6. Concept Plan Reivew to Amend a PUD, Ches Mar Farm off TH 41 _ 6
1 C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: June 15, 1988
II \\ 0 CHANHASSEN C.C. :: :88l: 1 1988
CASE D
Prepared by: Olsen/v
1
I STAFF REPORT
r
PROPOSAL: Concept Plan Review to Amend a Planned Unit
IDevelopment
1 .:ti o by C ty Administmtot
i r
IV LOCATION: Ches Mar Farm - Off Hwy. 41 r - '----- —�
Cl.. . __ OlisZeg
IAPPLICANT: Lotus Realty
4 P.O. Box 100 :7_-_11_:?(_
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residentia
and RR, Rural Residential
rACREAGE: 28 .6 acres
II DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RR; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
IQ S- RR; Camp Tanadoona
tii10 E- RR; single family
W- RR; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
1.2 WATER AND SEWER: Not available
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains steep slopes to the
• south and "vegetated areas .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density - Parks &
Open Space
r .- .o _ z
,„
.1?
, ,
=I
f .ff (NI
,) „-- --% ,:,
. ..
,„ 0, A
„ r .
._
,
A• "Ar h,,
.I 1
... •
-. `\ .II .i. L
\ .
-
.,....
\\\,
1\_/ 4'
ti
/.14
* C:441
--...1
...I)
tt . 7
L.; ,
I
k
'',,,..,...:„..j.
--,
S H r A \it
k 1 --■:`,-./.'
\'
)
) :. _
;Al- _
el„.•
,ill
. . Lcz.t\-iln-4 T
/
PUD—
.
I
-,,
if
.e-
O'r''' inkillIMMIki
AM III
l f 1 i
.
i ty
ef- RR I..z
..:.
•,(
„
t
,
,
(e)
,
19 r4N400
opi 4
DRIVE / AIM*
i....- .
. ..
--11-- '
2
,r--
.1111111M2
Allir6'
1
I
?
LI
—
.
If
■-
,--
I , t POND
If"'
1
—
mom
' • •^ • Y
i
It
A2 .
( III
.,„ 1
V
..,
re
,-,,.. . _ ....__
\ i ..._
4.,....... ..49,i7.4...„.„„,,..„. .._
IIChes Mar Farm
June 15 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 20-906 provides rural lot building eligibilities
(Attachment #1) :
' (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council' s
Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in con-
formance to the requirements of Article X or XI of this Chapter.
1 . A new single family lot may be subdivided only if a one unit
per ten acre density is maintained.
2 . All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road.
3 . All lots shall must have soil and water conditions which per-
mit a well.
4 . All lots must have conditions which will permit two on-site
sewage systems .
5 . Each site must have at least one acre of area which can sup-
port two septic system sites, a building pad and a well with
' a slope of 25% or less.
6 . The minimum lot size of a rural lot is 2i acres with 200 feet
' of public street frontage.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
' DNR Attachment #2
Watershed District Attachment #3
' Asst. City Engineer Attachment #4
Building Department Attachment #5
Fire Inspector Attachment #6
' BACKGROUND
On October 7, 1985 , the City Council approved the preliminary
plat for the Ches Mar Farm PUD. The subject site was one
separate parcel with two single family residences , a duplex and a
6 unit apartment building. The duplex and apartment building
' were non-conforming uses . The plat created four lots; one
containing a single family residence with 1 . 03 acres, one con-
taining 2 . 40 acres and duplex, one lot containing 2 .5 acres and a
single family residence and one lot containing 5 .1 acres with the
6 unit apartment building and several out buildings . The PUD
designation was proposed by the applicant to allow the single
family, duplex and the apartment building to be conforming and to
create separate parcels which could be sold.
1
V
Ches Mar Farm II
June 15 , 1988
Page 3 1
The PUD was approved by both the Planning Commission and City
Council but during review, it was commented that the lots should
be as close to 2 . 5 acres as possible and that there should not be
any increase in the existing density. The density of the
existing PUD was 10 units per 11 acres . The PUD was approved
with the following two conditions : 1) a homeowners association
would be created to maintain Outlot A which contained a private
drive, and 2) there shall be no increase in density.
ANALYSIS '
The applicant, Lotus Realty, is proposing to add 21 acres to the
existing PUD site and to subdivide the whole site into 7 single
family lots, one double lot and one outlot. Lot 1 , Block 1 of
the original PUD which contained 1 .03 acres and the single family
residence has been sold as has Lot 1, Block 2 , which contained
2 . 4 acres and the duplex. Remaining residences on site are the 6
unit apartment building and the large single family residence
that was moved onto the site. The 6 unit apartment building is
in disrepair and has several building violations . The single
family home that was moved onto the site remains vacant. The
barns and storage buildings located throughout the site are also
in disrepair and in violation of building codes. The applicant
is proposing to add some land to the existing PUD and subdivide
it into single family lots to improve the site and to improve the
chance of it being sold to individual owners . '
The applicant has applied for concept plan approval. The PUD
procedure provides for a general concept plan review which allows
the applicant to submit a sketch plan which shows the basic
intent and nature of the development allowing the applicant to
receive comments from the Planning Commission and Council prior
to incurring any substantial costs required with the platting
procedure.
The applicant is proposing to create three blocks . Block 1 would
contain two new single family lots located on the interior of
Outlot B. Block 2 would contain 5 single family lots, one of
which contains the existing single family residence and the
remaining 4 are newly created lots . Block 3 would contain two
lots which is the current site of the 6 unit apartment building.
The applicant is proposing that the 6 unit apartment building
either become a duplex or a single family residence. '
The proposed lots range in size from . 65 acres to 1 . 34 acres.
The subject site is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban
Service area and therefore does not have city sewer or water.
The ordinance requires a minimum density of one unit per ten
acres for unsewered lots with a minimum lot area of 2i acres per
lot. Lot 1, Block 2 , with the existing single family residence
and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 3 , have existing septic systems. The
remaining single famliy lots will be required to provide two
acceptable septic sites per lot. ,
i
IChes Mar Farm
June 15 , 1988
Page 4
IITwo of the lots which were approved as part of the original
have been sold and the applicant is not including them as
of
I the concept plan. Therefore, 3 . 7 acres and 3 units are being
removed from the proposed PUD amendment. The original PUD con-
tained 11 acres (net) and 10 units (2 single family, a duplex and
I 6 unit apartment building) for a net density of . 91 units/acre.
The concept plan provides an additional 21 acres (land below PUD
line) and proposes 6 single family lots and one duplex. The net
acreage of the amended PUD is 8 .64 acres for a net density of
I 1 . 05 units/acre. A third calculation for density would be to
include the two lots sold which still contain 3 units and are
part of the original PUD. The net density of the existing PUD
I with the proposed additional lots is . 98 units per acre. The
following is a list of the net and gross densities of the
existing and proposed PUD.
I Total Units/
Net Gross Total Acres
Existing PUD . 91 u/a . 83 u/a 10/12 acres
I Proposed Amendment 1 . 05 u/a . 31 u/a 9/28 acres
Existing & Proposed . 98 u/a . 37 u/a 12/32 acres
I In reviewing the proposals, staff typically uses net density in
determining the density of a site. In that case, the proposed
concept plan has increased the density of the existing PUD.
IThe original PUD designation was approved only because it main-
tained existing conditions and it allowed the uses to become con-
forming. The proposal is not increasing the use of the site.
I The proposed concept plan is creating new lots and is therefore
creating a new subdivision and staff must review it in terms of
the regulations for rural lot building eligibilities . None of
I the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area of 2 .5 acres and the
density far exceeds 1 unit/10 acres . The topography of the site
is such that it is doubtful that Lots 2-5, Block 2 have one acre
of buildable area. Each lot must be able to support two accep-
I table septic sites . With the topography and existing alterations
to the proposed lots (buildings and roads) it appears that the
lots may not be able to support two septic sites .
IThe proposed concept plan does not conform to the standards for
development in rural areas . The plan is proposing an urban size
I development on a site which cannot support it with city sewer and
water. The PUD district allows for creativity and clustering of
lots in a subdivision, but Section 20-906 of the Zoning
Ordinance regulating rural lots overrides development in the
I rural area outside the MUSA line. The rural lot standards allows
for clustering of lots by permitting them to be a minimum of 2 .5
acres if a one unit/10 acre density is maintained.
IThe applicant is requesting the Planning Commission and City
Council to comment on the concept plan and to give direction as
to whether it is an acceptable plan. The applicant is proposing
Ches Mar I
June 15 , 1988
Page 5 '
the plan as a means of correcting existing problems with the
site. Staff feels the proposal is contrary to standards enforced
for all other rural developments . Should the Planning Commission
and City Council approve of the concept plan, the following
information will have to be provided: ,
1 . Acceptability of lots with two septic treatment systems .
2 . Provide each lot with at least one acre of buildable area. ,
3 . Improvement of Outlot B and existing drive or Outlot C to a
public street. ,
4 . Provide 200 feet of width at the building setback line ( 50 ' ) .
5 . Only one entrance shall be allowed for the subdivision onto '
State Trunk Highway 41 and State approval obtained.
