over the last couple of years we've been doing that and it's been approved not too long ago. As Jo Ann mentioned, Staff is saying we're not totally sure why that particular parcel is zoned the way it was. We had no reason to change it but we didn!t have a reason to keep it there either when we went through the whole zoning. When we went through the zoning we were more interested in the growth around the core city and some of these other areas we're not really quite sure what should happen and therefore, to look ahead 20 to 30 years, it's pretty hard to do but the Park and Rec, in their comments, are saying we do have enough recreation and park space for Chanhassen. The only reason we would keep it there, I think it was there in the beginning primarily because it was close to the Arboretum and is close to some other areas and maybe not thought to be totally useable for residential because of wetland and probably that's why it got in there ~ but with the Minnewashta parks, the Regional parks coming in and a whole lot of other things happening, I'm not sure that there is a real good reason for it to be stated as a park area. We don't need it right now and the Park and Rec is saying we don't need it in the long term either. Dave Getsch: I guess part of my concern is the pressure on the lake. As we develop these lots, how far do we go? If open space within a plan can sometimes be construed as means of buffering or keeping the population densities down. It doesn't have to necessarily be relative to the City of Chanhassen proper but relative to a recreational facility so that would be one of my concerns is if it was intended to be originally open space and we're now rezoning it, how far are we going to go? We've got the Zimmerman property now that I understand has been sold so will we have the same thing happening there so we've got some real concerns in that area. Conrad: I think generally, if you lived closer to Chanhassen you would see that 2 1/2 acres at worse is not a bad size. In general. I'm not being very specific but we're a city and lake density on the lakes around here are 15,000 square foot lots so when you get down to it, 2 1/2 acres is not bad but there are other issues that we'll get into and that's when you get into sewer. That's when you get into septic systems and you get into other issues and we're not right there yet but in principal I think I would be very pleased to have a 2 1/2 acre lot next to mine. I think that's not all bad. e Tom Heiberg: I live on Lake Minnewashta, across the lake from this particular property. In the staff report I failed to see if it was there Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 4 e what the designated land use is for the property directly east of this and what is contemplated on that property? If we're rezoning this, what are we looking for on the property directly to the east of this? Is that also park and rec in the land use plan? Conrad: that. I thought the Staff Report said it was Arboretum property east of Dave Getsch: It's experimental orchard. Olsen: Right and it's public private space. Tom Heiberg: What is the future use of that property? Is it likely that the Arboretum or the University might sell it someday and if they did sell it, what would we be looking at for use there? Olsen: It's possible for them to sell it but they are now under the 1 uni t per 10 acre. I don't know how many acres they have. It looks like probably about 80 or so and it would be limited to 8 single family units. Tom Heiberg: How long are we looking before the sewer might be there? Olsen: 20, 50 years. e Conr ad: Long time. Richard Zweig: I'm on the lake at 3601 Ironwood Road. I really go along with what Tom was asking. He was talking about the zoning of the Arboretum area. These 2 1/2 acre lots, when sewer and water does go in, I know you're saying it's as much as 50 years from now but in the worse case scenario, let's say it's 10 years down the road or 15 years down the road, would those people that have 2 1/2 acre lots then be allowed to subdivide their own lots? Olsen: Yes. Richard Zweig: The answer is yes, okay. How small a lot? What could they sell off? What are we talking about? How many homes could actually be in there? Is it a third of acre roughly? Conrad: Yes. Jeff Souba: Our family owns property on the lake. My question is, if they change the zoning to residential, to the west of the area that they have proposed putting houses in there, it's like an island, are they going to be putting a home on that area. By approving this, could we open that up to allow them to put property on that? As it exists right now, that is very low land property. He's got like beehives out there or something right now. It just seems to me that that property, I don't know if you put a house or foundation in if it would hold it up. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 5 e Conrad: I think there are other issues that will come into play and that's whether it can be serviced. Whether there is road access. Are the septic systems that can handle on the low land area? I think those type of things will come up and maybe when you get down to it, if it's not park and open space, then the next lowest use, category, what we're talking about. You could go agricultural, 40 acre but this is a low type of usage that we're talking about tonight. It's a little bit higher than what the current Zoning Ordinance is permitting but it's still a low use so in my mind it's not really setting a precedent. It's taking some parcels that the Park and Rec says does not play any role in the future of Chanhassen and we're saying what could it be zoned that is not an intensive use. We're not saying it should be used commercially and we're not saying it's an industrial site and it's certainly not appropriate for our urban service area so we're zoning it to let the landowner possibly use it for something that is an alternative to what it is currently zoned to date. Olsen: Also the setbacks wouldn't permit that to be a buildable lot. Tom Getsch: What is the total acreage on the Worm lot? Olsen: 32.5 acres. Tom Getsch: It's 32.5 so the issue we're discussing right now is just the rezoning of 24 of those acres? tt Olsen: Actually it's a land use plan amendment. It's zoned rural residential. It's zoned for single family. It's our Land Use Plan that's being amended. Conrad: Say that one more time Jo Ann because I think that's important. It's something that I've been missing up here. Olsen: The zoning is rural residential but the it's the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that designates this land as parks and open space. That is what is being amended to residential low density. Conrad: That's something that I failed to make very clear. We have a plan out there that says this is how Chanhassen should be developed and that's what we're looking at right now. The zoning already is saying this is permitted. We're just changing this little master plan that we turn into the Metropolitan Council so the two are in sync. Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I agree with the Planning Comission's recommendations. I have no other questions. Wildermuth: Is there any other parkland on Minnewashta? ~ Olsen: On the east side is the Regional Park. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 6 e Conrad: I don't know as though there are ball diamonds there. Olsen: It's not an active park. Conrad: I don't really have anything to say. The zoning is in sync and if we don't need it for parkland, I think we should give the owner appropriate use for use of that parcel. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the land use plan amendment 87-1 to redesignate the 32.5 acres of the South Bay Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 1, 1987 to Residential Low Density. All voted in favor and motion carried. B. SUBDIVISION OF 24 ACRES INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Olsen: The applicant has requested that we review this issue at this time because there are a lot of underlying issues but he is requesting that any recommendations be tabled until he can provide proper soil borings to support the six lots or however many different lots can be supported. Conrad: In my mind that would mean that I don't want to talk about items c and d either if we table b which is the subdivision. By chance if we table b. I think c and d immediately fallout which would be the wetland ~ alteration permit and the conditional use permit for recreational beachlots. I don't want to discuss those unless we have a reason to discuss. Emmings: Would it be alright since we have a lot of the public here who are interested, to consider those in a preliminary fashion just like we're considering the subdivision so we get the input from the public that's here? Conrad: If we table this it will come back again as a public hearing. Emmings: Maybe it would be of use to the developer to hear what they have to say before he asks for action. Olsen: It has been tabled in-house so many times. Staft felt we needed your direction on some of these issues. Conrad: Right. Okay, let's wait and see where we end up after the subdivision but I think if we have concerns with the subdivision, it obviously will mean concerns with the other items but I think from the public's standpoint Steve, we could listen to comments that the public may have on the permit and the recreational beachlot. We could do that but I don't know that I want to take any action on those. Emmings: Could we change it to essentially a site plan review? - Headla: Why don't we review this first and see what comes down. we're kind of prejudging. I think Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 7 e Noziska: we should This is a public hearing and we've got the public here so I think press on with it. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision issue. Dan Herbst: I live on Lake Minnewashta and have been a resident of Chanhassen for about 16 years. I would like to just give you my theory about the property and go over my concept for development then get into the details. Mr. Worm has owned the property for about 30 years and he started having discussions in December about utilization of the property. All of you are aware of this, it's a gorgeous piece of land. It has about 2,400 to 2,500 feet of shorel i nee It has a gentle rise up. It's covered with maple trees. It's extremely attractive. I live on the other side of the lake. I've always wanted to look at the sunsets. I got on that piece at sunset time and started negotiating with Mr. Worm right away. The lake has a considerable amount of cattails. There are some steep slopes on the property so all of those items were of prime concern to me. It's a difficult piece to develop but it's not an impossible piece. If any of you are familiar with some of our other projects, specifically two of them on Lake Minnetonka were far more difficult to develop with respect to topography, trees, lakeshore. We developed Chimo over in Deephaven which is the beautiful Burton Estate. 