Loading...
78-02 - South Lotus Lake Add SUB pt 4{ -+b _Z_ Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -7- Dick Matthews - I also would like to have their comments on whether they feel that they are willing to acquire. Mike Niemeyer - We have discussed whether we should acquire that. Would that be the best expenditures of whatever tax increment monies we may have.available to us or would it,be reasonable to attempt to find a developer or that parcel that would be able to maintain the green soft. -image. The ready buyer; willing seller concept of Happy Chef and Holiday Service -Station is currently available, something.that we have got to consider today so we then said alright, are these two uses in their nature automobile related functions that we said we could accept and we said yes, then the question was.can they jointly work on that piece of land and we said.possibly, if they can get an impact of green and we then began to recognize we didn't have to have the 300 feet necessarily but that the intensity of development of that landscaping would have to really be hipped up. It bridges on some of the oriental concepts of being able to take a very small piece and doing a fantastic landscaping job with it. Tim Stone - If it's going to go back to the HRA for all the members to look at, I would ask the HRA to -re -address the intensity issue not so much with an eye towards.increasing the size of the land but whether or not it's possible to rearrange within the existing parcel to accomplish what these gentlemen want to accomplish. -.- Dick Matthews moved to hold a public hearing on October 11, 1978, to consider the resubdivision of this parcel of land to encompass the Happy Chef and Holiday Service Station and also a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for theoutside display of items for retail sales. The -developers will meet with the HRA prior to the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Tim Stone moved to table the request for a variance to Ordinance 47K. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and -unanimously approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DAVID ADAMS:- Mr. Adams is proposing to establish a plating facility in a portion of the Hanus Building on. West 78th Street. This activity will not increase any parking or traffic over the previous use. The Planner recommend the Planning Commission recommend the Council approve the request conditioned upon the applicant's ability to furnish proof of compliance to any State or Federal EPA or PCA regulations regarding the control of these types of operations. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council grant a conditional use permit subject to an approvalletter from the State PCA. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. DAVIS/BLOOMBERG PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The city has received a petition dated August 7 ec aration of opposition to entrances connecting to West 77th Street and Erie Avenue - petition cover letter, date.-August.31; 1978, from Clark Horn and Curtis Robinson - letter dated August 29, 1978, to Planning Commission and City Council from Curtis Robinson -an undated petition from several residents on the east side of Lotus Lake and a letter from.Mr. and Mrs. Wes Arseth. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -8- The City Planner, in his report of September.8, 1978, attempte" to answer some of the questions raised in=the letters and petitions. The Planner recommended that the Planning.Commission recommend approval of the rezoning, and subdivision,.planned residential development, planned community development, -preliminary development plan, amendment to Ordinance 47 to allow hotels in a P-3 district, and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for a P-3 zone and zero lot line townhouses on the property, based on the following conditions and anticipations: 1. That the EQC may respond.to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. 2. That the representatives of.the-DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District -will have review comments -to -be entered into the record after this Planning Commission review.: 3. That the proposed street plans and egress' onto Highway 101 await MnDOT response.- 4. That the proposed grading, utility, and drainage plans receive positive comments from the City Engineer and watershed district. Jerry Neher moved to close the record for -written comment. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved: Bob Davis - We received the petition from the:residents on the west side of the property in regard to their concern over continuing Erie.Avenue and West 77th Street. The comments range from the connection through to 101 and the increased traffic into the existing residential area and it's acceptable to us in the proposal to not make the connection at either street in which case the only entrance to -the project would be from 101. This would have to be an enlarged, perhaps divided entrance to align it up with the access across here for traffic control. This would -then be an enclosed loop for the project. This is the only major change. The consideration is to provide pedestrian linkage across here. There would be a walking or bicycle easement both at this point (West 77th Street) and this point. (Erie Avenue). .There was some comment whether there needs to be emergency vehicle access across this point and it's acceptable to give.the city an easement to do that if they so desire but there would not be an automobile passage there. Bill McCrostie, Bloomberg Companies- I would just like to point out that Bloomberg Companies is a property owner on the lake right now. I don'.t think there is anybody in the room that has a greater stake in the best possible use of that shoreline and the lake than Bloomberg Companies. We have a very substantial block of property that we are trying to develop and if it's not done well and done properly and done right and done in.a way that is acceptable to not only the people that we are going to be selling to but members of the community, above everything else we want to come up with a good job of developing that produces the most acceptable' possible result we can. If we do that then we have done what we set out to do. I think we have a very big stake in doing it properly. We want. to make that point very clear. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -9 - Dick Matthews - My feeling with regard to Outlot C, I don't have any problem with the outlot as long as we don't provide launching facilities for large boats or docking facilities. Roman Roos - Herb has already stated that it has never been the intent of that outlot. Herb Bloomberg -;We are going to have to sell the lots all the way around here. They are closer than the -.other. residents are. We have no assurance what they are .going to - do on their lots right today, tomorrow.- They can put in any size boat they want to that's within the state rules. All I can say is,you simply have to live together. We want a community access. In all probability because of this precipitous hill along this lake that these residents are more .apt to gravitate toward this place but our immediate adjoining lots are not going to be very happy if that gets to be a beehive for a lot of activity. Our anticipation Is that that will be very orderly access. I don't -,see where the fear is really. -I can't see it whatsoseve I.am a sailboat enthusiast. A -canoe enthusiast. I have got both on the lake. I don't have a motor. _We may put in -a little dock for somebody to swim. Roman Roos - They had made a comment in the public -hearing that there was an invasion of theirprivacy because of that outlot. Herb Bloomberg - I agree with that. They have had.20 acres of farm land here. We now have an urban development and we are trying to do a good job at that. We have a pump station that the city put in there. ,We -have -to accommodate the servicing of this station. As long as they come down to service that station .why not use that for a place to launch your canoe. I can't imagine anything more sensible in the world. Bill McCrostie - We have talked -to the DNR and got -some thoughts from them. We have talked to the City Planner for.about -four-months and there are a number of items that pointed to this as the appropriate place to have an outlot for good planning. One isthatthe city is down here with a truck every day. -We have got to. provide that access. There is -about 50 feet of drop from the street to -there. It --would be very cumbersome to suggest anybody -would take a sailboat or canoe down-50 feet when you have got a road that has to be here. We don't anticipate a parking lot. Jerry Neher moved that -Ordinance 47-not_be amended to allow hotels in the P-3 District.. Motion seconded by -Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and.Tim Stone. Roman Roos and Dick Matthews voted no. Motion.failed.' . . . Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council rezone the property to P-3, subdivision, planned residential development, planned community development, preliminary development plan, amendment to Ordinance 47 to allow hotels in a P-3 District and zero lotline townhouses based on the following conditions and anticipations: 1. That the EQC may respond to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. Planning Commission Meeting:.September 13; 1978 -10- 2. That the representatives of the DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District will have review comments -to be entered into the record.. : 3. That the proposed street plans and egress' onto Highway 101 await MnDOT response. 4. That the proposed -grading, utility, --and drainage plans receive positive comments from the City Engineer and watershed district. 5. The developer will prepare elevation.°dr.awings concerning the hotel itself.4-The commission reserves judgment on the hotel idea as a part of the development until such.time•.as the details are worked out.. Motion died for lack of a second. After discussion Dick -Matthews moved to recommend that P-3 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be -amended to allow hotels. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Tim Stone, and Dick Matthews. Jerry Neher voted no. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved to rezone the subject.property designated as the hotel site on Exhibit A -to P-3. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in.favor: Dick Matthews and Roman Roos. Jerry Neher voted no. Tim Stone.abstained. Motion failed. Dick Matthews -moved to recommend -approval -of the subdivision as presented by -the applicants on Exhibit.A_dated September 13, 1978. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in:favor: Roman Roos and Dick Matthews. Jerry-Neher voted -no. Tim.Stone abstained. Motion failed. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for P-3 zoning and zero lotline townhouses within the proposed subdivision based on the following conditions and anticipations: - 1. That the EQC may respond to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. 2. That the representatives of the DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District will have review comments to be entered into the record. 