6 . Storm drainage calculations to address storm water runoff '
resulting from the development will be required as part of
the plans and specifications review process .
7 . Private drives will not be allowed to access State Trunk
Highway 41 .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission passed the PUD concept plan on to the
City Council with the following comments : '
1 . Agrees with staff that the proposal does not meet rural lot
standards. '
2 . Agrees that something should be done with the site, but does
not feel this is appropriate plan. Economic hardship does
not justify small lots .
3 . Agrees that something should be done but ordinance is sound
and cannot justify amending the rules . '
4 . Does not approve of plan. Is taking advantage of PUD
designation. Is increasing the use and should meet rural lot
standards.
5 . Original PUD accommodated existing uses. Now proposing urban
subdivision in rural area. Not appropriate to count outlot,
which cannot be subdivided, in the density calculation.
' Ches Mar
June 15 , 1988
' Page 6
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' The City Council should provide comments on the proposal to the
applicant.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 20-906 .
2 . Letter from DNR.
' 3 . Letter from Watershed District dated June 6 , 1988 .
4 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated June 9 , 1988 .
5 . Memo from Building Department dated June 6 , 1988 .
' 6 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 9 , 1988 .
7 . City Council minutes dated October 7 , 1985 .
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 25 , 1988 .
' 9 . Staff report dated September 25 , 1985 .
10 . Letter from applicant dated May 23, 1988.
11. Application.
12 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 15 , 1988 .
' 13 . Plat dated May 23 , 1988.
1 = A _
' r
§ 20-905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
0 Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings.
All single-family detached homes shall:
I
(1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements
of the state building code.
(2) Conform to the following standards for living areas:
a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square
I
feet.
b. If a split level design, have an area of one thousand fifty(1,050)square feet.
c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet I
on the first floor plus a two-car garage must be attached to the single-family
structure.
I(3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials ap-
proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city.
(4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other I
information required shall indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all
elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials
I
proposed to be used.
Ilk
(5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the
city or the applicable manufactured housing code.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86)
Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq.
Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. ,
(a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service
I
Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this
chapter.
(b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing I
single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met:
(1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines:
I
0-19.99 acres equals one (1)single-family unit.
20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. I
30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc.
(2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as
I
buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph(10).
(3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections
Oil
20-575 and 20-595.To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up
to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
1230
I
4 )
ZONING § 20-907
(4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well.
(5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in-
stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single
ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be
combined for increased density/building eligibility on one (1)of the parcels. Transfer
' of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as
permitted in paragraph(9)below.
I (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must
be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain-
ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development
' rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed.
(8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic
system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less.
(9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer
building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and
' meets other provisions of this section.
(10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre-
hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half
' (21/2) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following
information is submitted to the planning department:
' a. Completion of the application for subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners.
c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern.
' d. Submission of required application fees.
Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for
preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval
' by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application
until after July 1, 1987.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86)
' Sec. 20-907. Height regulations.
' (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet
of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (1) story
in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be
' permitted on the downhill side of any building.
(b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the
following:
(1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries,
cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation
1231
City of Chanhassen I
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I(612)937-1900
Date: May 31, 1988
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies II
From: Planning Department By: ; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City_.Planner I
Subject: Concept plan approval for the subdivision of 11 acres into a single
family lot and a double lot on property zoned PUD-R and located on
Hwy. 41, Ches Mar Farms
II
Planning Case: 88-1 PUD
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was I
filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 24, 1988
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission I
and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations
concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro-
posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring
II
public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and
utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a
written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a II recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning
Commission on June 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
II
Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later
than June 6, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission
meeting if you so desire. 1
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments MN Dept.
I pt. of Natural Resources
.a. City Engineer (_' 8. ) TeZrplibne Company
I
City Attorney NW Bell./ or United)
cc. City Park Director
Public Safety Director �s3:E1ec ric Company
e Building Inspector (� (NSP or MN Valley) I
(2) N(lr1nQ �a.�c� �, . -a Waters ed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System' - 1' ''s J`i
-1
t, p l si' d 1
��11.4--
(_3 Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim.Anderson
4. MN Dept. of Trans D' C.p Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife xt�:..L€ � i II
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ���� R M'�=-- x.25
Y rP g U.3; Carver County Enginerr
Minnegasco 14. 4 z
I
t�� � � Other
064 otittiot: A w f'z ktinthuid A aca .e. a� ,a
sim, ;ad-mil ai /1)2= feA/174:' 41-P-PADJ'" 4-7u 1-(4-4--
.44ATIA/Le, beach_ doofertiq , /4zzv/_./1,, it-i.,elfc..?,.JO It q ifil'__ i .
co 3
���N A..::- � WATERSHED BOUNDARY N
`ti 'f
N
� �F. / Ap/
9/`
9� ?��� MINN4, .
<�SHED S
I c9''FA'
IRINEHAHA CREEK
LAKE MINNETONKA
I WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MINNESOTA RIVER
IBOARD OF MANAGERS: Camille D.Andre,Pres. • Albert L.Lehman • John E.Thomas
James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Robert D.Erickson • C.Woodrow Love
June 6, 1988
II
I Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Asst. City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
IIChanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Ms. Olsen:
IIWe have received the information you forwarded concerning the proposed
development of 11 acres located on the Ches Mar Farms site.
IIThe development appears feasible and will require a permit review and approval
by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
IISome of the District' s concerns in development of this type include that:
1. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall
I be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This
criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a
return frequency of one year.
I 2. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport
of sediments off site during and after construction.
I 3. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch
or sod.
I Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at 473-4224.
Sincerely,
IIEUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
Engi eers for the District
II Gl ' (1.
Kevin C. Larson, Engineer
IIbt
II cc: Board
L. Smith #3 JUN ( r 1988
CITY OF CHANT-.ASSEN
CITY OF
\ 1/41) CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer /le.
DATE: June 9, 1988
SUBJ: Concept Plan Review for Ches Mar Farms , Lotus Realty
Planning File No. 88-1 PUD
This 11-acre site is located on the west side of State Trunk
Highway 41 approximately one mile north of State Highway 5 . The
site consists of a rolling topography with mature vegetation and
seven existing structures. 1
Sanitary Sewer
This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area 1
(MUSA) , it is therefore not serviced by municipal sanitary sewer
service. It does lie within the future service area for the new
Lake Ann I. tgrceptor when the Metropolitan Council allows
expansion of the MUSA line.
Watermain
Municipal water service is not available to the site.
Roadways 1
The platted lots as shown would increase the total density such
that urban roadway standards would apply, i.e. curb and gutter .
This roadway standard would be required throughout including the
connection with State Highway 41 .
The 50-foot Outlot C alternate access configuration would be 1
better on a straight alignment along the existing entrance road.
State Trunk Highway 41 is classified by the zoning ordinance as
an arterial. Section 18-57 (L) of the City Code requires that
"To the extent feasible access to arterial streets shall be at
intervals of not less than one-fourth of a mile and through an
existing and established crossroads.Access along collector
streets will be restricted and controlled on the final plat. A
1
1
Planning Commission
' June 9 , 1988
Page 2
State permit will be required for this upgraded connection.
Private driveways will not be allowed to access State Trunk
Highway 41 .
' Drainage
' Storm drainage calculations will need to be prepared to address
the control of runoff resulting from the increased density and
impervious surface.
' Recommended Conditions
1 . Only one entrance shall be allowed for the subdivision within
' one-fourth of a mile onto State Trunk Highway 41 and State
approval obtained.
' 2 . Storm drainage calculations to address storm water runoff
resulting from the development will be required as part of
the plans and specifications review process .
' 3. Private drives will not be allowed to access State Trunk
Highway 41.
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
_.
_�i 1
.,.
r 1 ,
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
_° (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
IITO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector
*114
II DATE: June 6 , 1988 "`���
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-1 PUD, Ches Mar Farm I
The soils at the proposed subdivision appear to be mostly of the I
Hayden series according to the Carver County Soil Survey. This
soil is typically well-drained, but is slowly permeable. It is
also subject to severe erosion. The soil is usually suited for
I
trench type on-site sewage treatment systems, but because of the
slow permeability, a typical 3 bedroom house will use approxi-
mately 3500 sq. ft. of yard area for a sewage treatment system. II The necessity of providing an alternate site would require
setting aside at least 7000 sq. ft. of the lot for on-site sewage
treatment.
Due to steep slopes on many of the lots, it may be technically '
impossible to install treatment areas. Final determination of
the acceptable type of sewage treatment system will have to be II determined by percolation tests, soil borings and on-site
inspection. Building permits cannot be issued until two accep-
table sites are identified and roped off and an acceptable design II is submitted.
In conclusion, before the subdivision is approved, an erosion
control plan should be submitted, two septic sites should be
II
identified and approved, soil borings should be done on each lot,
and a determination should be made as to the ability of
installers to put systems in on steeply sloped lots.
I
1
I
4S
II
1
I
CITYOF
..
1 .. -
\ , ,-Ni CHANHASSEN
1 ., ,
_ ..