36 acres on Carson Bay. Very steep slopes. We've got about 12% grade on the road's private streets. We developed Eagle Bluff which is 17 lots, a heavily wooded piece. About 3,600 feet of ~ shoreline. It has about a 70 foot rise from CR 44 up to the top of it and . if any of you have time or have seen those projects, you know our concern for topography, the trees, the shoreline and lastly, the market value and what has happened to those properties. So I started analysing the property. Started looking at where is the best place for the homesites. Mr. Worm has his existing home here. There's a beautiful site right here that faces to the southwest. A beautiful view right over the top of the Arboretum. There's about a 3 acre site here. The second site faces directly into the west. About a 2.6 acre site here. Beautiful walkout elevation. This is another walkout site, 3.4 acres and another site here is 3.3 acres. Another prime walkout site. Probably the prime lot on the property as far as elevations and views to the west. The last lot is quite a bit lower. It's maybe about 6 feet above the lake and what you see represented here basically that will give you some size of the houses as it relates to Mr. Worm's property and what I'm trying to designate here is not size of home because they are very substantial for that scale but those are basically pads. Then I looked at where is the best location for the roads. Obviously from a grading point of view, from the topography and the trees and the City asked me to study this, putting a road through here requires very little grading. Very little tree removal but there are just a number of reasons that that does not work. A, most of these homesites will more than likely be walkout homesites. They will probably be directed further to the bluff so they are going to be sitting up there, from a marketing point of view, with their own individual homesites and their own decks looking right down a public street. If they have children and they want to use ~ the lake, every time you want to get to the lake from their homes to their . docks, they are going to be crossing a public street. From a topography Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 8 e point of view, I could do the computations with the cut and fill and the tree removal but to me it does not make any sense. If you could look at everyone of these homesites, if the public street was here as the City Engineer is recommending, with the exception of this home, every home would require a private drive going up slopes in excess of 12%. The next negative factor with that is most of those homes would be require tuck under garages and I think from a lake view, what you're going to be looking at is three car garages, 30 foot of blacktop and not all of us keep our cars in the garage all the time so I think from a view point of view, they're going to be looking at tuck under garages in each one of those cases because it would be very costly and a lot of grading to bring up collar roads to go around the back. What people like is a strong street elevation with their garages is the frontdoor to the front with their decks and their views to the rear and that's what I attempted to create here. Using the environmental type problems are working against me but I would just like to point out one other issue. I think if the road was down here, I think an argument could be raised that there could be drainage that could be caught on that particular street but in the event of a large rainstorm and all that water could be brought back, that run-off is going to go directly into the lake. Secondly, if you're going to be storing snow with salt in it, that's all going to be stored around that road and that melt off is going to right here. The private road that I'm proposing does require a cut through the hill here with about an 8% slope but all the drainage would be coming back down through here and there are catch basins here that will take it back. Behind e the catch basins and back into here we have a skimmer which is going to keep pollutants and everything back. The water is going to go over the top of that skimmer and back into the lake. At the recommendation of the Watershed District we also put, in the case of a 100 year event of about 5.9 inches of rain an hour. We also added an overflow which in case the catch basins can't handle it, it will head down this way and direct through there. Jo Ann indicated that we're changing the flow of the creek but basically she was pointing out through here. It's a very slight modification that we're going through here through here and the only time that flow would be used is if a very large event would be and that would go back into that overflow area but the basic flow is going to be very slight and brought back into here. It makes much sense to us for long term utilization to have those drainage areas on lot lines so if you have to go in and make corrections, you can go down that easement between the lots and correct them. Sliding the lakeshore, the DNR had zoned this lake as a general recreational lake which we all use it for and they are not opposed to having each lot owner have access to the lake. In this particular property it makes it very difficult because there are cattails on almost every lot so to minimize the damage to the cattails, I'm proposing clustering the docks but that wouldn't have to be done. I'm proposing docks that would be built above the cattails on galvanized poles similar to a catwalk and they would be put in on a permanent basis. From this point to here, from this point to here and from this point to here. These would be removed seasonally each fall. The clustering makes sense from a wetland point of view. From utilization of the lake and I think clustering a lot of docks on from the lake will ~ minimize having that many more docks protrude out into the lake. As we ~ start to study this property here, half this land is owned by Mr. Worm. The Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 9 e other half of this property is owned by Mr. Munger and there is a road that serves this site right now. It's a private road with a designated easement to TH 5. I've studied these shorelines quite a bit. I've been out with a canoe. I've done little taps out on this area. Although most of this land is quite sandy through here, because of the cattail buildup through here, there is quite a bit of sedimentation on top of the sand base. From a swimming point of view, most for younger kids and listening to my wife talk about walking on the lakeshore, they really object to having that kind of silt on top of the sand. Then I started looking at this area here. This is heavy sand all along through here because it gets a lot more of the wind wash so the reason I'm asking for a recreational beachlot here, which will be another item tha t will be four th on the agenda is beca use 0 f the sand area through here. I'm proposing that this be utilized for swimming purposes only. That it be absolutely restricted to the people who live here. That it would be controlled by a gate and because of the dangers involved with the highway, that there would be parking out here. One car for each home and that the use would be very restricted here with picnic tables and a canoe rack and there would just be a little ladder that you can get down to the lake to swim and these would be confined for boat use. The reason I've asked, and I apologize for not being able to have all of our act together on this. Not being able for you to act tonight but I ask for you to have a special planning commission meeting tonight because of the continuous delays we have had with this thing. As Jo Ann discussed, the City has retained a consultant that has very strict guidelines for the on- e site septic systems and you will see, in addition to the house pads, there is a requirement for a primary and a secondary pad for on-site septic systems and in the case of this particular property, they will all be mound systems. Built above so there will not be a drainfield into the ground itself. I hired, not having the extensive knowledge in on-site septic systems, I hired a very experienced soil consultant that had been employed by Carver County and is now an independent consultant, to conduct a complete set of soil borings across the entire site. They were not acceptable to the City's consultant so we took all of his recommendations and went back to the drawing board. Did another complete set of soil borings. Those were rejected with some different reasons. Then on April 27th I thought we had met all of his requirements and I had our soil consultant get in touch with the City's soil consultant. We conducted a third set of soil borings for a total of 64 borings that I've conducted on this site and as of yesterday, those were rejected by the City's soil consultant so we're at a position now where we have to delay this until we can get that resolved. The experience has been very difficult for me. It's like failing a college exam the first time and coming back to take it again and you have a new test and failing again and coming back and having a third test. I have concerns about the environment. I want to do everything possible here. I know you're concern is with the City and with the environment. I intend to build all those homes. The homeowners are not going to corne to the City if these systems fail, they are going to corne to the builder. Our consultant has told me repeatedly that he has absolutely no qualms that he can build on- site septic systems, mound systems that will be designed to last for years ~ but we're kind of at an impass at that right now and I've got to work on a ~ solution to that before the Planning Commission can act so. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 10 e Richard Zweig: I have a couple of questions. Number one, you're talking about the soil borings, what were the reasons? In other words, when you're going to 64 different sites as you did that. In other words, they are septic tanks as such, were they going to be positioned in different positions and that is the reason for the change or what took place? Dan Herbst: The first go around was basically a misunderstanding. As I read the City's Ordinance, they required two sites, four borings per each lot so we went out and conducted those without having all of the data and the information that the City's soil consultant uses. So we turned those borings in and I trusted totally in my soil consultant because he has actually been a student of the City's soil consultant and has been working at it for about 17 years. Those were rejected because of locations. Because of some of them being in a drainageway. No particular problems with the soils as such other than they are mottled soils and most of them will not hold a drainfield as you and I understand them for an on-site system. Then we moved those pads around. A second time, his major concern was I believe in drainageways so then I came back with a plan that showed where all the water is going to be draining. This map doesn't show it but by looking at the contours here, you can see there is probably a drainageway from this area through here. Because I wasn't showing with arrows the flow of the water around those drainageways, it was obvious to me there was going to be a house built here, I had them put a culvert here to support the drainage here but a lot of those things weren't a part of the soil testing _and he rejected them that time. So he told me, he said make sure you show all these drainageways so the third time I showed him all the drainageways and then he came up with some additional analysis saying even though you are showing that the mounds are built above the ground, that the drainage is going around them, there is a possible chance hydraulically that the water could go under these mounds so each time it's been kind of a new set of rules. Conrad: Let me jump in a little bit. We've liberalized a lot of things recently yet we've maintained some scientific criteria for building in the unsewered area. Therefore, we're playing with some ordinances that are relatively new. They are not old. They are state-of-the-art ordinances which we're pretty comfortable with. They're not like, boy we should go back and take a look at them because they may be wrong. A lot of the ordinances we're looking at tonight that effect this property have been reviewed by this Commission and City Council and a lot of experts over the last 2 to 3 years so I'm pretty comfortable. We had some ordinances in place that are relatively good. Mound systems have not been allowed up until a few months ago. They are allowing mound systems because our consultant is telling us they can be as good as the normal system. I gues I want to give you some indication that we feel that prior to a 2 1/2 acre subdivision this Planning Commission was not real wild about 2 1/2 acres out in the unsewered area. We really felt 5 and 10 acres was more appropriate because we were concerned about sewage. As the City Council has asked us to go down to 2 1/2 acres, we were very concerned about sewage at that time and A therefore we hired a consultant. He came in and gave us some ~recommendations which we've adopted and we also use him as a technical Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 11 e expert on situations like this. Typically the