3. That the proposed street plans MnDOT response. and egress' onto Highway 101 await 4. That the.proposed grading, utility, and drainage plans receive positive comments from the City Engineer and watershed district. 5. The developer will prepare elevation drawings concerning the hotel itself. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Dick Matthews and Roman Roos. Jerry-Neher-voted no. Tim Stone abstained. Motion failed.. . Dick Matthews moved to direct the developer to provide further information.on what restrictions and organization they plan to have on -the community access lot and -details on -the country inn. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council rezone the remainder of the property including the Robert Davis property as shown on Exhibit B��---- but excluding the hotel area, ­to P-1. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. (:" The following voted;in'favor: =Dick Matthews, Roman Roos, and Jerry Neher. Tim Stone abstained. Motion carried. RFRILAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23, 1978 Roman boos called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with the following members present: Mal. MacAlpine, Hud Hollenback, and Jerry Neher. Dick Matthews, Walter Thompson, and Tim Stone were absent. MINUTES: Approval of the July 26, 1978, Planning Commission minutes was tabled to the next meeting. Hud Hollenback moved to approve the August 9, 1978, Planning Cam-Li.ssion minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to note the August 7, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. Hud Hollenback moved to note the July 31, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. Hud Hollenback moved to note the August 14, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. PUBLIC BEARING DAVIS/BIAOMBERG REZONING, SUBDIVISION, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEV=PMENT AMINUxEM To ORDINANCE #47 Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at interested persons present: Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Hagman, 7602 Erie Mrs. Curtis Robinson, 202 West 77th Street Mrs. Ejvind Fenger, 7501 Erie Mr. and Mrs. John Melby, 7530 Chanhassen Road Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Johnson, 7604 Erie Clark Horn, 7608 Erie _..: Don ScYmcieg, 200 West 77th Street Vern Zetah, 7500 Erie Avenue Bob Meuwissen, 201 West 77th Street Mr. and Mrs. Frank Kurvers, 7220 Chanhassen Road Paul Rojina, 220 West 77th Street Earl McAllister, 7510 Erie Mr. and Mrs. Wesley Arseth, 7520 Chanhassen Road Mr. and Mrs. Iry Raymond, 7440 Chanhassen Road Mr. and Mrs. John Segner, 7530 Chanhassen Road M. Hughes, 7343 Frontier Trail C. Peter Linsmayer, 7421 Frontier Trail William Kirkvold, 7423 Frontier Trail Joyce Horr, 7510 ChaxIiassen Road Mr. and Mrs. Alex Hartmann, 6687 Horseshoe Curve Mr. and Mrs. John Ryan, 6685 Horseshoe Curve Frank Kuzma, 6651 Horseshoe Curve Theodore Bentz, 7570 Chanhassen Road William McRostie, 7015 Dakota. Robert Davis, 4212 Alden Drive Sharon Gagnon, 7508 Erie Mr. and Mrs. Richard Peters, 202 Chan View Bill Brezinsky Cra, Mertz HerbgBloomberg 7:50 p.m. with the following Planning Cannission Meeting August 23, 1978 -2- The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. This hearing is to consider a proposed subdivision, rezoning from R-lA to P-1 and P-3, acne Omment to Ordinance 47 to allow hotels as a permitted use in a P-3 District and preliminary development plan for the proposed develogneit on property located on the north side of Chanhassen Road across fran the Chanhassen Meadows Aparbwmts. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated August 21, 1978. A copy of the plan has been sent to the Department of Natural Resources for review. The Assistant City Planner recommended that the Planning Cctmmissi.on look with favor on the proposed rezoning, subdivision, planned residential development, planned community develop-nezt and preliminary development plan and subsequently reconrended an amendment of Ordinance 47 to allow for a hotel in a P-3 District. This reconwndation is based upon full consideration of an adequate access for .the residents on Hill Street onto Highway 101. Robert Davis - Wmt I am requesting is to divide 2.05 acres into four residential. lots. I have been assessed for three sewer and water units. The access to the parcels would be from a road across the Bloomberg property. I do have an access on Highway 101 and I am suggesting we plat this to provide access to this street. The lots meet the minimum size required. Roman Roos - A long time ago, in respect to Hill Street, we had a proposal and I can't renvmber the details but somehow we were going to alleviate the traffic congestion on Hill Street. Do you recall how that was? Bob Waibel - I initially reca»mended that both ends of dill Street be blocked off at both ends and have turn arounds in, there sufficient for snow plowing, etc. and that the residents use the system within the Lotus Lake Addition to give better sight distance. Wayne Hagman - If you blocked off Hill Street and go through the Bloomberg property which I assume is going to come up later, where would this exit? Robert Davis - I am not requesting that situation. The existing house is very close to the line of Hill Street. If some way this was brought across and exited out it would mean coning across down here quite a distance to get out. Herb Bloomberg - We are suggesting that we preserve the entire lakeshore for residential use including another tier of lots for conventional residential lots adjoining all of the platted area in the adjoining areas. We have this mass here for the hotel site. This would be essentially an apartment hotel of a very high