\ ^' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
ITO:
FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector
IDATE: June 9 , 1988
SUBJ: Ches Mar Farms
1 Upon review of the site plan for Ches Mar Farms, I recommend the
following:
1 1 . Have a structural engineer check the structure for
possible deficiencies. I recommend removal of all struc-
1 tures except for the multiple living units, pending the
report from the structural engineer.
2 . Install a heat/smoke detector in the building.
I3 . Install a sprinkler system throughout the building.
I4 . Install a fire lane around the building.
If you have any questions, please ask.
I
I
1
I
I tI
I
I
Council Meeting, Octet( 7, 1985 r -11- 1
Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat for South Lotus Lake , Phase I .
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
II
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE CLIFFORD PEDERSEN: 1
This item was approved at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting.
Therefore, no Council action is required.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CREATING FOUR LOTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL I
UNITS LOCATED ON PINE CIRCLE, GARY KIRT:
Barb Dacy : One recommendation that I would like to point out is that we recommended
the lot line be as close to 2.5 acres as possible . Especially in the northwest II
corner . This lot is shown as 2.4 acres. The surveyor has contacted me and said that
it may actually be 2.5 acres when they do the final plat . This represents the recom-
mendation of staff and Council .
Councilwoman Swenson: I have only one problem there . On the second recommendation
there should be no increased density . In looking at the structure of the lot , it
I
would appear that , from past experience, it is not inconceivable that someone would
want to separate one of those in the future . I wonder if we could word this some way
so that would encompass the future as to opposed to just now. There should be no
increase density at any time . There is always somebody who is looking for some tech-
nicality
that puts us in a difficult position down the road . I would welcome any
suggestions as far wording is concerned .
Councilman Geving: The only concern would be the multiple family unit . They are so II
large and it seems to me that they could be split even further .
Councilwoman Swenson : I wasn 't so concered about the apartments as I was about the II
actual lots and the subdivision of the lots .
Mayor Hamilton : If they want to subdivide it a couple of years down the road that is
something we can 't decide today that they can 't do 20 years from now .
Barb Dacy : If somebody does want to plat lot 3 onto lot 2, they do have the right to
make that rotation and a future Council could simply base their decision on the fact
that the increase in the structure is too intense for the intent of the district
itself. The Planning Commission is just trying to say that what is there now is
appropriate and that is it .
II
Councilman Geving: I would like to refer to the City Engineer 's memo of December 5,
1984 particularly in terms of the street recommendations. Do you feel strongly
II
about that, Bill?
Barb Dacy: That has been implemented on the plat . . I
Councilman Geving: How about the private wells and septic systems?
Bill Monk : There will be no change with that either because of the present zoning
I
and the utility availability .
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan I
request #84-2 for Ches-Mar Farms including rezoning to P-1, Planned Residential
Development based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985."
Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor: Mayor
II
Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried. )
14-7.
il
I-
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25 , 1985
II Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
Planned Residential Development #84-2 Creating Four Lots Containing
IMultiple Residential Units on Property Zoned R-la, Agricultural
Residence , located on Pine Circle irt Mile North of Tanadoona Drive,
West of and Adjacent to Hwy. 41 , Gary Kirt , applicant
IPublic Present
IMary Sapa Camp Administrator - Camp Tanadoona
Dacy stated that the intent of the applicant ' s request for a
I Planned Unit Development with rezoning to P-1 is to eliminate the
non-conforming status of the existing structures. She noted that
the P-i District not only allows single family dwellings as a
permitted use, but also allows two family and multiple family
I structures as a permitted use. She explained that a homeowner 's
association will be formed to maintain the private drive and
regulate other matters concerning the subdivision. She noted
that platting the property will also allow the sale of individual
Ilots and structures as in other subdivisions. She stated that no
additional development is proposed. She stated that by approving
the proposed request , the plat will eliminate a lengthy metes and
I bounds legal description; the non-conforming status of existing
structures will be removed; and each structure will be indivi-
dually owned and maintained.
IMary Sapa of Camp Fire Girls and Boys, stated that they were con-
cerned that eventually this property would be made into even
smaller parcels and also sewer and water will come through and
I they will be forced out of the area by increasing property
values .
I Dacy stated that the site is located well out of the Urban
Service Area. She stated that this site and the Tanadoona Camp
Fire Girls site are located to the south of it. She stated that
if and when sewer service would be made available, it would be
I after the year 2000 and even after then it is doubtful because
the City' s sewer capacity is regulated by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council. She stated that
I as far as further subdivision into smaller lots. She stated that
21 acres is the minimum lot size in that area .
I J. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings, to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. Thompson stated that it was a solution to "cleaning up" the
Isituation .
Conrad asked about justifications for approving this request and
its implications for future PUD' s.
1 trnA11LJ / Cikrifk o
• 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25 , 1985
Page 3
Dacy stated that the Zoning Ordinance was established after these
structures were built. She stated that the lengthy legal
description will be eliminated, the non-conforming status of
these structures will be removed, and each structure would be
maintained better because of individual ownership. She stated
that this is an existing situation which the city had no control
over when the buildings were constructed.
Noziska felt that a condition should be placed in the recommen-
dation that stated that there will be no increase in density. '
Emmings moved, seconded by J. Thompson, that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of Preliminary and Final
Development Plan request #84-2 for Ches Mar Farms including
rezoning to P-1 , Planned Residential Development based on the
preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 " with the
following conditions :
1 . A homeowner ' s association maintain Outlot A;
2 . There should be no increased density. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Site Plan Review #85-7 for a 15 ,000 Square Foot
Manufacturing/Warehouse Facility on Property Zoned P-4 , Planned
Industrial Development District and Located in the Southwest 11
Corner of the Hwy. 5 and Park Drive Intersection , LSR Properties ,
applicant
Dacy stated that the applicant is requesting site plan approval '
for Phase I construction of a 15 ,000 square foot production/storage
and office building for Lane Envelopes . She stated that the pro-
posed site is located at the southwest corner of Park Drive and
Highway 5 . She stated that the proposed driveways will be from
Park Drive and Park Court and that there is adequate separation
from the intersections. She stated that the site plan provides
30 parking spaces for Phase I which is based on the ordinance
requirement of one space for each employee on the major shift.
She stated that the applicant is proposing a two foot berm along
the perimeter of the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-
ways. She also noted that along the top of the berms, the appli -
cant is proposing six Green Ash trees complimented by eight 5
foot Austrian Pine trees which should provide adequate screening
of the parking activities. She noted that the elevation of the
area adjacent to the loading dock will rise two to four feet from
the pavement of the loading area. She noted that the combination '
of the fast growing vegetation and the rise in topography will
adequately screen loading activities. She also noted that all
areas of the site are designated for sodding except for the area
1
1
/d
' CiTY 0 F PC . DATE: Sept .2 , 1985
�'��I r CIIANEASSEN C.C. ::E: 84:t::r 7 , 1985
r
I ,1(4'
�. CASE
Prepared by: B. Dacy/v
I • ' 85
I STAFF REPORT
I
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final Development Plan Review
for a four lot planned unit development.
1Q
ULOCATION: Ches Mar Farms - One half mile north of Tanadoona
IJ Drive, west of and adjacent to Hwy. 41
ICl- APPLICANT: Gary V. Kirt
< David C. Bell Investment Co.
5241 Viking Drive
IEdina , MN 55435
I ModOJ 0
PRESENT ZONING: R-la, Agricultural Residence t'e;',.;�a
Dote 10/3/x;
I ACREAGE: 12 acres Date Submitted to Loinnssiort
0 .. 9 Xs/j-s"
DENSITY: .81 units per acre bate Suu;nitted to Ct,unt.,t
I ADJACENT ZONING
._/��JL
AND LAND USE: N- R-la; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
1 S- R-la; agricultural
1 8 t-- E- R-la; single family/agricultural
Q .
W- R-la; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
W WATER AND SEWER: Existing on site septic systems and wells.
I PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Rolling topography with scattered stands
of trees.
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential
1 49
OC Mg r - . ; ��' \--/-4. = . O
o" z �bc; Q� �.
lb) � � M�.�.;W HTA g
Ir-
o a-i /. nn PER .�--c7,7 %
_ i
_ _....,,-3:.
..
__
. . ,,,, , --,, --„ . , :2
s,.. .. , , ,
.. ..
, _
ss
., .
,...... _______,..„. „:._____.:.•
......
.....
_. ,,_ _ _
.,,,
.. .. •,.__,:_____
:: _i•-•-•
, ,
,, , \,
LAKE \�
if _ ,
,,
0;
�
1
4./
1 0
..
N E W A S H' T A .\ r� 1
_ __________________ ... 11/
..
t..!. ,
tocAT,a, cr
recpo5c) _____>,
a r ___IF
- PINE r
R.
, :..7...,,,, g— ■ ,),_
c,_ .
„...
/ P
;I Jam, I ,
/ 1
:;I r�N
A:,
. ` O� ODO,A \'4 CO
• .... ` DRIVE cv
I; Q MUM I. I
,1 Ili
,1
I
\ \`,....._:_.: ._,-._".----:,,,,,,
•
6 1 ..