soil borings are pretty generous and perc tests are pretty generous and I have not seen many things rejected by our consultant. I'm generlizing and if somebody on the Planning Commission thinks I'm misstating it but basically we're finding most land in this area, even though we do have some bad perc areas, most land is sooner or later buildable so I guess when I hear the consultant saying there are some problems, I pay attention to what the consultant is saying. He's not off protecting something just to protect it. I'm thinking he does have some problems that Mr. Herbst should take into consideration and I think we're all, on the Planning Commission and City Council very concerned about the development in the unsewered area. That's kind of an update saying that we've got some ordinances out there that aren't so bad and we've really liberalized them to let people come in and use property out there. Yet on the other hand, we're putting some scientific criteria to make sure they aren't going to have some problems downstream and pollute the lakes. Dan Herbst: Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking this out of your ordinance. I want good systems out there and I think your ordinances, from what I understand, are excellent. The problem I'm having through the process is reasonably interpret those or strictly interpret those or is everyone on the same wavelength. I really got caught between a very pragmatic guy who is doing the borings and building on a day to day building septic sytems for me and a purist who is writing these rules. I've got to get that ironed out. That's my problems. e Conrad: I can understand your frustration Dan. I've just never seen our consultant come back with too many problems on any parcel. If there are 30 that we're looking at, he may have a comment on one saying the perc test failed, let's find another site. When he comes back and doesn't have positive things on 4 out of 6 or whatever the number is, I have to pay attention and say there's something that you really should get together with him on. It's seems reasonable that there has to be a solution to that but again, it's not like he's always this way. Dan Herbst: Getting together was my prime objective and I've had a difficult time doing that too. It's difficult if not impossible to get my soil consultant and him on the site at the same time so there is something wrong. Martin Jones: How new is the mound system in Chanhassen? Olsen: Since January. Martin Jones: January 1st of this year? How come we got one two years ago and it works fine? What is the City trying to do? Not that I care if Pemtom builds but we've had a mound system for two years and it works beautifully. Olsen: We're finding that they are acceptable. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 12 e Conrad: They are legal. basically illegal. If you've got one in Chanhassen, that was Martin Jones: We were forced by the City of Chanhassen. Olsen: It was an alternative. Conrad: Our Ordinance prior to a couple months ago said that is not protocol or not an option for the unsewered area and we have since changed that. Olsen: The difference is we just used to require a perc test than we found that didn't really find that the soils are suitable and now require soil borings on each site. Richard Zweig: I have one more on the lots there. Do they literally go right out to where there is blue water? That's as big as the lot. Having been down in that area quite a bit, isn't there at least let's say out of 2 1/2 acres there must be 1/2 acre or 3/4 acre of cattails per lot. Is that correct? Dan Herbst: There are a lot of cattails. Richard Zweig: Does a potential buyer have any restrictions on where he or she can do with that land down there and what are they if there are any? ~Olsen: The ordinance has a 75 foot structural setback so the house has to be 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The septic systems have to be 150 feet. Then we have a Wetland Ordinance which doesn't allow you to alter the wetland without getting permission from the City so we do have control over the wetland. Richard Zweig: Part of that is wetlands, is that correct? Dan Herbst: This whole line here is 944.5 above sea level and this is your ordinary high water mark so everything below that is basically your wetland. Richard Zweig: That is all Class A wetland right now, is that correct? Dan Herbst: Yes. Richard Zweig: I guess my concern is, I don't want to get into the wetland thing now but it appears that the lots are sitting out in the wetland and I almost have to talk about that. My concern is if those lots go out that far, if all the area is Class A wetland, I'm opposing to his going in there. I'm opposed to having anything out in the Class A wetland. Personally, that's just the way I see it. I'm not opposed to building on Lake Minnewashta per the Ordinances on the lake but I am opposed to his destroying a Class A wetland in any way, shape or form or altering it in any way, shape or form. I would personally have to see a report if I were on ~ the Commission from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Services or the Department of ~ Natural Resources that specifically says yea or nay on that property and Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 13 e . what type of alteratIon they would allow and I would only be agreeable to one that is the most restrictive because all of you have gotten letters on the Class A wetland issue. I'm just very concerned about that in Minnesota, in Chanhassen, wherever. That's one of the beauties of this lake. To go out into a wetland and alter it is just something I personally don't want to do. I want to go on record saying, I'm not opposed to developing land on that hill but that's my real concern so that's why I wanted that specifically stated to me what portion of that was wetland and it appears that a good portion of that, as it is shown here is and I'm concerned about that. Olsen: We did have the DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife comment on it. It is a state protected wetland by the DNR and the applicant is going through a permit process right now to install the docks within the wetland. As far as the DNR is concerned, they are meeting all the requirements and they have no concerns. They have given their okay to do that. We visited the site with our wetland expert from the Fish and Wildlife Service and actually she felt that it was somewhat cattail clogged and she felt that the docks that he is proposing would be okay. Her only concern was that the pedestrian traffic to the docks would harm the wetland so what we are recommending is that he also add a boardwalk to the land so the wetland will not be walked upon at all. Conrad: And that's fairly consistent with the Chanhassen Ordinance. We ~protect our wetlands. Based on the comments from the outside and based on our ordinance it looks like the applicant can preserve the wetlands without much damage. In fact, very little damage and maybe none at all which is the intent of our ordinance is to maintain the wetland. Other comments. John Getsch: I have property just north of this property. My comment on where the docks are located on the east side of the lake there. If you go right in that area it's all lily pads and spawning area for bass. Putting the docks in there would basically destroy that. Boat traffic would just ruin that area. Right now it is basically a fairly wild area in there with cattails and lily pads. Only used by fisherman from the outside probably 50 to 60 feet from shore. Also going back in to the small lake in there, that basically crawls into this lake. So his putting his dock into that other area would be virtually impossible without dredging or digging out the cattails. I would just look at it and say you're not going to put a dock in there without altering that area. That's part of the reason why you have the sedimentation there is because of the lake bass. If the lily pads start disappearing you're going to wash out the area more. Jeff Souba: I have a question. I find it almost impossible to believe that he's going to develop six properties and restrict it to six boats. I venture to bet you could count on one hand the number of docks on that lake with only one boat on it. The value of the homes that he's going to be putting in there, you got to be talking a minimum of a couple hundred thousand and the people who are go i ng to be pu rchas i ng the home with tha t ~kind of money, you know they're going to have a pontoon boat for leisure and ~you know they're going to have a speed boat for waterskiing and probably a Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 14 . fishing boat and I just don't see any way humanly possible that you're going to restrict those people to one boat per house and to two docks along that length of property. I just don't see it happening. I think it's ridiculous to even believe that you are going to get people to spend that kind of money on that kind of property and then only have one dock for their boats and then they have to go that much distance. Literally, by those blueprints, to go to the swimming beach they have to get into the car, get down to the highway, drive down the highway, drive into the property to go to the swimming beach and then expect only one parking space per house. Conrad: It is enforceable though. they can have. Period. Absolute. temptation is there. You're right have. If it was decided six boats, that's all It may take some surveillance and the but that's the absolute that they could Dave Getsch: My concern is that, and I would like to give a little bit of a different perspective, we're taking a section of land that is 24 acres that actually has useable lake frontage which is very small. Although the brunt of the property may be the equivalent of 11010 foot lots if it was normal lake access and you each have a dock on there. To service it now, with all of that recreational pressure right on a very narrow stretch or relative to the lot sizes, you're now putting on a lot of pressure right there. Especially with the dock that has five boats and can be used by five different families. You now have a single point with a lot of activity in a very .small place. I know if we had just plain lakeshore, no way would you want to have a common access and I'm thinking of the Zimmerman property just north of there. If somebody carne down and said we want to put the dock in to support three docks. Each lot support five houses each. We're going to end up with just an undoable situation down there. We use it as a recreational area. You can only take so many boats down in that area and I'm just saying that they may not be able to all have individual docks. My feeling is that's too much pressure for that small an area of useable lakeshore. Mary Jo Moore: I live on the lake and when you stated it's enforceable on the number of boats on a dock. I'm in an association and I'm next door to an association and it's very difficult to enforce that. It has become a problem in Minnewashta. Once you let one developer come in now with this new lake ordinance and lake useage and now you're going to waive that. You're going to have the current owners on the lake objecting to why they're restricted. I'm very opposed to it. Martin Jones: I live on the lake also. I have a runabout and a fishing boat on my dock. Am I going to be restricted? I may not have my runabout or my fishing boat on my dock? I have two boats on my dock. If you say one boat per family, am I restricted then? Conrad: No. Single family residences you can have three and we're not looking at that issue tonight. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 15 . Martin Jones: If he is going to be allowed to have one boat per person, then are we allowed one boat per house? Conard: No. He's asking for an exception and we have to decide whether that exception is warranted. Richard Zweig: As I look at this and having been down there, I really only see two lots that really have lakeshore as far as I'm concerned and that's possibly 5 and 6. The others down there, I guess I don't know what we call lakeshore lakeshore anymore because it's wet. It's really marsh swampland down there and we just basically extend it. I can see the blue line that goes in there and the little mini lake in there but to me it's not very much useable shoreline. I think I share the concern that these other two gentleman feel. By putting those docks out there off of Lot 5 and 6 and then we're also talking about the beachlot. That is an area down there that is used extensively by fishermen. It's an area that's very good for that. It's one area that is protected if you like which will not be and I think what's really done in my mind is we're saying we have six lots there and in my mind I only see two. That's all I see and I think as far as the lake goes, I don't know what you're going to say is you can paddle through 6 inches of water and mud if that becomes lake frontage or not but that's what we're talking about in those other lots. I have to agree that off in that area it does destroy what is in there for bass fishing because it is a very productive fishing area because of the drop offs that do come off of there _and it will alter it. I think that's unfortunate for a lake like . Minnewashta that has only a few special areas to it that I consider not conducive for development. There are still other areas on the lake that are definitely going to be developed. That is appropriate for development. It is sandy beach. That sort of thing. This I can't in my wildest imagination see that we can consider that lake shore within those two lots. Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: Jo Ann, if the ordinary high water mark is one boundary of the wetland, where is the other boundary? Does the boundary follow this line or is this included in the wetland? Olsen: That's open water. It's a wetland but it's not a Class A wetland. Emmings: So it runs between this line and the line that he's give us. So if this were clogged with cattails in this area and assuming that they wanted to have docks off of each one of these lots, if this wasn't from time to time clogged with cattails, could they dredge that out without asking us? without asking the City for a permit? Olsen: I believe that's protected by the DNR and they would have final say on that. I believe that is considered part of the lake and is under DNR jurisdiction. It wouldn't be considered the wetland. ~Emmings: Would they have to get a permit to dredge? Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 16 e Olsen: From the DNR. Emmings: From the DNR, not the City. All of the lily pads too, those are out in the open water and therefore not part of the wetland and we have no rules and regulations that govern what you can do with lily pads in front of your property? Olsen: Right. Emmings: I guess I have a comment about the alternative proposed to run the road in front of the houses. It doesn't make any sense to me at all to do that. I think from the standpoint of people living on the lots and from the standpoint of looking at the lots from the lake, I think it is very unattractive. Also, it seems to me that the Staff is recommending that we ultimately be able to hook up that road into any development that may occur to the north or to the east making it kind of a busy public street and putting those houses behind a public street doesn't make much sense to me. I would like to echo Ladd's comments too on the assessment that's been done on the septic systems. We have very few bad comments and what we got back on this one really was awful. It wasn't just bad, it was awful. On Lot 2 no boring data was even presented at least in the copy of the draft of the report that I got. Dan Herbst: It already has a house and septic system on it. eEmmings: But they were sited in drainageways and on slopes in excess of 12%. It really looks bad. The city has had experience where septic systems have failed and then the City has been called in to bailout. They don't go back to the developer. They might but they wind up here and it winds up being terribly expensive. Up until just a short time ago developers only had to show one septic site. Now they have to show two and they are not allowed to build anything on the alternate site so if they fail they can handle the problem on-site. I think it's particularly important to me to see those new ordinances complied with to the letter particularly because this is on the shore of a lake. I'm not really adverse to the idea of clustering the docks. Particularly if the alternative is to have them coming in for a request for each of the lots to have it's own dock. We'll wind up with three boa ts on each dock ra ther than hav i ng one boa t per lot on that dock. I think enforcement is a terrible problem and would be very difficult to enforce. It can be enforced but it really requires surveillance of the neighbors and that's kind of an ugly situation to be involved in so I don't think there is any solution to that problem. If they are willing to stick to one boat per household, which really is very restrictive, then it is going to wind up being a neighborhood problem. There's just no way around it. On the other hand, we can't be developing property like this and telling somebody that's looking at that lake that they can't use it. I think the clustering of the docks is probably a good deal especially if we can, by clustering it, restrict the number of boats that have access to the lake. We didn't talk about traffic too much and the ~Arboretum, in their letter to the City, raises the traffic issue coming off _of TH 5. I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and those of us who Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 17 e live up there use TH 7 are certainly familiar with that problem. I think that's a very big problem. I think it's a big problem for the development where it is and I think it's an even bigger problem for the beachlot. We'll talk about that later I guess. Do we have any experience where people put permanent docks across wetlands leaving them up all year round? We've got snowmobiles running around. Olsen: This is our first wetland alteration to allow a dock. Emmings: I don't know where people drive snowmobiles because I don't do it but having that dock out there all year round sounds like they could be dangerous to me and that would be something I would like to know more about from the Staff somehow before we approve something like that. That's all I've got. Siegel: Are we still talking about a private road servicing the six lots? Olsen: I believe the applicant is proposing private but Staff is proposing public. Siegel: So Staff is recommending public with a cul-de-sac servicing Lots 4, 5 and 6? Olsen: The public street would serve Lots 1 through 4 and then private e dr i veways for 5 and 6. Siegel: I guess I have a question. I don't understand how a dock on Lot 6 would be utilized. Olsen: The boats would be launched from the public boat access so it would just be pedestrian traffic to the dock. What he is proposing is to provide an easement for the path for the pedestrian traffic. Siegel: That will be for the other property owners to reach the dock? Is that where he would put the boardwalk? Olsen: Yes. We are recommending to go over the wetlands to have a boardwalk. Siegel: And that would be the same dock the owner of Lot 6 would be able to utilize? Olsen: That's what I understand. Siegel: I think that really sounds pretty complicated from the standpoint of usage and policing. It really throws a wrench in the machineworks there of trying to police who is a property owner and who is a guest and who is corning from another site on the lake. I guess I have a real problem with that. As long as the Staff is recommending that it be a public street, are a you asking for a conditional use permit for the width of the street? In ..your recommendation it would be going down to 40 feet. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 18 e Olsen: It's been done I believe once before where the City has just lessen the right-of-way. It's still going to be an urban street to urban standards but the right-of-way is just lessen by 10 feet. It can be installed within the 40 feet rather than the 50 feet. Siegel: Is this for aesthetic reasons? Because of trees? Olsen: It would be preserving a lot of trees and a lot of the slope. Siegel: I guess tha t' s all I have. Noziska: I guess Ladd whether it's public or private, I don't get too excited about it one way or the other because I believe the quality of the development is going to be such that those moving into the area are going to want to have a decent street anyway so in my eyes I don't see that as a big concern. My concern is the septic systems and the proximity to the lakes or proximity to creeks or proximity to anything that has to do with moving water for potential water contamination. That does bother me. The small acreage and the close proximity of septic systems to one another bother me. It bothers me here as it did on the golf course and I think it's basically inappropriate. I believe the docks can be policed somewhat. The policing of the docks doesn't get to be a big question in my mind but the docks themselves is in the middle of a bass spawning area. What does the DNR know about that or do they look at that sort of thing? e Dan Herbst: We have a permit to go into the Department of Fisheries and the DNR so they will be responding to that. The preliminary indications I have from both the Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife, it is not a major issue. Olsen: But I don't know if they specifically looked at that issue. Noziska: Well, when you talk to them and obviously we're going to get a chance to do this allover again but I think that's an issue in my mind that needs to be cleared up. That's all I have. Wildermuth: After reading the report I think it's pretty clear that the plot is probably going to have to be refigured to make some kind of sense out of the septic problems. Other things I was wondering about, in view of the spawning area up there just to the north of that little pond area, would it make more sense to dredge out that little waterway that connects the two and put an individual dock for maybe four lots or five lots? I think you're probably going to lose one of these lots with the problems with the septic systems. Maybe it does less damage to look at trying to clean up that channel and put an individual dock in that little pond than it does to damage the spawning area. I guess that probably comes to Fish and Wildlife. As far as the road is concerned, if it's a public road or a private road probably isn't much of an issue. The homes that are going to be built there are probaby going to dictate the quality of the roadway. It probably will ~ be a very good roadway. I guess that's all I have until we start talking .. about the beachlot. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 19 e Headla: Jo Ann, when do you think the road is going to come in from the north? Olsen: We don't know if it's going to come through. Even if it is a possibility. Wherever the road is located, Staff is always looking for the options of the future access and again, as the people have pointed out, the Zimmerman property has met the January 15th deadline and will be coming through in the near future. They aren't doing the whole piece but this is the area that will be subdivided and there is the possibility that when this is resubdivided that it would be nice to have secondary access. What we're looking at is possibly having an access be located from wherever the road is located on this side. Headla: It would seem critical though that we have that option. We've just leaned on two other applicants here within the last month. We raked them over the coals that they could only have three homes on a cul-de-sac. Now we're talking about six. It just doesn't seem right. Conrad: Staff is not saying that. Headla: We are not consistent in what we're doing. We're talking about a 10 easement here and 4 foot here and some docks, three docks, and a dock here. What is this distance? e Noziska: It is 463. Headla: I don't know about you fellas but if I asked my wife to carry a cooler from here to here, do you know what she would tell me? When I look at this whole thing, I think the road should go through here and I think a beachlot should go right in here. Then you're going to do minimum disturbance of the whole contour of the land right through here. People who bought these homes are going to be able to get to their boats. They're not going to create havoc and I disagree, I don't think a road is necessarily a big disadvantage here. I have one in front of my home and that road kept my kids from going down to the lake when they were real young. We have Minnewashta Parkway where that's typical and I don't think that's a big disadvantage. I do not like the idea of having six homes on a cul-de-sac when we've rej ected others for the same reason. Another one, I don't understand this giving way on a 60 foot right-of-way. Even though we have a 60 foot right-of-way, it doesn't mean the road is that wide. Olsen: I asked the engineer the same question as far as the 50 foot and the 40 foot. Once that right-of-way is set there, when the road is installed, they use that right-of-way and it's almost just a fact that that whole right-of-way will be altered. Headla: There is probaby good reason why they have that 60 foot right-of- way then. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 20 e Olsen: That's with the rural street where you have the additional right-of- way for the ditches and what we're doing is proposing urban which is what the applicant was going to install anyway and that requires less right-of- way because it's curb and gutter. Headla: But if we plan on this being a through street then is that really adequate? Would the Fire Department be satisfied with that? Olsen: less. The road would be the same. It's just that additional boulevard is Headla: So they would be satisfied with that? That cul-de-sac where we've rejected so many others, I think we have to be consistent in what we do. Conrad: So you're statement is it should be a public road? Headla: Yes and I think we have to try hard to plan to make it a through road which I think is definitely the right thing. Did the Fire Department look at this and comment on it at all? Olsen: They reviewed it. We got an okay on it. Headla: I'm not concerned about the soil borings. I think the Staff has a lot more knowledge on that and is much more knowledgable on what is good and e isn't good. I guess I'll trust their judgment on that to say aye or nay. The other question I had was I really didn't understand how much alteration if you put that road to the east. How much alteration is there to put it in and how many trees do we lose? Olsen: The exact number of trees I don't know. It is heavily vegetated with mature trees so this whole area will be clearcut. This kind of gives you an idea of what kind of grading will be required. This is what exists and this is what is proposed. This is fill and this is cut so there is an extensive amount of grading. Conrad: I think the key thing for me is the septic systems. Where I'm very protective of septic systems in an open field with corn and on the lake, steep slope, wetland, I'm even more concerned so I will be real concerned Dan how our consultants talk to you about this and I think that's really instrumental in everything we're talking about tonight. The City of Chanhassen and the citizens are real concerned about protecting the environment as you know. Dan used to be Chairman of the Planning Commission as I recall so you know some of those concerns. I'm concerned too and especially because of the particular area you're in. I could go either way on where the road goes. I think there are benefits each way. I think for Mr. Herbst, behind is appropriate from the sellability but if this comes back, if we don't act on it or table it tonight, I would kind of like to understand the impact of going through the woods or to the east as the applicant has proposed. I don't see that as a real negative. I do have a .. problem very defini tely wi th the docks. I don't know how I could grant "'exceptions to our Ordinances knowing how many lawsuits and complaints would Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 21 e corne in if we did because I think if we did we would be opening up a whole bunch of situations that I would really rather not feel. Therefore, my thinking in line with what Dave said, if a recreational beachlot would solve that problem than we have the proposed dock but as it stands I don't like the shared dock. I don't know what the precedence is for it. I do like the clustered idea and that's the idea of a beachlot. That's the point of a recreational beach lot and I think there are some advantages to that. I think that they road should be public if we have more than four houses. If it's four or less than it can be private. I'm not seeing serious impact. I don't think we have a chance to maintain the Ordinance and in this particular case I think we've all decided recently every other week we've decided up here that four is maximum on a private road. If we have six than it just automatically goes to public in my mind. Jo Ann, there was a recommendation for a trail easement on the east and that's just basically if the road goes through we would have access from the residents to the north? Was that what they wanted? Olsen: Yes and also somehow to have some service to the Arboretum. e Conrad: I think the Staff Report is good. There are some cases where you recommended we could give some variances to lot areas and that makes sense. There are some cases in here where the Staff is sensitive to the developer in recommending that we could grant a variance and it seems logical in those cases to do tha t bu t I th ink the bot torn line goes back to me is wha t can this land take from the terms of the septic and that may totally redesign this. As Staff and the applicant has requested, I think we should table it until we get more information. The acceptability of the tests and when those are done, then it should corne back and as those dictate, I think the plat may be redone. Any other comments? Emmings: I'm a little confused. I asked before why there was no soil boring data from Lot 2 and you said because there is already a house there but because this is part of a development shouldn't he be identifying alternative septic site on that lot? Olsen: Technically they don't have to provide the soil borings but our consultant took a look at the possible locations even without he soil borings. Emmings: Why don't they have to provide borings? Olsen: They probably should. Ordinance. It's just not specifically stated in the Emmings: Because they are creating a new lot here. They are either going to raise that house or substantially modify it. They are required to have an alternative septic site and how can you select that site without doing borings? I think there should be. Now can you put up that map with the Zimmerman property on it. You say it's going to develop up in here? e Olsen: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 22 e Emmings: Are they going to be asking for a beach lot out here? Olsen: Right now no. It's just going to be a single family lot. Emmings: Because that might make some difference if there is going to be a beachlot here and a beachlot here. We may want to look at the whole impact but right now this is designed as a single family home? Olsen: It hasn't come in yet. We've seen a lot of applications for that land and the majority of them have had beachlots. Emmings: Is there a plan in right now for us to review? Olsen: Technically there is one submitted for January 15th but that proposal has fallen through and is now over to somebody else with another proposal. Emmings: So that will be under the new Ordinance? Olsen: He will be coming in under the new Ordinance. Emmings: action. Do we have to take action? I thought he's asked us not to take econrad: He's recommended that we table it until he can resolve... Noziska: We have to do something. We can't just ignor it. Conrad: He's asked us to table it and if we would like to, I think that makes a lot of sense. I don't know that we have all the information. I think he's getting a sense for our feelings on the issues and it's probably appropriate that we table it. If there aren't any more questions I would accept a motion and it can be to deny or it can be to table. It could be to accept the subdivision as proposed with certain criteria. Is there a motion? Headla: If we reject it, should we give certain reasons. Are we better off just tabling it as opposed to rejecting it? Emmings: A rejection will send it onto the City Council for their consideration. If we want to see it again we ought to table it. Noziska: I don't think we're in any shape to send this anywhere. Conrad: I don't think Dan would want us to send it to City Council. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to table Subdivision #87-12 for 24 acres into six single family lots. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 23 e The public was concerned if they were going to be notified for this item when it comes back to the Planning Commission. Staff stated that technically public hearing had been closed but the City would send out notices about a week prior to the hearing on this item. Chairman Conrad stated the public hearing would be reopened when the item came before the Planning Commission again. Dan Herbst stated that he would be happy to personally hear any public input from any concerned citizens. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND GRADING WITHIN -- --- A CLASS A WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this item. Conrad: I will open it up for public hearing but I guess I would prefer to table this item also. I would like Mr. Herbst to hear the public comments if there are any and our comments but I think it is appropriate to table this simply because the item that we just tabled will affect the alteration permit and I see no reason to say we are approving one thing when we don't know how it's impacted by the subdivision and whether we're going to have 2 or 4 lots or whatever so in both item c and d on our agenda that we should table it but we'll give Mr. Herbst a chance to hear what the comments are. Dan Herbst: Instead of proposing a dock for every lot I tried to put it in e areas where the dock is above the wetland and cluster them as much as possible. Dave Getsch: The question I've got is, what is the distance from the top of the property down to that little neck of an open body of water? Noziska: Little over 4013 feet. it's 425 plus/minus. It's 1130, 1133, 95 and 128 so that means Dave Getsch: You mentioned something about the City was talking about 3 docks. Were you talking about the 3 docks that we see here? Conrad: Right now we're talking about, regardless of how it's used. I guess we have to think about how that dock is used because we're concerned about what the Wetland Ordinance says about putting something in the wetland and I guess use is appropriate. Use of that particular dock. Dave Getsch: Nobody has ever fallen off a dock into a wetland? We falloff our docks all the time. Our kids playing on them, what have you. It would effect the wetland regardless of what you do. You're going to have litter. You're going to have a variety of things in there. Maxine Erickson: I just want to clarify. Did the DNR and the Fish and wildlife approve? ~ Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife gave their verbal approval. The DNR is still ..,going through the official permit process but has given preliminary Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 24 e approval. They are essentially waiting for the City. Maxine Erickson: Just the building of the docks would be minimal as far as the wetlands is concerned? Olsen: Right. Tom Getsch: Earlier a comment was made, apparently Chanhassen has no Ordinance with regard to lily pads. Does the DNR have a concern of lily pads. Those are in the blue water there. Olsen: I don't know. I haven't~look~d~iht6 it. Tom Getsch: Another thing I am concerned with and it was raised before about snowmobiles. Having seen some of the snowmobile traffic down there when we have snow, it will be a real liability situation if you have a bridge going across those cattails because the snowmobiles run along the land and then... Conrad: Going back to the DNR, I