quality accomiodation which we feel would be a very attractive and good addition to the city. We are in a position of course it is across from the apartments. Every other proposal down through the years have been for apartments. I don't that we could ever sell or promote a typical residential development except in very lot cost development. I think down through the years there have been a number of proposals for high density, low cost apartment development on this property which I think is a likely trend unless we can do something of this kind which I feel would be much more desirable. We have scare lots that would be reserved for more modest priced homes and using the concept of zero lot line setbacks. In other words there would be two individual homes that would have a common line where the house would adjoin. The advantage of it is that it makes a better use of the land and the individual structures with the size of two instead of one would be a better looking structure we feel. As far as traffic is concerned, the first consideration is topography. We have a tremendous hill in here. Planning Ccn fission Meeting August 23, 1978 -3- Our feeling is we want to make roads that are going to serve the carmunity but still not invite unfavorable traffic. We have made, we feel, good access coming down here on Chan View. There is good circulation for all uses and still we eliminate inviting traffic that we feel could be objectionable. We have lived myself on Lotus Lake for 21 years and I know this property and have lived with the thought of it for many years. I really feel it would be desirable and attractive use of the land. It would keep the ccarplete residential tone of the area. We want to put in an outlot for cxm=ity recreational use. This would be a private, non-profit type of an entity similar to what is in Sunrise Hills and I believe a system that is self policing. It gives a oo nani.ty park to supplement our other park systems. I think it would work out well for us here. All these lots would have rights to join this association that would serve this area. John Segner - There is no mention of any kind of drainage on that. Am I going to get swamped or what? Herb Bloomberg - We would expect to handle the storm sewering and ponding or whatever in ccnfon ity to the reconrendations of the engineer. Wes Arseth - Is there going to be any kind of a guarantee that there will not be any more water than now go down that hill because it is a real bear cat right now. With all the blacktop and everything that is caring in it's going to multiply that by many fold. Bill Brezinsky - I think that would be our requirement. We don't have any proposed grades or storm sewer systems shown at this time on the plan but I think the city would require that there would be no more water. I know that the Engineering Deft would require that there be no more water draining from this property after the development than there is right now. Wes Arseth - Would there be any less? Bill Brezinsky - We would work for less. Wes Arseth - Is there any chance of putting in a storm sewer- with the project that would take care of that water? Bill Brezinsky - That's a possibility. We don't have a drainage plan right now and we don't know what the final grading of this property is going to be. It may"be possible that a good share of this could be picked up through a system and directed toward the lake. Jerry Neher - Are we going to have the same problem with that thing being developed without a holding area as they have on Lot 12? Bill Brezinsky - There are going to be certain requirements for development put on it by the watershed district and the DNR. I suspect that there will be a holding area probably required in this outlot and since there is quite a bit of the area that cares through this there is going to have to be something done here. I don't know what form it will tape exactly. Raman Roos - Is there going to be a lot of land cutting in the residential portion? Herb Bloomberg - No, we are following the basic contours very close. Jack Melby - icy a hotel in that specific area as opposed to a downtown area? Herb Bloomberg - We plan and expect to have hotel facilities in the downtown area. We feel that the downtown area is a close urban development whereas this would be an opportunity to have a green space complimentary scheme. It would be a different theme and we feel very desirable and attractive. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1978 -4- Jack Melby - Why are you developing for hotel reasons? Robert Davis - The south Lotus sewer line was put several years ago and assessments were made against that line both for existing residents and proposed or vacant land and there are some 50 odd assessments against this Jack Melby - property. Nobody is going to hold the property vacant and pay assessment: I don't understand why, in a residential area, why put a hotel in, why put townhouses in, why put apartments in? Herb Bloomberg.