__..______.
POND 1 PP
4I ONDI
STATE HI H AY . U 1
•
1\\
N / = / J �
l 1 I
( 1r
I Ches Mar PUD
September 25 , 1985
I Page 2
IBACKGROUND
Existing on the site now are four principle structures, three of
I which are now being rented. There are two single family .
dwellings, •one two family dwelling and • one multiple dwelling con-
taining six apartment units. In addition to these, there are
four accessory buildings, including an underground structure,
I barn, garage, and small building used by the residents as a
workshop.
I The subject property is legally described as one parcel. The two
family and multiple family structures are considered non-
conforming because the R-la District only allows single family
dwellings and agricultural uses as permitted uses. Also, the
I existence of more than one principle structure on the lot
violates Section 19.15 of the Zoning Ordinance which limits one
principle structure per zoning lot.
The Ches Mar Farm buildings were built many years before the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1972 (1930 ' s - 1940 ' s) . One
I of the single family dwellings (located on proposed Lot 2) was
moved onto the site just recently. The house, known as the old
Herman house, was located further to the north in the Regional
Park . The following section describes the series of hearings
I that have transpired in regards to the house moving and to the
request for the subject property.
IZONING HISTORY
I On July 9, 1984 , the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
the applicant ' s request to allow an additional single family home
(principle structure) to be moved onto the Ches Mar property
(proposed Lot 2) . On October 15 , 1984 , the City Council approved
I a moving permit to move the old Herman house from Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park to the Ches Mar Farms property. The
soil percolation tests conducted for the new septic system (July
I 1 , 1984 ) meet the requirements of Ordinance 10A ( Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems ) .
The sketch plan for the proposed Planned Unit Development was
I considered by the Planning Commission at their January 9, 1985
meeting and by the City Council at the January 21 , 1985 meeting.
As indicated in the Planning Commission minutes , a majority of
I the Commissioners felt that the proposal could be approved as it
would allow individual ownership of the existing structures and
would allow existing uses on the property to become conforming
I uses. During City Council review, the Councilmembers were con-
cerned about the proposed lot sizes and recommended that the
applicant rearrange the lot lines in the area of Lot 1 and 2 ,
Block 2 , so that all lots would be very close to or would at
Iminimum total 2.5 acres.
I
Ches Mar PUD l II
September 25 , 1985
Page 3
PROPOSAL '
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the property into
four lots and one outlot . Each lot will contain one principle
structure and will be served by the private drive depicted as
Outlot A. The outlot will be owned and maintained by a
homeowner' s association.
Lot sizes are as follows:
Block 1 • '
Lot 1 - 1 .03 acres. This lot is self contained by the park
property on the north, Hwy. 41 to the south and a
separately owned lot immediately to the south. Because
of its location, a 2. 5 acre minimum lot size can not be
achieved. The lot will contain one single family
dwelling and a garage.
Block 2
Lot 1 - 2 . 4 acres. This lot is the smallest lot in area of the
proposed subdivision . Increasing the lot area of this
lot will necessitate a reduction in area from Lot 2. Lot
1 will contain the existing two unit structure and an
attached garage . -'
Lot 2 - 2 .5 acres. As discussed earlier , this lot contains the
Herman house and a new garage will be constructed after
removal of the existing shed.
Lot 3 - 5 .10 acres. The lot will contain the six unit apartment
building, the underground structure, the barn and another '
accessory building.
ANALYSIS ,
The intent of the applicant 's request for a Planned Unit
Development with rezoning to P-1 is to eliminate the non-
conforming status of the existing structures. The P-1 District
not only allows single family dwellings as a permitted use, but
also allows two family and multiple family structures as a per-
mitted use. A homeowner ' s association will be formed to maintain
the private drive and regulate other matters concerning the sub-
division. Platting the property will also allow the sale of
individual lots and structures as in other subdivisions. It
should be noted that no additional development is proposed.
1
IIChes Mar PUD
September 25 , 1985
' Page 4
Approving the proposed request will result in the following benefits:
' 1 . A lengthy metes and bounds legal description will be eliminated
by a plat.
2 . Non-conforming status of existing structures will be removed.
3 . Each structure will be individually owned and maintained.
During sketch plan review, staff had recommended that Outlot A
containing the private drive should be widened to at least a 50
foot width. The plat now indicates the 50 foot right-of-way
' except for a 25 foot strip adjacent to Lot 1 , Block 1. The
remaining 25 feet would have to be dedicated by the parcel to the
south that is now under separate ownership. Widening of the
'
right-of-way to a standard width was recommended to accommodate a
public utility installation if and when municipal service becomes
available (see City Engineer ' s memorandum, Attachment #3) . It
' should also be noted that each building is serviced by an
existing septic system and private well. The old Herman house
will have a new system installed (percolation tests attached) .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
' motion :
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
' Preliminary and Final Development Plan request #84-2 for Ches Mar
Farms including rezoning to P-1 , Planned Residential Development
based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 . "
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On a motion by Emmings and seconded by J. Thompson the
' Commissioners unanimously approved staff' s recommendation with the
following two conditions:
1 . A homeowner ' s association maintain Outlot A;
2 . There should be no increased density.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Application
2 . Photographs of existing structures
' 3 . Memo from Bill Monk, City Engineer , dated December 5 , 1984
4 . Section 14 .01 P-1 , Planned Residential Development District
5 . City Council minutes dated January 21 , 1985
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 9, 1985
' 7 . City Council minutes dated October 15 , 1984
8. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated July 9, 1984
9. Percolation tests for Lot 2, Block 2
' 10 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 25 , 1985
11 . Preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 "
1
( 4 , .
(
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
II
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
Larry L. Hanson Mr. Gary Kirt II APPLICANT: Schoell & Madson, Inc. OWNER: David C. Bell Inv. Co.
ADDRESS 10550 Wayzata Blvd ADDRESS 5241 Viking Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343 • Edina, MN 55435 I
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) (612) 546-7601 TELEPHONE (612) 830-0080
I
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change x Planned Unit Development I
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
x Preliminary Plan
II
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
I
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds II Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
I
PROJECT NAME Ches Mar Farm
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Medium density I
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING R-1A
REQUESTED ZONING P-1
I
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY 12 acres I
LOCATION 3; mile north of Tanadoona Drive on Hwy #41
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Conform and subdivide II
II
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
II
I
•
1
/1-7721(4LocTuT/;&/
II
ii tI City of Chanhasseh
Land Development Application
Page 2
I
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
IThis application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
I filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
I
FILING CERTIFICATION:
IThe undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
1
Signe By /e4; e„, -27754 Date 9/
' O Applicant _ 1/ ,
I •
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
I authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
i
Signed By 111■0 ,
tiOC--.�f Date q- 1/- 55
Fee Owner
I
I ,
q4- E...5 Date Application Received i
I Application Fee Pai ����0
CITY OF CHANHASS
/l 2/ ►`�
' City Receipt No. � `
,31985
.,Y,g4M��Yo ELOPMENT=.;
I * This Application will be considered CITY OF Cf�ArJ SSE
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their--
j r��n/
' meeting . PPeals at their------
' =P n 31985
nnMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP
I
I _.
. .
o -.. po.f.--,...,....,-,..“-„„-•-rst. e
'4'. -Pki.e.'0.4e-•••' -- . -.---. ",±.-. .Tr..:-..•flfir,,,kt.`1.-
I
.. ..-•-•' --''.:"'''--_"...:' ,..-- -- ‘:''.,---'.,,,L......:-',* ;.,:-.'-•-.:',... .•.,-,-.. ..,*1 .. - '••••••loo,co-,‘,--AT,-,es.e4
ta,rktiTt'' .-s- :'2f-'" . .-. -,-•- --..
_ .. .--..-- --"=1.:-- ..r: ..,.-..- c--.'. ..4= . •
---,IV', ----''''..":'
-__, ....,......"4. v.*,i.,----.4.;4:41.4,.., ,....4..C...1!,,'.1...,•4,.::--;,-..,--,...,!-
' •-•,'--- * ''' ,A' --''-.0...---..r.g.'''.."...-- '''.‘''.'‘.....'-'..X.7.-,..,:i...d.i..7..? - A. - '..--'- .
. '3S 1.‘,'* ;'' •'der''-':.-4.*....4"..4-*t.
1-....-E'.:!_lr-..■ ■It.,-,- /4 .:%. A. :---tr% L•ii,..1,;;;,.--'
f
A
-...7.. -4•.; \\ :.'.• ri.:.:.`,..;-••itrIT.47-•.-iikiri.:.147,i--.--....1i::-::,1 "--e-,1-74I- . - .-.
..:..., .4, ,., Fre...,:41 - , „4',7■11.V„11,%/1'..-Ncl..,.- g• , •
:4 r-'-'"' '1•q:.' V:ea,:' •■IF A•Vro„_Nia, '' -• ..,.,..,. *-.
•VIE
'''....--. ..:
...t._.•••r,14 ,, i4- _7 e-'11.1,--,, -.1 '1.t.tvs•rrs.. . 17.1,'• .• :•••:-.$ 11. • ,,...;•-rillk: i
.: .:....,_ :::-.....::: ..;;;;,:r....- I,-.\t,- ..1%;,•,..., '4..ex,t-'-M ,l' ‘'*. 1,1
i
\it
. ..