can't speak for them and many times certainly interpret things inappropriately but I don't think they will prevent a dock going in because of the lily pads. They will try to minimize the impact. If there is a spawning area, they will try to minimize the impact but they will not take somebody's rights away to get to the water to e put a dock out. They won't take those rights away but they will try to manage it. Ed Worm: The spawning area, the only thing I see in there is rough fish and the only question I have is that most of those weeds are floating. Now the lake is full. What good do weeds do to anybody? Why can't you just push them aside? Dan Herbst: Years ago they used to burn them. Conrad: I think those are good comments and the DNR has to look at that and we have to look at that as to how this development goes in. There are cases where burning the wetland is very advantageous. If Mr. Herbst could corne in and persuade us that a permit for this wetland is acceptable if he improves it. If he cleans it out and I think we can see some advantages of improving a wetland. I haven't seen that. I've seen I'm not going to impact that wetland. I'm trying to minimize the impact. I haven't seen anybody tell us we're going to clean it up and I would be much more persuaded if somebody had said we're going to improve that wetland by doing some of those things. Ed Worm: The other thing about snowmobiles, the cattails are so intense, there is no snowmobile traffic in the cattails, just out on the open ice so why should these docks be a hazard? They could be left out there. Conrad: We just get concerned that if you put a permanent dock up, that ~ there is a liability and if we're sanctioning something that could be a ~hazard. You're probably right but I've seen snowmobile trails going through Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 25 e wetlands around my house so there is a potential for a lawsuit. Dan Herbst: I'd give the permanent dock up. The only reason I was proposing permanent docks in the cattails so we wouldn't be putting them in and taking them out every year. It was interesting in talking to the Fish and Wildlife lady out there. She said this area has too many cattails. It's clogged. Ed has told me when he bought the property 30 years ago you could right down to the sand beach. There were no cattails. That's a problem. I don't see how I can take those things out of here. I was just doing it to minimize the cattails. Conrad: I know you were and I think there are some things that are in your plan Dan that are very good. The permanent dock is something that we would like to see so don't take my comments. I'm raising the issues but if I were to interpret the intent of the Ordinance, a permanent dock over the wetland is a positive thing and it minimizes the impact on the wetland. Tom Getsch: One thing, just an observation and it goes back to the previous subject that ties into the wetland is the easement for the path will have going down to it and I'm looking at what could be as long as 800 to 900 feet. Are you sure people on somedays will be willing to haul coolers down and also gas and storing their water skis. There is going to be a tendency to be leaving all sorts of things down there and clearing an area for doing that down there and that's going to be a problem because people are not _going to want to haul it down the hill. That's a concern. That's something that has to be planned for. Dan Herbst: It is an inconvenience. There is a possibility that a dock could be put in here. There is an existing one there now. A dock here and a dock here and cut it down to three which would cut down the number of people making that trek down there. At Eagle Bluff we had 17 lots where they were walking considerably further distance and had to go down very steep steps. In Deephaven, in Chimo, we basically had 36 lots using the one little common area but you're right, it's not the same as having it in your backyard. Just to clear up the easement, it's a 10 foot easement that will run along the property here. There is already an existing fence there now which is inside of the property which could be there to protect the homeowner here but the path is 42 inches wide. Dave Getsch: I will be a proponent for cleaning up the cattails. The cattails have a tendency to break off when the winds are from the soutlEast which we get a lot of and they have been propagating themselves down along the shoreline. I'm beginning to wonder what's wetland and what's not. You had shoreline before and you now have rushes, are you suddenly bound to keep the rushes there or are they transiet rushes that need to get rid of? It's really a problem. We get big chunks of them in the summer. So if somebody wanted to improve that somehow and is permissable, that might be advantageous to all of us. A Public: I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and have been there . since 1976. I think it's kind of interesting. My lot originally was Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 26 e dredged out by Joe Boyer. I walked on my dock today and I saw four bass at one time. In 2 to 3 feet of water you can see sunfish. Since that area's been built up for instance Boyer dredged it for the homes on there, everybody maintains their property quite well. Fish are spawning there. There are more fish in that lake than really there should be. They are eating the weeds away. I do not feel that people should right away jump on the developer like this just because it's more of the same. As long as I'm living on the lake, the hell with everybody else. I think if something is well done. Maintained. That it's the best thing for the City. The damage I think comes from wanting a public access. All the people from god knows where that put their boats in and throw their junk allover and it's the same way with the fishermen in the winter. They are the people who leave the junk on the lake. It's not the property owners. The people that live on the lake are not the people that have the boats out on the lake. I'll bet for the six lots there would be six boats, you wouldn't find except on the 4th of July parade, maybe four of them out at the same time. It isn't the people on the lake that dock on it that are out there churning up the water. It's the other people that come onto it and they are the ones who make the mess. The other thing about the permanent dock, if a dock is out there or you pull it in in the wintertime, a snowmobiler can hit that dock after it's piled with all the sections just as well as if it's out in the water. I think sometimes we, the City, the Planning Commission, everybody jumps on one of these things. I would like to see something happen with the property. I think if it's well done and well planned and as lot as the lots ,'are not allowed to be subdivided so there are 12 homes on there or 15, I don't see anything at all. I do have a complaint about that project going, the Cedar Point thing. I think that's a terrible mess. I think there are all kinds of things that are going wrong. Leech's. Conrad: That's another public hearing I think. Ralph Kant: I live west of this property on TH 5. I just want to comment, I too received one of these clumps of floating outlot from the area that is clogging my shore and I would just as soon get rid of. I have a question about protecting the shoreline and the cattail bogs. Isn't there still a regulation on the lakes where a person can develop half of their lot and everything else has to be as is? There is no such Ordinance? I thought the DNR requirements were like that. Olsen: That's a DNR regulation but it's not regulated out of the City. Ralph Kant: No, it's not regulated out of the City but the people who buy the property they are still bound by those DNR regulations aren't they? Olsen: They are bound by the City regulations which are more strict. Ralph Kant: What are the City regulations? Olsen: As far as clearing out? __ Ralph Kant: Clearing out cattails? Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 27 e Olsen: This is all Class A wetlands The Shoreland Ordinance also does not you're talking about a sand blanket. a sand blanket. so that's why you couldn't clear it. allow any clear cutting. I think On the shore we can clear out 50% for Richard Zweig: One other question. To echo your sediments Mr. Conrad about preserving but not improving the wetlands. It sounds to me sitting through here, I am all for improving as well as maintaining. We talked about it being over choked with cattails, does that mean there is a possibility the u.s. Fish and Wildlife has thought of classifying something less than a Class A. Conrad: There are reasons why you're an A or B or whatever. dumped into a B wetland, our ordinances would still be close There are some things that you can't dump into an A that you it's still very concerned with A's and B's. Even if this to the same. can in a B but Emmings: That's a City designation. Conrad: We have designated A's and B's. The DNR has Type I, II, III and IV's. Olsen: Anything adjacent to a lake is top of the line wetland. _conrad: They go from I to VIII. We're only looking at a couple of categories of wetlands. Richard Zweig: The point being there is if it's going to be altered and I see no problem with permanent docks going out, that type of alteration that keeps the people out of there but my sentiments would be let's preserve it but then let's go one step further. If we're going to allow alteration then there may be some ideas that the DNR or the Fish and Wildlife has that the man who is going to develop it could possibly do to keep it a Class A wetland. Torn Getsch: How far does a Class A wetland go? Does it cover Zimmerman's property to the north? Olsen: It would be where the ordinary high water mark is. I would have to look at the wetland map. I'm not sure if that is designated wetland. Some shoreland along the lakes is not designated as wetland but I don't know right off hand. Headla: When is a dock a dock? We talk about a boardwalk going down there and one of the requirements is a permanent dock can not be more than 50 feet in leng th bu t how do we determ i ne when we're on the dock and when we're on the walk? Olsen: The DNR requirement that it can't be more than 50 feet? e requirement. It's a DNR Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 28 e Emmings: Do we have a definition in our Ordinance? Olsen: Of a dock yes. Headla: The other thing, do we need a variance on this? Olsen: I talked to them about having a boardwalk and that would not require a variance from that. It would be included in the permanent but it wouldn't be considered part of the dock. Conrad: Is there a motion to close public hearing. Noziska moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Are there opinions on this that you would like Mr. Herbst to hear tonight in terms of how you feel and give him some signals? I'm assuming and it doesn't have to be, we can make a motion on this as the applicant has suggested but I guess I'm assuming we would want to table this and we'll bring it up again but if there is something you would like to say to the applicant or ask questions. Headla: I think the way that dock is structured, I don't think it's practical. Like I said before, I'm not going to get my wife to walk down a that whole 400 feet carrying a cooler. I think it's going to present - problems a little while later. Five years they are going to come in with some rationale why each place should have a dock. I guess I would really like to see you take that approach. Why you couldn't have that or maybe two lots have a common dock. In the end I think it might be less damage all the way around. Wildermuth: I would like to see, that channel going down and maybe that little pond upgraded so you could put maybe one common dock for two adjacent lots rather than having these clustered docks. Dan Herbst: The channel is navigable now. Wildermuth: It is? Even with this low water? Dan Herbst: Whenever I've been fishing, there have been 2 or 3 boats. Headla: there. You're going through that channel aren't you Ed? I see your boat Ed Worm: I haven't had my boat out there for about 10 years. on the lake you don't fish. If you live Dan Herbst: I spotted a number of boats back in there and I went through it right after the ice was off and measured the depth and the average is 3 to 4 e feet all the way through there. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 29 e Noziska: I guess I really don't have any big objection to the docks as proposed or alteration to the docks. There is close to 2,000 lineal feet of shoreline if you look at it and add it all up. Actually there is more than that so if you want to stick three docks on that, I can't imagine that that's going to cause any great amount of problems with the wildlife. Other than that, as far as those boardwalks, I think they should be planned on being a permanent fixture rather than picking them up and taking them out. That will probably improve the quality of them to begin with so they are better to start with and there is no sense in tromping in there every spring and every fall. Siegel: I would like to see more of an approach towards the recreational beachlot incorporated along the buildable site. Probably with 6 to facilitate the development as we have required of other developments on lake property with similar types of problems in access problems. Just to maintain a consistency there. This gets into the next question on recreational beachlot but I'm not sure whether having a swimming access via a separate road where you have to drive in and park, I don't think that would be too amenable to most homebuyers from the standpoint of proximity to the lake. They might as well go to a public beach. I just make that comment in regards to how I view the property in relationship to alteration. Emmings: I think looking at a beachlot is a good idea the way Bob outlined it and I also agree with Howard's comment that I personally wouldn't have .~ any problem with having boardwalks going across the Class A wetland. That doesn't bother me. Having it permanent is probably the right way to do it. Conrad: I don't have a problem with the applicant's requested action on the wetland but as it relates to the other things like the other gentleman, I think the recreational beachlot where Lot 6 right now is probably makes sense. Whether that makes economic sense, I don't know but in terms of just what the permit is asking to do, I don't have a problem with it and I think I would vote for it. My concern would be the extensive use of the far dock on the northern dock with the traffic that it would generate and what the impact would be on the surrounding area. That would be my significant concern on that. In terms of building in the wetland, I think the applicant has done a good job of preserving it and is sensitive to that but I think I would also like to see a reconfiguration if the applicant chooses to do so. Is there a motion? Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to table the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-5. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report for the Recreational Beachlot. e Dan Herbst: I've kind of covered by theory before but it's a gorgeous little piece of land. If you've ever been on it, it's extremely private. It's got a nice sand shoreline to it. It has an existing road that already Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 30 e serves it. It's just an ideal spot for a little private swimming beach. I'm confused as to why cars are not allowed on beachlots because I know you've had all these other problems with all these other recreational beachlots but in this situation, it would not make any sense at all to have people walk to that beachlot. To put a permanent dock or boardwalk out to that is just a considerable expense. It's about 1,000 feet of $175.00 for 8 foot sections so you're talking about $46,000.00 to $47,000.00 item. It doesn't make any sense so I'm proposing that there be a gate that will be utilized by the residents only. There would be six parking stalls maximum and that would be heavily screened from the lake. I'm trying to believe that the primary concern for not having cars down there would be (a) you don't want to have a boat launch which would not be permitted here and (b) you don't want to see them from the lake which I'm willing to screen. (c) if you're concerned about what the car might do for camping and all the other things, it such miniscal things. There are thousand of cars going by this thing and it's solid wetland on each side of TH 5, I can't imagine what 6 cars going out there a couple times a week, three months a year is going to have any miniscal effect on that wetland so I don't understand the logic behind it. I understand what your problem is with a lot of other ones because people launch boats and you don't want a whole bunch of cars piled up down there but I think if there ever was a classic case for a variance to allow cars on a private little island here, I think this would do. Public: Way back before I built on the north shore, I looked at that and if 4IVI had had the guts I would have bought it. The question is, is that unbuildable? Why is that an outlot? Dan Herbst: Basically, I think it will be a buildable lot when sewer would come by but right now, I don't think it's going to support a mound system. Publ ic : Is sewer planned to go along TH 5 at any time? Conrad: A long time from now. We won't be here. Public: Is there City water going along TH 5? Conrad: I don't think so no. Olsen: Also, the setbacks, there would be 3 variances and I don't know if that would be considered a buildable lot. Jeff Souba: I don't have any problems with putting cars on that per se just to place a car there but I think it really is ridiculous to expect a homeowner to have to get into his car to go to the beach and to expect his children to go to the beach. What do they do when they get to the beach and they have to use the restroom? Get in the car and drive home? It's unreasonable. And it's also unreasonable to expect that if they put a dock out there that mom and dad aren't going to pull up there with their boat and take them water skiing from that site and that it's going to be a swimming dock only. ~ That's also an unreasonable request and how do you enfore that? The Sheriff ~ is on the lake on Saturdays and Sundays and then forget it. You're never Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 31 e' going to see him. He's never there on the weekdays. Maybe you'll DNR out there once or twice a summer but I've never seen a Sheriff on a weekday unless it's a holiday or if somebody has called him. it's unreasonable to expect that setting that area for a beach for for all those people to use without expecting them to bring boats and so on just make any logical sense. find the ou t there I think swimming over there Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: I think access, traffic is going to be a problem at that point coming off of TH 5. Cars slowing down to go in there is going to create a traffic hazard. The road is not on your property apparently. Dan Herbst: The road was originally planned to be on the property line between Mr. Munger and Mr. Worm. It is presently, as we did our survey, off of the property but I've been in contact with Mr. Munger and there doesn't seem to be any problem with him getting the easement for pedestrian access. I talked with him this afternoon and he said he would be very cooperative. This is an agreement between Mr. Munger and Mr. Worm 30 years ago. Mr. Worm has used it cons i sten tly so my la wyer has told me it would be very s imply to clear up that. Emmings: We have never, ever allowed cars on our recreational beachlots. ~I agree that this one's different. Most of them are part of a subdivision where there are houses all around. I'm not sure if that's a good reason to change the policy we've had in the past and I think it's a scarey precedent to set. Mr. Souba's comments about what are kids going to do when they are over there and they have to use the bathroom, we don't allow them to have satellites or any kind of buildings or toilet facilities on the recreational beachlot but a lot of those concerns are marketing concerns that are his problem. If I looked at that property and I have to go over there to use the beach I'm not going to be very interested in the property but those are things we aren't concerned with. I'm wondering why you have a gate controlling the access? I'm assuming it's because you're worrying about use of that beachlot by kids at off hours and in the middle of the night and so forth. Is that right? Dan Herbst: Basically, it's an deterrent. If you leave it wide open, free to go in. Make people get out of their car, it's private. I think it has some deterrent. Emmings: I think it's going to get a lot of unauthorized use and we're going to have another police problem there. I really do and once that's developed and there's a little parking lot down there, I think kids are going to flock to there and I don't who is going to be responsible to open and close the gate. Dan Herbst: Basically, you have to look at it now. e Emmings: It's lock now? Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 32 e Dan Herbst: No. There is nothing locked there now. going to improve the patrol of that. You can use it. I'm Emmings: it. I've never seen any cars down there. Those are my concerns about Siegel: What is that Munger property? Is that the same property? Dan Herbst: Basically, it's about two-thirds larger than this piece here. It goes off this way. Siegel: Is that buildable? Dan Herbst: It's the same height and I think you would have to study the setbacks and the soils again to see if it were buildable today. Siegel: What if Mr. Munger decided to come to you with that? What could he do with it? If he wanted to develop it into another recreational beachlot? Olsen: He would have to be able to split it. I think right now, I don't know the exact acreage but he's under the 1 unit per 10 acres so I don't think he has enough acreage to really split it. e Siegel: Could he sell that to a property owner across the highway and use the same principal of drive in. Olsen: He wouldn't be able to get a recreational beachlot. part of the subdivision. It has to be Siegel: I guess I'll rest my case. That's why I suggested the recreational beachlot be on Lot 6 because I don't think this is really part of a subdivision that we could look at as a recreational beachlot. Emmings: Has everybody seen this thing because it's just a narrow causeway going right through the wetland out to this thing. It's essentially an island in the wetland. As far as anything connecting to the shore toward TH 5, it's just that little narrow roadway that goes down from TH 5 down to this little thing that is just an island sitting out there and completly surrounded by cattails. It doesn't really look that way on the map. Noziska: I guess it doesn't bother me one way or the other on the motorized traffic. That doesn't seem in my mind to be a concern. As a matter of fact, I can imagine that with this development there could in fact be better control. They would even be key lock control over the gate with 6 homeowners having keys to get in and out. Conrad: So you're in favoring of granting the variance? e Noziska: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 33 e Wildermuth: With the appropriate screening of the parking area from TH 5, I would have no objections to granting a variance to that. Headla: If we allow this, we would be going against our tradition. We held very firmly no motorized vehicles. I think you have a very serious problem with traffic on TH 5. I've traveled TH 5 long enough to know that it can be a very serious problem. If we allow a beachlot there, there's going to be a dock. Therre are going to be boats pulling up through the cattails and I think you're going to see a degregation of that whole north shore of that island. Maybe instead of driving there if you put a walkway along the road on your property. I'm not sure how practical that is. Generally, I think you've got some other alternatives to a beachlot and I would oppose this plan at this time. e Conrad: My only comments, that generally a beachlot is walkable to. It's a point of a neighborhood clustered together one lot supporting the residents. We've had