- In the overall Chanhassen you have phasing areas. You have the town development and you practically never see a urban development with residential coming up to a wall. I feel that with the development of the hotel surrounded by these relatively vast green spaces this would be much more attractive in views and for the quality of life in this community. Jack Melby - I can see your point now look at Bob (Davis), he has got the adjacent .property and I understand what you guys are doing as a joint venture. I look at Bob and I say, ok he is going to put four houses there. I have a personal interest I own the adjacent property to Bob Davis. Bob Davis is going to put four homes in there, how is he going to sell those homes with a hotel 25 feet away and tennis courts and public access? Bob should be concerned. I am concerned because I live there. When I look at the city as a whole and I look at the kinds of development that are proposed not only for this area but for the area downtown I see some positive things but relative to this area I see positive things when you tell me that you are going to put private homes up there. You tell me you are going to develop the lakeshore, that's positive. When you tell me you are going to put hotels in a residential area, I don't understand that. There has to be a reason why. Roman Roos - What you are objecting to is a hotel being in that location, not downtown so I understand what you are talking about. Jack Melby - I have no objection to a hotel in the area. The question I am asking is why. Do I want a hotel 50 feet outside my bedroom window that's what I am going to have. Hell, no I don't. I understand his rights. If I owned that property I would do something with it myself. The question is, what the hell are you doing all this stuff for? Herb Bloomberg - I feel we are on a commercial highway here and so the question is what is the best use of this land. This hotel would serve a function of a transient hotel, resident hotel, we have people coming that are in between homes, retirement, someplace that's really a very fine unusual beautiful situation and those people have as much right to a spot. They say, maybe I don't want to buy a home. Jack Melby - I understand that. The last planning session I sat through there was M Herb a question relative to what we were going to do with the property at the intersection of 101 and 5, comments of a Happy Chef, comments of a combination of Happy Chef and a gas station and at that time we were saying that that area was going to be the initial area where you come into Chanhassen, what more appropriate place than that area for a hotel or something attractive. I have no objections to hotels. I have no to developing of that land. Meuwissen - If there would be a hotel, how many stories high would you plan on going? Bloomberg - It wouldn't be any higher than a home. Perhaps at -the -most three stories. Our thinking is that we have very valuable lakeshore lots and expect to sell those to people that want very fine homes. We really have our own proof built in. If somebody else owned this and I was asking for this these people obviously would ask lots of questions. I have to answer my own questions because I expect to move this first ahead of this and we expect to build and satisfy Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1978 -5- these people that what we are proposing here by that time will have plans along, models, drawings, everything finalized. We feel that this will be a feature that will be very compatible with this. Jack Melby - I have seen the plans and I am looking at this as a selfish question, as I have said before I own the adjacent property. I look at the plans and I see some very nice things about them. I see a new community. I see new tax base. I look at where I am at and look at Bob's property adjacent to mine and I see this development as not a negative factor. You talk to the people on the western side of your property and ask them questions about how they felt about this, how they felt about that. No one asked me. If I look at this piece of property right down in my front yard I am going to have a community access, I am going to have a tennis court and a hotel. That's a selfish issue. Do I like that, no. Can I anything about it? Hell, I°don't know. Roman Roos - What we are trying to do is get a feel of the public, their response to this proposal and the various concepts of this proposal. To answer your question, yes, you are heard and that's the kind of view we are looking for so we can make a decision in the land use and the planning of all of Chanhassen. Mal MacAlpine - Would you object as much to an apartment house with tennis courts being planned as you would the hotel or is your objection primarily the hotel? Jack Melby - I think I would object outside my bedroom window having apartments. I would object to tennis courts outside my bedroom window. I would to tennis courts in my front yard because that's where we enjoy the beach. I understand that there is a lot of people to consider here. I am only one family. If Herb came to me and told me that he was going to develop that for residential property, that's his property. He can develop that as he wishes. He has the right of private enterprise. I do too. I can take my property and put it into four lots like Bob did. I won't because I like it the way it is. Frank Kuzma - What additional density would you expect in regard to boat traffic as a result of this property? Herb Bloomberg - I really think it would be very small. I am very much expecting that if there is any abuse of the boating privileges on Lotus Lake we are going to see tighter and tighter restrictions. In fact I am satisfied that we would have no motorized boats going off this area. Frank Kuzma - I would think with a development like this we are going to end up having to completely ban motors on the lake period. Clark Horn - You indicated the development across from the apartments (Chanhassen Meadows) is not usable as a residential area. Was that based on the facts that it's next to Highway 101 or the fact that it is across the street from the apartment houses? Herb Bloomberg - I think it is rather unusable. I wouldn't gamble a dollar on building a house in here and try to sell it across from those apartments. I think people would say, that's a nice house but I