, ,• .1.,..urr I
. • ---,,,..„.--
-:--.•:,---,,e" i ....4.,_.. . -: Iiiii -::- '-.-:: .
-1,- '÷--- • - .4. . t.s.'.---,k-
1 n.:•-_,--7.'4-1,- 11;:.-k-' i-,t- - •i. 11 i J‘ii --E.'';'-:,:'-':::::••
-.:-1 ,.. 1,7',':1 T.,'.='•"i -..-- • 2'7- i- .- Ip:r"..,,,, 1, ...z--.-,--. t
1
-'...1-• —IF dt . , _ ,.,,
t 1r' '''' 4:' 1 i - I- - • - ‘ *
- -- - - ;• .-I - '
.-- ....-7••• v!....--",..' --'1.7,!;...7.7;.-
_ . .--F.,. ....--._ .,_ --. ).- 4--- 4'1 r•--', .-. ,--.
- __, -.:-... _ • -
-'-
, _ .......4,41;.:::.*•-•-■:;1-,..,......n..„.....,7-r,-- --- ---.. ._._--..._ :1
',-H+- ...- *".. - --- .........______—.--•.` „..!'-•-: ...:i..1
... ■ , . .-.1:2-;?,-7.----•----,' : ..'', ,-,s,,..:...,--.„.-":-_-'-' -..-,_;,,. '- , -I._
i"-^`''''.1....--- -.........4"--"*-,---•-• --- ...„---- _
.-------- . r''-.:--- -:-.=?r..:',.' --:•=1-,---t-'--""----„%■.-,;:- -•- ----' --- g:
-,-, -
---- ....------
* -
.........---......• .2„.... -,-__.........,,.............-..r
.--.•' .
----7- ,''''''''*-* . .r-..s.
.- .
L.Orl 11--16,4.."...., Far-.111: i Lc i 3 Fgo...77-.//c..L.J or
13wc-K I Homr:-., 15 LoC 1c_
. ApAer7--IEJ-Tr #111
I
Il
1;.,..„..A.,. ,__. .........„.. ,.„.„.„.......±:,..;:„....,„ : :....._.„..,.....,.,...,..„..,„..... ....„..„
.... ,..„..,,_... .......
:,. . :-,.----4-.-- i :- L -_, -.
. 1-zi.'-'11.0e.V...c".4'..:f,:.'-i‹....--.§,,{Ar-t:-.--,-,•-•. ::-- : - •-:..•••••.-,..--.---_ •-•4,- r-..'•••
,ft„,.%•,2,7„,..,4,-••-,3F,117....". ,.e.:-.'t..'"'",-;- . -'..- .`"-,--- 7, --. * '-.7.-
f- - .i .1-`:.,---;-`--:.-i;,;*- - -----•:--": 1-----,--,-.-4'. ,..---,
4 ..,.• •: • •:,.!-. ----.-...ee... 'i..-‘1 ".
-.• '--..,••••,:;‘, 'i.T.,•*1
I I *.1 --e•
.‘ '•'. , --.''''''
''. 1, -•--•-":.'-i'-:,,;•!Ig.il;.
-'."-j-,;:j...-_.:4---,.,•-`._:...-it:_
--li r",;7;•.:;:---,; -.:".".i'l: .
.., i
' .t•-;,:"-'-'•--"-.
. ..'it--,','-li.•; - . "•-- •-
t ,..-,- i, ---44.,-.1.,.--1;3; =:••'Z---
.:-...-- --•— .,..,t--41,e...-.4,'e•
„, " i,,.-1...
ti -i:;-:*.e.....'.. :7:'!•.;.;'-:,t-,,-,„Z.: -.•,-•,,
-.
• ke;;4-'::::.,':=-.': ...., .. ,, • 1”;;• t
'. ----0. • ,, _.: _
-..-
'-- ' • - ..• - ,„.
4"7-'
-. a =-4,,,-„:„..„.„--...,.,:i.k.....,..,. .
• ..,..;.,1;_ -- - s. /... -..,:•j 1...s•'• 4' N„, _ . ..,.:. ,
. . ....
,:-...„-.•_---.-- , -;.iti„\-4.,..,,,r. -.. .-.,-.,_--.. . .- ,e4.,-,--?-- .
. - . . •.__ ,... _ . .
_ .
.,. .._,_.. . .., _ .
....• , -.. _-. .
..,..._
-•-*- :.,.w..w.i- au
_ • -- a r
. •
..
•
.•t. 1••• -1-I. -g'... ..',"*."- -' -:-
' •
• 1■••- ••••••• a...." -Yi----
i •-,;-'- -4 I - -•i'"' ;,,...,;•.,..T. - • f_'---A"' 4,..-.....- -- -_ •-•,.-, 7-'":-
f.-'••••-::--;;-"*.i... ....---1-_ :::.-- - .--.7•..':77---4-..4-1 ' ----""-- 49Pr■P"--- -----. ..— - -- • - •
_____ r. _ -
`..-- --t-w3---......4-7.1...-=::.:.•--1;=--;•-••----;,-:. •;•_..‘-'. ' -- -•..,.-.-:.,
,./--..- .,..:4'. - 4--- - — -,-- .-^Yaii&S:16-- . ,Opot.-..-:,•*-
-.4.-•.:.
--TV""`P!' "«.."4-'•7f3-1:-1-7"."-`-;''':'- .., ...• :- ..
.iiiViri5*-- 2"-er-::•:44'!..;Z6'!'=":".la. ti^,..; .; ' '-''M'14 ,..7- - ..... . •-
:..:-.:. A . .-...A .ii:-... ••- •7„,7„.„.---_-P's1Fik-•-..,,,z;•••••,_:',..-r-irV'--4-'*•.-1 L.-:,•:.. , -. . -.L ---4. • * ;,.........■••, :._, ."1.1* ---
t....-•--,...'' ,-" • - Nee V i
-• _ ,. ,
;a-, • Al ::,,'S" '---- . , . ••• . •
•-- ''' • . "
. -k
7e-i.,..:e1,1714 .04ag-7..
, . .1-*
LOr • rEiSe--- / CIA- of 5•
-113--gca---- Acce_5 -r ,
buit.rit-4G,
III
I
Al it`02A
I
1 _.
1
`y am M . \` `M �c'" 1 §=
111 A
I .,,t......v.. 1.. ., --__.,t-,7_ - , .7.-- -W--. rj,,,..„11.-
-.7-......,-,..--„,.. ... .=-`4!----.-- :- ....,-i6-: ‘--. -41: tip-
v '�•� '1►_
� '..Z< •a+G:.'....1%.1.;:f
. •_.fdi j . ' ' Y am -
" 3 -
X
I
I
F J s.
. .,.to i..,...,_ $ i.,_,triiir r .., A.. ..,,
idIM
m.f �' ' � ate.. -•.c _ ;.
•'ma �r �-f' _ r" 4 �K • 'a ! •� kr`" x--` .—r� ..s._f Ci t ' y1s 1,n-A -` 4c.raP-- ► : L e' .^ y �• "
• � ! - ^ •. . E te 4t ^ . 1fi
�s Le!Cft , pQ
I
I
C.IrLi �j 1 G� ; 0� L� Yj I 1 .1 (1.,(�O
I 1,-3t-o - ON r 1 H-a Car, m.642. — 0--)T -A
SCE „ mot,
I
I 4-1T ixOu- -AB
r -_ i
1 "........,:::: :::::-A- --,--i■- ,_ --„,,,..4
, .,..,---,- -, ,___. „ .... .,_
I
•�.►.... _ ::_i 1.'l �
_r 4 41 � 3 _ 4J/I6 �'G� r
'•44,emu. -.. j?;-r:_''. -+fi.,,'.� ..... \-�//V J /IC-
I
.,W-
Hamprx) /40-1,6 e , mcs-1----&---667#076/0
r
I
I
I
I
31Pir IMIYt__:: '._ ,11 .. ,,,
I
0 ;:�
I
1 • ' .-- .:- ,iit
1-A .- •I■ , i
-
it's-- ....,;ti4.r_ :. ;-,;.,.;.
`fir- �' .�, _ •�,
.�t-Pk� -E-ti l SE
ie - 64sTE4 : i9-i lO,iJ
I
I
4-Triki-fror 02C r
CITYOF
-I, ssEN
1 \ ,
'1' :A 'rte , :rr
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Monk, City Engineer
DATE: December 5 , 1984
SUBJ: Ches-Mar Farm P. U.D.
Utilities
' Public sewer and water facilities are not available to the site .
All structures are presently serviced by private wells and septic
systems .
' Street
' Continued use of a private road system for this layout is not a
problem, however , enlargement of Outlot A to a 50 ' width along
Lot 2 and a 40 ' width adjacent to Lot 1 should be considered to
more easily facilitate public utility installation and roadway
dedication at some future point .