restrictions that it has to be within 800 feet or that the lots have to be within 800 feet of the beachlot. I think as the crow flies it may be but not as a person flies in this case, you can't get there in 800 feet so I'm not sure this is what I would call a real recreation beachlot proposal. At least in my mind. Technically it may meet it but I think in the spirit of the Ordinance it doesn't. I go back to the fact that I would like to see a recreational beachlot up on Lot 6 if the applicant is interested in pursuing that and if it's of economic advantage at all. That certainly seems like a place to meet a lot of needs. It seems like this particular lot is out of sync. Out of the philosophy of our Beachlot Ordinance and therefore I guess my only comment would be I would like to see it a different place. I would prefer that we table this motion too and see how the other things impact it as they applicant comes back in the future and we would reopen it up for additional input. Wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #87-7 for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. Noziska: I didn't get much of a chance to discuss but if this isn't going to be used as an outlot, it isn't going to be used because it's unbuildable. I would not at all encourage a developer to build a house on it because I don't think it's possible to get proper situation with your septic system. It's just not high enough so if you don't let him use it as recreational beachlot, he'll have to throw it away so that's the alternative. If you're willing to do that, maybe he could donate it to the City for some prize or something, I don't know but without that as it's use, it has no use. There is some capabilities of the land over in here being used for residential building for septics so that's just my comment. Conrad: Good comment Howie. I don't know, so far I haven't been persuaded what the uses are on that land and that's what the applicant will be coming back with. e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 34 e Dan Herbst: I really appreciate your comments. I was hopeful we would have our ducks in order. The report came in Monday and it seemed unfair with notices out to people to pull it off and I really appreciate your comments. Something just occurred to me and let me just throw it out to you. I know you're tired but I want to ask you one thing and see if you would consider this. I think that a lot of things you brought up tonight that I can adapt or amend to but probaby the most serious problems that we're all aware of with this property is the septic systems. It's one of the few pieces on that entire lake that is not served by sewer. It has the sewer to the north. It has the sewer to the west in very close proximity. I know you have the MUSA problems and Metropolitan Council problems but is there any chance that you would consider this piece to extend sewer down similar to like you did to the Arboretum? I think long term it's a solution to this site. Wildermuth: Probably in the best interest to the lake. Conrad: Long term it would be. Dan Herbst: The reason the pipe went out to Minnewashta anyway was to protect the lake. It would have been where we all live today if it wasn't for protecting the lake. Olsen: It isn't possible. e Dan Herbst: I would really give a run at this if I could have the support form the City but without the support of the City, I couldn't run it over to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Conrad: I think you would have the support of the City on that. The odds are against you but you certainly have our support and I just can't imagine anybody that wouldn't want that to happen. Emmings: Does that allow him to develop more intensly? Conrad: That's the other side. Public: If you're talking about sewer to the north, there is no sewer to the north. Dacy: Jo Ann wasn't as intimately involved as I was when the sewer facility grant with the Metropolitan Council as part of looking at the MUSA but basically what we signed, the City of Chanhassen agreed that we would not extend urban service beyond that line until at least the year 2000. I agree. Even in the Gagne subdivision. Of course it would be best to serve those lots with sewer and water but we're under that growth control line. If you would like I can arrange a meeting with the people over at Met Council and discuss it but I don't want to get your hopes up. e Dan Herbst: It's really Mr. Worm's only hope to sell the proprty. I f I can not come to an agreement with Mr. Machmeier, everything else is down the tube. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 35 e Headla: What rationale was used for the Arboretum? Dacy: I am not aware of the background or history on that. Dan Herbst: Is there some technical way we can run an 8 inch line and not call it an extension of the MUSA line? When you look at the whole lake, the only little nitch in that corner that's not served. I think it could have been in the MUSA if it wasn't put into the parks commission because the Lake Ann Interceptor that's going through now would have included Ches Mar and Kerber Farm. Dacy: We're not allowed to hook up to that until after the year 2000 or until our urban service area is full. If we were allowed to hook up to the Lake Ann Interceptor today it would require major trunk line extension down to that area and then you're talking area assessments. Dan Herbst: Could we try that? I don't know what the first step would be. Dacy: I think the first step is, I'll provide you a copy of the Facility Agreement and then arrange to meet with Met Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 22, 1987. All voted in favor except Noziska and Wildermuth who abstained and motion carried. PRIVATE DRIVES IN THE RURAL AREA. Barbara Dacy: This is just a follow-up on our last discussion on this. I went back to the Minutes and basically took the Commission's word for word comments and incorporated it into some language to include in the Subdivision Ordinance so Section 6.2(14), that first sentence that now exists in the Ordinance, private streets are prohibited. Then after that I'm proposing the following three items and then the fourth item as well. (1) Reservation of a 60 foot easement. (2) discusses that three or four lots may be served by the driveway but has to meet our standards for a gravel surface. However, if only two lots are sharing the driveway they may not have to meet those standards. (3) All subdivisions in excess of four lots must require to construct a public street with a paved surface. (4) came from Mr. Erhart was that subdivisions in excess of four lots deriving access from a collector or arterial street shall be required to provide access from an internal street and not direct access to the collector or arterial street. When I read that over again and I could almost end the sentence after "internal street." The last phrase probably isn't necessary. e Emmings: I think it makes it real clear. you're saying when you say it that way. I thought. You know exactly what Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 36 e Dacy: Maybe change it something like access from individual lots shall not be approved onto collectors or arterials. I think also that we have that somewhere else in the Ordinance. It just legitimizes and makes consistent things that we are doing on a policy basis now. Noziska: So then you're going to grandfather Hesse Farm in? Dacy: Yes. Noziska: We're not going to have to give you our street? Dacy: No. Unless you want us to take your street. Noziska: No. We will take care of it ourselves. Emmings: We did talk about the possibilty of riparian homeowners associations and so forth didn't we? Dacy: Yes, I talked to the City Attorney about that and he said whether you call it a homeowners association or a group of property owners all agreeing on a document to maintain it, he said it isn't necessary to have a specific ordinance section and requirement for it. All the lot owners are going to have to agree to that in writing, that we could get it as part of plat approval. He didn't see it necessary to include it in the Ordinance. 4It Conrad: Because it's going to happen anyway? Dacy: His main concern was calling it a homeowners association. A homeowners association just creates By-Laws and it's not a condominium association where you have State Statutes that require all this. You could have a group of property owners signing a maintenance agreement instead of calling it the Whitetail Ridge Homeowners Association. Conrad: So you will do that as a matter of... Emmings: A condition on plat approval or something like that? Olsen: It's already a condition that not necessarily a homeowners association but that it would be maintained by a designated group. Dacy: Unless we had a number 5 that said a private drive shall be maintained. .. Noziska: I don't know what business we have getting into prohibiting private streets when the private street I'm familiar with is a good one and the road that Chanhassen is supposed to maintain is a lousy one. What I'm saying is are we going at this in the right direction or is there some other way we can establish some standard for construction and maintenance that if a group such as the dudes that are going to live on this road here that we talked about today, those fellows aren't going to stand for a street like Bluff Creek Drive. They're going to go more like the one that we have e Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 37 e on Hesse Farm Road. Emmings: I think the problem is you're the exception more than the rule. Noziska: Let's go for the exception a little bit more. I drive around Chanhassen and in the springtime, a good share of your tarred roads not only. have 1 1/2 inch of matte on them, these garbage trucks are popping holes in them all the time so they're destroyed. There are patches on top of patches in several of these intersections. What I'm saying is, why would Chanhassen as a Ci ty wan t to take on a road, ins i st tha t a road be a publ i c road when the private people would go ahead and build one that's better and take care of it on their own. Dacy: In your case thay may be true. Hesse Farm is doing a good job of it. I wouldn't argue with that. Where private streets are prohibited, that's a standard condition that I can pull from any subdivision ordinance in the metropolitan area and the nation. Noziska: I know but that doesn't mean it's right. Dacy: I think it is right from an overall city policy. For safety, health and maintenance and so on, all streets should be public roads because some associations like Hesse Farm are not that successful in keeping up maintenance and so on in keeping it up to spec. Gary and I went out to a 4Ilprivate drive situation on Lotus Lake. They have arranged for four . different snow plowing companies to corne in and plow. During an emergency if there is a fire and the one guy didn't show up to plow the remaining part of the road, how are we going to get access to it? That's just ridiculous. In that case there's got to be public street access to it. I understand your concern but on a policy wide, city wide basis, we just can't encourage it. Conrad: What if somebody like Howie's development carne in and proposed that Barbara? Dacy: Bluff Creek Greens. That's a private street. We had a list of conditions that it had to meet specifications and had to submit a homeowners association document that we're going to maintain this to city standards. Noziska: To exceed city standards. Dacy: That is a private street. Conrad: So under this ordinance, Howie's development could corne in, tell me if he would have the right to apply for a private street and if we were satisified. Dacy: The Bluff Creek Green thing is that you were granting a variance to this section to allow a private street. 4It Noziska: with a variance. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 38 e ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR TH 212 PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning Commission set the date of June 3, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. as the public hearing date for the special meeting on TH 212. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e e