wouldn't want to live on Highway 101 and facing those apartments, not that there is anything wrong with apartments. Our feeling here is that this hotel would look more like a home. Our feeling is that this would be just a very attractive home like atmosphere t and completely landscaped. Don Schmieg - All the previous developments that we have had come in here have had no access to the old streets on the old part of town. It's kind of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1978 a quiet end of town and they are dead end streets and I for one bought a house down there because it is. My property adjoins directly with that particular piece of property by the well. I would like to know why now we all of a sudden exited two streets onto one that doesn't have enough room now? You are going to drain all the water down that area. Storm sewer factli.tieS-were just -put -in. . -I know for a fact they are not big enough to handle that plus all the extra traffic. Bill Brezinsky - About five -acres of this area will drain into the new system. Wes Arseth - What would be the possibility of lowering the speed limit on 101 to say 30 which would make it a little easier for people to get on and off? Frank Kurvers - I would like to know the density in all these different areas as far as his overall land use and his density. Roman Roos - We are looking at 122 units totallyincluding the 60 unit hotel. Hud Hollenback - Sixty - hotel, twelve - apartment, and the rest single family. Some of which would be zero lot line. Jack Melby - I would like to go on record with a statement. (1) Houses instead of hotels. (2) Community access in the center of the community as opposed to adjacent to my property. Wayne Hagman - I would like a clarification of the rezoning proposition. You are talking about a hotel. What happens if that hotel doesn't go in. What else can go in there in lieu of the hotel? Mal MacAlpine -,If we would agree to this plan and recommended it to the Council and they said all right to the rezoning, he could not put anything else up there unless it came back to the Planning Commission and it was reviewed all over again. Bob Waibel - Any use other than a hotel, once approved, would have to come back for a plan amendment. Mal MacAlpine - I think the one thing that wasn't covered here and I just want to be sure everyone knew the amount of property he is talking about that would be devoted to the hotel, not because I am for the hotel I am not in a position to say that, but it's 248,000 square feet. The only reason I bring that up is that it would be a rather large area. It is going to be a very large green area in here. I am saying you could also come up with a plan, as a developer to get the most money out of it, where he would make it a high density area where you might try to put in 300 apartments in that same space. Earl McAllister - This is strictly going to be a residential hotel. There would be no bars or liquor license? Herb Bloomberg - I am sure not. Frank Kurvers - Are you going to require an environmental impact statement on this project? Bob Waibel - An environmental worksheet must be completed by the applicant before Council gives final approval. Frank Kurvers -Are Mr. Davis' lots going to be able to use the outlot? Bob Davis - I have made no arrangements to use that outlot. The reason that the two are reviewed together is my first proposal to the Planning Commission was access onto Highway 101 and the suggestion was I didn't use access to 101 that I work with the adjacent property owner for all the traffic access. Frank Kurvers - You didn't answer my question. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1973 -7- A I think the Commission would generally encourage you to proceed with your development plans,again working out a compromise on those situations that we have talked about. Herb Bloomberg - What we are trying to do here is to not disturb the natural beauty of what exists. Not complicate any traffic. My feeling is that that access which is there is, we live with, it is there. This outlet that Bob has suggested which is obviously -workable, I would be very strongly opposed from the standpoint that it comes through the best view of the entire property. You turn off that highway that is the most beautiful view. The park should buy it for a public access or something. As far as for development I think it would be a great waste -of a beautiful view to put a road down the middle there and then we would be channeling all the people from way over the other side of the west would take short cuts through there and come out on Highway 101.. This is not good. Bill Brezinsky - I have got a couple comments, one of them regarding comments maybe someone else should participate in the cost of the Hill Street connection across Mr. Davis' property, if there is one made, into the Bloomberg property, I think that probably the Hill Street people should participate in the cost of that. That would be a definite benefit to them to eliminate those two dangerous entrances. If they don't want to participate in it maybe the thing won't go ahead. We are showing what we figure is probably the best overall plan. The other thing regarding Mr. Davis' property and the sketch plan which shows two lots being created that would have access to Hill Street, we would be violently opposed to creating two more lots on Hill Street. We would recommend not approving lots on Hill Street. Robert Davis - Could I get an opinion of the Commission of, right now my property is one family, one residence with a driveway on Highway 101, to divide off one lot with that driveway remaining„ access to the lift station remaining, and