1
1
1
*
substituted for the screen wall t ii-e at `
from the interior of the building an: ed schedule and sequence of devel•
the discretion of the Council provided. have no advertising or display which is oprnent
however that any such screen planting visible from the outside of the building. h Within 14 days alter the submis-
shall fulfill the foregoing height and and which facilities are provided pn- sion of the proposed preliminary devil
opacity requirements throughout each manly for the residents of the building opment plan the /Amine Administrator '
season of the year within 24 months 14.Ua Procedure for Y-1 Planned Resi- shall review the prorosed plan and
after date of planting dential Development District Zoning, may schedule mectrnes with the apple
• 12.11 General Regulations. Platting and Development. cant for the purpose of presentine his
ka 1 Additional regulations in the 1-1 Indus- 1 Ownership and Unified Control: findings or recommended modilica•
1 trial District are set forth in Section 19 a Land proposed to be developed as Lions. The Zoning Administrator shall
• 12.12 Boundaries of the I-1 Industrial a P-1 Planned Residential Develop- either
p grant preliminary approval of
District. The boundaries of the 1-1 Indus-
. ment District shall be under single the proposed plan as submitted or
trial District shall include the following ownership or unified control. The own- grant preliminary approval subject to
described tracts and parcels of land er or controlling entity shall hereinaf- specified modifications or deny pre-
SECTION 13. i Reserved for future use ter be referred to as the applicant.Cen- liminary approval of the proposed plan
i Z• SECTiON 14. P-I PLANNED REST- tralized management shall be a desired stating reasons for the denial
DENTiAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. characteristic of a P-1 District. c If the proposed preliminary devel-
14.01 Objectives.The Village being 2. Sketch Plan: opment plan is denied or approved with
confronted with increasing urbanization a The applicant may prepare a conditions with which the applicant
i and acknowledging that technology of sketch plan of the proposed develop- does not agree. the applicant may re-
land development and demand for hous-
ing ment for review by the Planning Com- quest that the proposed plan be for-
are undergoing substantial and rapid mission. Such sketch plan will be con warded to the Planning Commission for
13 changes.intends• sidered as having been submitted for its consideration.
1. To provide the means for greater crea- informal discussion between the appli- 4. Preliminary Development Plan:
1 tivitv and flexibility in environmental cant and the Planning Commission. a. A preliminary development plan
design than is provided under the strict b. Submission of a sketch plan shall shall be submitted to the Planning
application of the zoning and subdivi- not constitute formal filing of an appli- Commission together with an applica-
sion ordinances without compromising cation for development of a P-1 Dis- tion for rezoning within 45 days from
the health. safety order convenience trict. On the basis of the sketch plan. the date of the decision by the Zoning
1 and general welfare of the Village and the Planning Commission may infor-
mally Administrator on the proposed plan.
its residents advise the applicant of the extent b The preliminary development plan
2. To encourage the more efficient allo- to which the plan conforms to the Corn- shall conform to and include all of the
cation and innovative use of common prehensive Village Plan and the stand- information required under Subsection ,
open space adjoining residential build- ards of this and other ordinances of the 3 of Section 14.05 of this ordinance. and
ings in order that greater opportunities Village.and may discuss possible moth- such additional information requested
for better housing and recreation may fications necessary to implement ap- the Zoning Administrator In addi
ri: be extended to the residents of the Vil-
lage.
proval of the plan. tion. the following shall be required. 1) I
3. Proposed Preliminary Development detailed drawings of land uses showing
3 To provide for the establishment of Plan: proposed buildings. parking and garag-
regulations and procedures for planned a Prior to the submission of an ap ing arrangements.common open space
r residential district development de- plication for rezoning. the following areas. recreation improvements and
signed to meet the need for moderate documents. which in their entirety structures. and open spaces around '
and low cost housing. including the uti- shall constitute a proposed preliminary buildings and structures. 2) prelimi-
lization of preconstructed and preas- development plan. shall be filed with nary elevation drawings of all proposed
sembled dwelling units of a permanent the Zoning Administrator: structures and buildings except de-
•+ nature without sacrificing quality con- i 1) Maps and drawings which may be tached single family dwellings. 3) a
struction and assembly standards and in a general schematic form and perspective drawing or model which '
4 tax base,and showing a) enough of the area clearly shows the architectural style of
4 To provide administrative procedures surrounding the proposed develop- the development. 4) proposed agree-
which can relate a planned develop- ment to demonstrate the relation-
': merits. provisions or covenants regulat
~; ment district to a particular site and ship of the planned development to ing the establishment. use. mainte-
which may encourage the disposition of , adjacent uses. b) proposed land nance and continued stability of the
_ planned development district proposals uses. area, population densities planned development and any of its
without undue delay and land use intensities for each common open space areas. 5) a sched-
14.02 Permitted Uses. Within a P-1 area of land included in the pro- ule showing estimated progression of
development.
•
Planned Residential Development Dis- posed development, c) existing P
trict. no building or land shall be used topography.d)existing tree cover. c The Planning Commission shall
xcept for the following use• buildings. streets and other site conduct a public hearing in accordance
1. Single family dwellings. improvements. e) proposed access with the provisions of this ordinance to
2. Two family dwellings. system. indicating both public and consider for approval or disapproval
3. Multiple dwellings. private streets. f) common open the application for rezoning and the '
4. ownhouses. space and public uses, including preliminary development plan. At the
14.03 Accessory Uses. Within a P-1 schools. parks, recreation areas conclusion of such hearing the Planning
Planned Residential Development Dis- and undeveloped properties. g) the Commission shall make its recommen
trict. the following uses shall be allowed architectural style of each differ- dation to the Village Council which may-
i- as accessory to the permitted use• ent type of building include the following: 1) approval or
1 Subordinate uses which are clearly and 121 A written report or statement disapproval of the rezoning application.
— customarily accessory to the permitted which shall include a) the nature of 2) approval of the preliminary develop-
Kai use the applicant s ownership or con- ment plan.3)disapproval of the prelim-
'--' 3, 14.04 Conditional Uses. Within a P-1 trol in the land proposed to be de- inary development plan stating reasons
E;
- Planned Residential Development Dis- veloped. b i a description of the for the disapproval. 41 approval of the
trict. the following uses may be allowed. type of proposed development, in- preliminary development plan subject
but only upon the securing of a Condition- eluding population densities and to specified modifications and condi-
al Use Permit land use intensities. c) requested lions.
1 Retail shops and restaurants situated modification in the requirements d The Planning Cmmission shall '
entirely within a multiple dwelling of this ordinance otherwise applic- recommend a written time schedule for
building,and which are accessible only able to the property.d) the expect- development. and shall specify a time
15 3. 4„)F..1"...( i 4 7 H f3- I
Hmynit' 1/2-/9 1f. A?nena' J 'r7- h}6,
A.n,-04L-<<-i q7-a,, J, eep..vaia,4 41 7- E
II , - Council Meeting Januai( 21, 1985 (7 -3-
BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #022125
II through #022226 in the amount of $500,767.64 and checks #024509 through #024666 in
the amount of $1,475,664.84. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried .
IPROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A FIVE ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, 9201 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a metes and bounds subdivision dividing a five acre
I tract into two parcels, Planning Case 84-25, Subdivision. The two parcels to be
approximately of equal size with the eastern most parcel having access to Highway 101
on the north side. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in
II favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DIVIDING 1.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, 7550 GREAT PLAINS
I BLVD. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the subdivision dividing a 1.45 acre
parcel into two parcels, Planning Case 84-26, Subdivision, subject to the following
conditions:
Il. That the subdivision be put into a plat format.
2 . Building plans and specifications for construction on the newly created lot
be certified by an engineer as per the letter from the City Engineer to the
Planning Commission dated January 4, 1985, Drainage and Slope.
I 3. Sewer and water benefit for the newly created lot will be handled under provi-
sions of the City 's connection charge policy at time of building permit applica-
tion.
I Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
IfCHES-MAR FARM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
Councilman Horn - I guess I got caught off-guard on this. I was not under the
impression when we allowed Herman home to be moved that we were allowing permission
Ifor substandard lot sizes.
Bill Monk - Nobody at that time knew that we were going to be asked to do anything
I like this. At least I wasn' t aware of it. When we looked at it, it was 12 acres
with four structures and you could put each one on 24 acres but it' s just not
working out that way. They are trying to subdivide .
IBarbara Dacy - Ches-Mar Farms has been there for years and what is going on now is
that the buildings are being rented and the amount of income that is being gained
from the rental of these structures is not going to be enough for the proper upkeep
I and maintenance so the property owner wanted to find some way that he could create a
lot to fit individual structures so he can sell each lot and, therefore, be under
single ownership. As you can see on the layout, the whole site totals 12 acres and
I it has an unusual shape to it that really prevents it from getting the standard 24
acre subdivision. Another point why we recommended the applicant to process a PUD
is that these are multiple structures in an R-1A District. The reason why they have
Lot 1 as 1} acres is because it is ideally identifiable, it is pretty well self-
, contained as is. It has the access drive along the south. You have got the
regional park along the north and Highway 41 on the east. There is enough acreage
there to get that 24 acre minimum but what would end up happening is that you would
I have to create little squares and tie them together. We wanted to keep the driveway
going into the Lot 4 site all in one lot .
Paul Prenevost - The object is that all the outbuildings have some value to them and
II we would like to keep them.
II
/ *.S
Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -4- II
Councilwoman Watson - We have got one lot that' s six acres and two lots that we
can' t make come up to 2}.