deal with the rest of the property along with the PUD the other way. I am not dealing with Hill Street. I am not changing the access to the lift station or the driveway that exists. In other words, is Lot 5 acceptable? If in fact, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 had access from the proposed new road and 5 remained as an access from Highway 101 with the driveway and Hill Street was not touched. Walter Thompson - I think I would object to it. Dick Matthews - If he had a semi -circle as a driveway then that may be an acceptable way to get onto Highway 101. Roman Roos - I would like to have staff work with him and have him come back with another sketch plan that gives us an idea. I think there are some real problems there. I think the two of them are going to have to work with staff to come up with some reasonable sketch plan that we can take a look at. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1973 -8- FRONTIER DODGE: The petition before the Planning Commission is to reconsider the preliminary development plans of Frontier Dodge and make a recommendation for action to the Council. The property is Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development Park and is zoned I-1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the rezoning and ` conditional use permit for Frontier Dodge on May 26, 1976, and recommended the Council approve the rezoning from I-1 to C-3 and recommended approval of a conditional use permit. The Council at its June 7,.1976, meeting voted to approve the rezoning, the conditional use of the activity, and the site plan, however, since this approval, no action has been taken on behalf of the applicant to sign an agreement to the development contract and the conditional use permit. The Council at its September 6, 1977, meeting moved to table any further action in executing the zoning change until the development contract is signed by the applicant. Bob Waibel - A public hearing would not have to be held since the Council had not approved a conditional use permit and it had not been executed on behalf of the participants. Craig Mertz - On conditional use permits what the Council does with the request for approval after your recommendation shows up on the Council Agenda,if they vote to approve the conditional use permit then our office goes ahead and drafts the document, it is submitted to the applicants for signature, it takes two parties to sign it, the city and the applicant, then it's tendered back to the Council and they vote whether or not it's going to be signed. The position that I am taking is that the 90 day time limit has not expired, in fact it has not even started to run yet because the written permit has never been presented back to the Council. Bob Waibel - The changes between the new site plan and the previous site plan dated June 1, 1976, are as follows: a) the new site plan has a building situated 210 feet west of the east property line as opposed to the previous 185 feet; b) the site plan indicates the building to be situated 55 feet from the south property line and 155 feet from the north property line as opposed to the previous 130 feet from the south property line and 115 feet from the north property line. It appears that no change in the building itself has been adopted. c) The entrance to the proposed facility is to be furnished along the northern edge of the cul-de-sac on West 79th Street directly onto the property as opposed to the previous entrance off the southern portion of the cul-de-sac; d) the paved surface area of the new site plan indicates approximately 57,000 square feet of hard surfaced area as opposed to the previous 67,000 square feet of hard surface. e) a slight alteration in the grading plan around the holding pond in the south-central portion of the property has been made, additionally, changes in the berm have been included so as to retain the berm on the soutl side of the proposed entry way. At its regular May 15, 1978, meeting the Council moved to approve ordinance 47K approving a building moratorium for tax increment district which includes this property. This moratorium is to expire December 31, 1978, after which date the applicant will not be required to seek a variance to saic ordinance. Planning Carmission Meeting June 28, 1978 -5- Craig Mertz - The Attorney who was working for the city at that time tells me that a tool house meant Sears steel building. Dick Matthews - That may be but it's not defined that way. Ronan Roos - I have no hang ups with. it at all. I like the situation where we can ease the burden both on the Ci:ssion as well as on staff. I have no feelings about the $35.00. I don't think that is out of proportion at all for a one time charge. The status quo is the way I feel. Jerry Neher - I disagree with you on the $35.00. On sane people it may be a hardship. Maybe he doesn't have a garage. Maybe he can't afford to put up a garage. He has got to have a place to put his lawrunower and this is the cheapest way out. Mal MacAlpine - If he puts up a Sears shed in my judgement he doesn't have to get a permit the way I interpret this. DAVIS. SUBDIVISION AND BLOOMSERG PUD - SF TTCi PLANS: Robert Davis and Herb Bloomberg were present. The two properties are located directly north of the Chanhassen Meadows Apartments. The property owned by Mr. Davis is zoned R-1 and the property owned by Mr. Bloomberg is zoned R-lA. Sanitary sewer and water are available to the properties. Bob Waibel - For purposes of review, it should be pointed out at this time that the property owned by Mr. Davis is that property contiguous to and along the eastern 808 feet of the Bloomberg property. Mr. Davis