Paul Prenevost - The two lots that you are referring to would be one and three.
Three is on top of a hill and this is all Carver County Park so there is going to be 111111
no building or anything in that area. This one is the same thing where you are
sloping down away from the actual structure itself and it' s frontage on the park.
Councilwoman Watson - My problem with it is that we know have the ordinance that
makes the lots a minimum of 2+i acres regardless of whether they are on the park.
The problem is the person that comes in after you who doesn' t abut a park or
anything else and still wants the same privilege of a lot less than 2i acres in the
unsewered area.
Mayor Hamilton - We look at each one on its own merits and just because you do that
with this one doesn't mean that the next guy can come in and say, you did it here so
now you have to do it for me.. You look at each one on its own merits. I don' t see
how else they can divide this up without really making so many changes it would not
fit the property.
Councilman Horn - I think we can spell out exceptions. In this case we are dealing
with pre-existing conditions that we really don't have a choice. I think I can feel
comfortable with this one because of that. If we are creating something from
scratch, that's one thing, but this already exists.
Councilwoman Watson - That house isn't even in there yet and we could have solved
one of those problems because the house is gone on Lot 4 and Lot 3 could have been
large enough that we wouldn' t have had a substandard lot there because of something '
that hasn't even happened yet.
Paul Prenevost - He already has approval to do it.
Councilwoman Watson - I know he does but it hasn' t happened yet and circumstances
have changed . He, obviously hadn' t planned to do this or made no mention of it at
the time that he asked for approval of moving the Herman house and then we would
have had at least one less substandard lot had he at least brought this up as a
possibility at that point in time.
Councilwoman Swenson - Certainly, had the idea come up that this was going to deve- '
lop, I am sure that you would not have been given a permit to move that house on
there.
Councilman Gevinq - I think you are constricted on Lot 1 but I do believe you could
make some allowances out of Lot 2 to bring both Lots 3 and 4 more up to size. I you
were to extend the western most line and bring it back to the east on Lot 2 then you '
could bring Lot 3's eastern most line over and I think you could pick up the 21
acres. Bring that line over to the road.
Mayor Hamilton - The road that goes back in there, is that Ches-Mar Drive or what is
it?
Paul Prenevost - It' s Pine Circle.
Mayor Hamilton - Is that a City street or is it private.
1
Council Meeting Januai( 21 , 1985 -5-
I ..
Barb Dacy - It is a rivate street. It is on here P as an outlot because it would be
maintained by the homeowners association and we did make a recommendation that cer-
' tain enlargements to the outlot be made to make it more of a standard 50 foot wide
easement.
' Mayor Hamilton - Lot 1 is okay and adjust the lines as you said for Lots 3 and 4.
Councilwoman Swenson - Why does this have to be a PUD?
' Barb Dacy - The "P" District will eliminate the non-conforming status on the use
because multiple dwellings are a permitted use.
Mayor Hamilton moved approval with the noted adjustments to the lot lines of the
sketch plan and the City Engineer' s recommendations in his letter dated December 5,
1984, Utilities and Streets. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following
' voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn
and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
' SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, WHITE TAIL RIDGE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN
BLVD.
Barb Dacy Since the Planning Commission meeting we have made some recommendations
in your report about the site plan. The applicant has revised the sketch plan to
' conform to those as far as the parking space alignment near the north lot line and
he will submit a more detailed landscaping plan should we pursue the project. As
far as the access from Galpin Blvd. is concerned, there was a letter from Carver
County that stated that as much distance as possible should be maintained from Lake
Lucy Road. Originally we had recommended that the access be aligned across the
street from West 65th Street so we are going to try and make the best compromise to
maximize the distance from Lake Lucy Road . What the applicant is proposing is eight
II townhouse units. Townhomes are a permitted use in a P-1 District and by clustering
the units to the most buildable area of the site, when you view this plan versus five
single family lots and, therefore, five accesses onto Lake Lucy Road and then you
' would have the buildability question down in the southeast and southwest corners,
what this really does is squish all the units together and consolidate the access
into one driveway .
' Councilman Geving - I think it's a lot of density in a small area.
Barbara Dacy - Eight units and the development density will be 2.9 units per gross
' acre.
Mayor Hamilton - I think it makes sense. We will get the type of housing that we
' need in town and that' s not the easiest location to work with.
Councilman Geving - I have driven that area quite often and isn't that about where
the hill starts? Aren' t you about at the crest of that little hill just after you
IIpass West 65th Street?
Barbara Dacy - The townhomes are located right on the top of a hill. There is no
question that we are going to have to work out an appropriate intersection of align-
ment to Galpin Blvd. We have to maintain as much distance as we can from Lake Lucy
Road according to the County .
Councilwoman Swenson - Actually , you have got Lake Lucy Road coming in from the east
and then a distance of probably 100 and some feet, you have got West 65th Street
coming in from the left, and then you are going to go up another 75 feet and have
' another inlet from the east and as Dale points out , there is a rise in the hill
there.
(7 C ' ii
•
- Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 1985
C Page 3 II
PUD Sketch Plan Review #84-2 for a Planned Unit Development to
II
4- subdivide a 12 acre parcel into four lots on property zoned R-la,
Agricultural Residence , and located on the Ches Mar Farm property
west of and adjacent to Hwy. 41 , just north of Camp Tanadoona, II David C. Bell Investment Co. , applicant .
Public Present
II
Gary Kirt 22410 Murray Street, Excelsior
Paul Prenevost 2739 Pine Circle
Olsen explained that this item had been tabled from the last II
meeting because the applicant was not present. She stated that
the applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into four
II
parcels with three lots containing one of the three existing
structures and the fourth lot is the future site of the Herman
house which was approved by the City Council. She stated that
Mr . Kirt is currently renting the buildings and would like to
II
have them under individual ownership to "keep the property up".
She stated that each lot is serviced by its own septic system and
there will be no additional development. She stated that the
II
structures on the property existed before the adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance and thus these structures are non-conforming
uses in the R-la District. She stated that the existing struc- '
tures create a unique situation in that they are similar in
design and style and form a cohesive unit and by rezoning the
property to P-1, it would allow these structures and their
current densities to remain as permitted uses .
II
Mr. Kirt , the applicant, stated that he has invested money into
the rehabilitation and maintenance of this property and is unable
II
to continue to do so with what he is receiving from rent . He
stated that if the Commissioners had any other ideas on how to
subdivide this parcel he is willing to take a look at it . He II stated that he just wants to sell the structures to individuals
•
so that they are kept up because it is a unique and attractive
area. He stated that they will be renovating the Herman house
and want to keep that with the other structures on the six acre
II
parcel. He said that they will not be subdividing the six acre
parcel because the only place that a house could be put on is
where the Herman house is going . He wants to keep the old ` II
barns , and fence the area to stay with the "theme" of the area.
Albee stated that she does not want to set precedent of allowing
development in R-la areas under 2i acres . She also felt these
II
tracts are a poor way to encourage development in Chanhassen .
Mr . Kirt stated that he is open to any of their suggestions and I
( is at the point where there really is no other way to deal with
this situation . He stated that they have spent alot of money
on this project and it is a negative cash flowing project. He
I
~146
Planning Commission Minutes
' January 9, 1985
C Page 4
' stated that the Herman house that they will be relocating and
restoring will be a very expensive project. He stated that if
the PUD is not the proper approach then he is open to any ideas .
' Ryan stated that because there would be no more development
on the property the PUD would not be allowing any expanded use of
the property. He stated that he is confused about the Herman
house because the Planning Commission had not seen anything on
it and knows absolutely nothing about it . He stated that since
the City Council has allowed Mr . Kirt to move the Herman house
in , they have already given him a fourth principle structure on
the property.
Chairman Conrad asked the other Commissioners if they had any
suggestions and if not how they would react to this as a site
plan . J. Thompson , Merz , Noziska and M. Thompson felt that they
' would probably approve it with the staff 's recommendation of the
enlargement of Outlot A to allow individual ownership and allow
it to be a permitted use .
' Proposed Subdivision Ordinance
Public Present
Pat Swenson 9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
Dacy stated that on December 12 , 1984 the Commission discussed
some amendments . She stated that the Commission recommended that
the term "procedure" be added to Section 4. 1 ( 2) and to Section
' 4 .1 ( 3) . She added that Section 4. 2 reflects the Commission ' s
desire to have all properties in the City platted except for
divisions of lots which add a portion of a lot to an abutting lot
' (Section 4. 2 (1) and ( 2) ) . She also stated that the recommen-
dation of the City Manager in his memo of December 10 , 1984, was
the redundancy and conflict between the proposed park dedication
provisions in Section 8 and the existing regulations outlined in
' Ordinance No. 14 . She stated that the City Attorney has con-
sequently revised Section 8 to address the concerns of the City
Manager as expressed in the memo referenced earlier . Dacy apolo-
gized as the ordinance was inadvertently left out of the com-
mission ' s packets; however , she stated that the items mentioned
were the only ones that were amended . She also noted that
' letters were sent to the homeowners associations and to the
Chamber of Commerce advising them of the hearings.