is proposing to gain access to Lots 1, 2, and 3 of his proposed subdivision through a proposed road traversing the Bloomberg property from Erie Avenue. It is for this reason that these two proposals be simultaneously considered Mr. Davis is proposing to subdivide approximately 2.53 acres into five single family residential Lots. Mr. Bloomberg is proposing a planned residential development along the western and northern portion of his property containing 24 single family residential building sites. In 1974, the area proposed to be developed by Mr. Bloomberg, was under plan review for a townhouse development proposal which was subsequently discontinued. One issue of pertinence that arose from this previous review and is appropriately applicable to the sketch plan review of the current proposal, is the issue of access onto Highway 101. In a September 25, 1974, letter from R. A. Elasky, District 5 Layout -Research and Development Engineer, to the then acting City Manager of Chanhassen, he recorded that entrances to the property be aligned with those on the east side of Highway 101 i.e. the Chanhassen Apartment entrances. This was proposed to accomplish the folio ng: a. It would eliminate jog intersections which tend to create problems for left turning vehicles to the development. b. It would maintain the current number of intersections on Highway 101 at two intersections. c. It would tend to keep pedestrian crossings on Highway 101 at two locations. In consideration of the 1974 comments of Mr. Elasky, I would recamurend that the cul-de-sac along Mr. Davis' property be continued southward to a point where it would intersect Highway 101 directly across from, the eastern most Chanhassen Meadows entrance. This will necessarily result in Mr. Davis having to add onto Lots 3, 4, and 5 so that they may front on the newly proposed public street. In conjunction with this lateration, the present access off of Highway 101 ]mown as Hill Street, should be vacated and rerouted across Mr. Davis' property to the newly proposed entrance to Highway 101. The western limb of Hill Street may be totally vacated and returned to its natural state whereas the eastern limb of Hill Street should be maintained and cul-de-saced at its eastern most point. It is my belief, that this will eliminate an already dangerous entrance onto Highway 101. Planning Ccurdssion Meeting June 28, 1978 -g- 'Ihe western most egress from the development proposed by Mr. Bloomberg will distribute the traffic between Erie Avenue and West 77th Street. When Outlot A is developed, the second access onto Highway 101 directly from the development should be considered. ` The adopted Shoreline Management Ordinance requires 15,000 square foot lots for sewered areas on Lotus Lake to which all the lots in this proposal conply. Herb Bloanberg - We obviously have adjoining properties and in order to ac,,,,�te each other we will agree on what we feel is a good layout for the land. Our main concern in the future is the use of Outlot A. We were talking about a green space hotel or something of that nature. This is very much still alive. I thought at the public hearing we would bring this up. At this stage we don't ask for a strong cam itment on Outlot A except in concert. Obviously it will be better improved in circulation and I am sure the fire department would prefer to have this road loop completed. Any development of Outlot A will entrail the extension of this cul-de-sac. We will kill the cul-de-sac and continue the road. As far as access on Highway 101 is concerned we are very open on that. We will divide the lakeshore lots up a little more evenly and make the end lot a little bit smaller. Robert Davis - I have the ownership of 21-2, acres, 55 feet of frontage of Lotus Lake and wedge shape up to Highway 101. My feeling is that the acreage there is far in excess of what can be used for one residence, which is the case now. On Lot 3 there is a single family residence existing and sewer and water have been connected. With this division to five parcels there is still approximately in the range of 1/3 to 1/2 acre. I am open to the direction of dividing this so that the street system and utilities will work most efficiently: I just this evening saw the sketch of continuing this proposed road and dead ending Hill Street and I really haven't had a chance to react to that. I am open to any idea that acccmnodates the access on Highway 101 which is perhaps a safety hazard. Bill Brezinsky - When Bob and I were looking at this, we felt that maybe something could be worked out with Mr. Bloomberg to get additional frontage for Lot 1 in Mr. Davis' subdivision. Roman Roos - I think for the purposes of the meeting tonight,what we ought to do is make these comments known both to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Davis, have the two of them get together and try to work out some reasonable solution. The reference to Highway 101, the frontage road on your lots Mr. Davis as we go down toward Highway 101 and the relationshipto Hill Street going across,and vacate an existing portion of Hill Street. Jerry Neher - I have got one point of concern about West 77th Street. It doesn't show on his plat. The one plat that I did see at one time showed West 77th Street going straight out to Highway 101. We are a residential area and we would not want to see that road going straight out to Highway 1�, It shows a dead end right now. When the bars let out it would-be a race track through there to get to Highway 101. It would be the short cut to the Sunrise Hills area. Roman Roos - I think that is something we will have to review when Outlot A comes in front of us.