Pat Swenson stated that she was concerned about grades of the
streets for safety reasons . She stated that maybe it should be
stated that "wherever possible, grades within thirty feet of
•
intersections or railroad crossings shall not exceed 3%" . She
also was concerned about double frontage lots. She would like a
1
LOTUS REALTY SERVICES
545 WEST 78th STREET, P.O. BOX 100
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
May 23, 1988
(612) 93,4-4538
Ms. Barb Dacy '
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
SUBJ: Ches-Mar Farm
Amended PUD Proposal
Lotus Realty Services, Inc. as an agent for the owner Gary Kirt, is requesting
to amend the present PUD Plat that contains approximately eleven (11) acres
from two (2) lots with a density of seven (7) units to seven (7) single family
lots. Minimum lot size will be approximately one (1) acre. Mr. Kirt also is
proposing that an addition of approximately twenty-one (21) acres be added to
the new amended plat to contain two (2) additional one (1) acre single family
lots plus a beach lot/common area containing a minimum of eighteen (18) acres. '
Ches-Mar Farm was originally owned by Chester and Margaret Johnson and operated
as a working horse farm and later as a guest farm. As the farm was developed
it ultimately contained the main house, a gate house, a two (2) family home and
a six (6) plex (a converted barn). During the last twenty (20) years the
property has been owned by two (2) other entities other than Mr. Kirt. Each
entity has tried and failed to make economic sense of the multiple dwellings
and the site. The main house owned by Ches-Mar Farm was optioned to Mr. and
Mrs. Charles Gross by a previous owner. The Gross's have lived in the main
house for seventeen (17) years and will exercise their option in August of
1988. Approximately twenty-one (21) acres of the farm have remained under
control of Ches-Mar Realty (Robert Nagle estate). Mr. Kirt recently optioned
this property and has included the twenty-one (21) acres in this amended PUD
proposal.
Mr. Kirt purchased the property in 1982-with the intent of refurbishing the
existing rental units and moving the old Herman house onto the site as his
personal residence. The economics of the multiple units the out building and
size of the parcel of land made this plan unfeasible and Mr. Kirt replatted the
property in 1985 as a rural ten (10) unit PUD served by a private road. The
resulting four (4) parcels then were put up for sale. Two (2) of the lots have
been sold to individuals, the two (2) family home and the gate house. Mr. Kirt
has been actively marketed the six (6) unit and the Herman house for two (2)
years without any sincere interest due to the condition of the six (6) plex and
the out buildings. The problem with the six (6) plex is maintenance and the
ability to attract a high quality tenants.
Lotus Realty Services feels very strongly that the six (6) unit and the out
buildings are an improper use at this time in a rural PUD and will continue to
bring economic hardship on any owner potentially creating an on going health
and safety problem for the city according to Public Safety Director, Jim
Chaffee. This proposal is an attempt to solve the problems that have existed
on the site for a number of years through three (3) ownership entities. The
property will be outside the sewer service area for the next twelve (12) years
and therefore no short term higher density potential solution exists. The key
to this proposal is the owners attempt to adhere to the existing zoning
requirements. The two (2) new lots outside the existing PUD that are being
II
' Barb Dacy
City of Chanhassen
Page 2
May 23, 1988
added to the amended PUD will meet the one in ten (10) requirements with no
increase in density within the existing PUD.
' Lotus has contacted the Metropolitan Council concerning this proposal. The
staff does not feel that this proposal is in violation of the Lake Ann
Interceptor Agreement as long as there is no increase in density within the
' existing PUD.
Lotus has met with the following owners of property within Ches-Mar Farm
1. Gerry Eikes
2. Charles and Ginger Gross
3. Dave Gersler and Rose Bastain
They have the following concerns:
' 1. Traffic at entrance
2. Retention of the current private road
3. Retain the character of the farm
4. Increase in their taxes
5. Why any change at all
This proposal has tried to address their concerns by the following:
1. Maintain the current private road
2. Provide an alternate entrance as a outlot
for a future public road (if requested) and
public utilities
3. Create a large beach lot/common area, to
' maintain one (1) existing out building
the windmill and provide for a stable,
a tennis court and walk way to Lake Minnewashta.
Covenants within the deed will restrict any
future development of the lots and outlots.
4. Suggested they meet with city and county
staff to determine R.E. Tax Consequence.
The two (2) major benefits to the City of this proposal.
1. Create a well planned economically viable
community eliminating the potential health
and safety problems created by the rental
' property.
2. Potential increase in property values
(Kirt's property only) from four hundred
thousand dollars ($400,000.00)to at least
two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) this
I
Barb Dacy 1
City of Chanhassen
Page 3
May 23, 1988 1
increasing taxes to the city. Should the
property remain as its current use its tax
base will decline due to the economics of
the multiple unit, the outbuildings and
size of the parcel of land.
Mr. Kirt and Lotus thank you for the opportunity to propose a solution to the
continued vitality of one (1) of Chanhassen's most important land marks, CHES-
MAR FARM.
Sincerely,
/ 17-A-e-gt �e <Iv 0/-14T-2----7-6„)
Bradley C. ohnson
Lotus Realty Services, Inc. (Agent)
BCJ:ss
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
' LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
'
APPLICANT: Bradley C. Johnson OWNER: Gary Kirt
Lotus Realty Services, Inc.
ADDRESS P. 0. Box 100 ADDRESS 3915 Highway 7
' Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Zip Minneapolis, MN. 55416
p
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 934-4538 p Code TELEPHONE 920-1880 Zi Code
' REQUEST:
Zoning District Change ✓ Planned Unit Development
' Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
' Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
f Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
(Recreational Beach Lot) Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Ches Mar Farm
' PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PUD-R
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PUD-R
PRESENT ZONING PUD-R
REQUESTED ZONING PUD-R
' USES PROPOSED residential
' SIZE OF PROPERTY approximately 11 acres
LOCATION Ches Mar Farm
' REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST see attached project summary
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Ches Mar Farm
Lots 2 & 3 Block 2
and outlot A
1
4
City of Chanhassen 1
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies '
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
c�
Signed By �'r�2 s'tY} 23
Date / ite
A licant _ (0 {
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein '
described .
.� .� - 4<
Signed By Date
Fee Owner -
1
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No. '
* This Application will be considered ,
d by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 1988
IChairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , James
IWildermuth and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and David Headla
ISTAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Asst . City Planner and Jim Chaffee, Public
Safety Director
IPUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 11 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY
U LOTS AND A DOUBLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON HWY. 41, CHES MAR FARMS, BRADLEY JOHNSON.
Public Present:
I
Bradley Johnson Applicant
Harold Nasset Applicant
I Chuck and Ginger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
Terry Jones Southridge Development Inc.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
t
Brad Johnson : I do represent Gary Kirt who is the owner of this property
I in this particular case. There ' s always a reason behind somebody coming
in and asking for something that ' s not supposed to be done. In this
particular case the reason is that the property has continuously for the
I last 30 years decreased in value. Primarily due to the decay of the
structures that exist there. We've had a number of fires and basically
changed the uses over the years . Originally, this is what the farm
originally looked like. This is what the farm was originally like in the
I late 40 ' s . I don ' t know if anybody has been out there lately but what has
happened over the last few years , about 20 years since it was originally
owned by Charles and Mary Johnson as a working horse farm. Over the years
I as working horse farms became uneconomical , a fellow by the name of
Naegele purchased it as a land speculation and tried to develop it into
some form of property. I think he ran into the sewer problems and later
II on sold parts of the property off to the County as a part of Carver County
Park. The next person who owned it went bankrupt. Not just because of
this but a couple of other dealings that he had and Mr . Kirt purchased it
out of a foreclosure with the intent that he could bring it back to life.
ILIt' s a very beautiful piece of property. It probably has a lot of
historic significance to those people who live on Lake Minnewashta. I
know the Gross ' who are here can attest to the fact that years ago it used
I to be an active part of the Chanhassen community. The problem that ' s
happening is Mr. Kirt acquired it and I think he was going to live there
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 15, 1988 - Page 2
and he moved a home on there which he had planned on doing and for various
economic reasons decided that it was not, at that time, a good idea to
remodel that particular home. When you have a duplex and a 6 unit in a
rural community, a rural area with non-owner occupants living in the unit,
it tends to degenerate into a slum. Mr . Kirt asked me to visit that
particular piece of property about 6 months ago because he'd had it on the
market for approximately 2 years . As Jo Ann said, they've been able to
sell off two of the buildings. One' s a duplex which Jerry Eickenspot has II
fixed up a little bit and then the front gate house was sold off and
that' s been fixed up quite a bit but he' s been unable to sell the two
units. He said when he bought the Kirt place he literally drove a truck
up to it, filled a truck full of garbage and hauled it away. Interestingly '
enough, unless he' s had family members living in the units , which he has
had off and on, other than one unit periodically, they have to drive a
truck up to the door and clean it out. This is not uncommon in this type II
of property where you really have buildings that are not really designed
to be rental units , which is the case here. It is not a real attractive
place for people to live in the long term. The type of tennant that they
attract seem not to take care of the property so that ' s the economic
problem. Valuation from a tax purposes has steadily declined over the
last few years also for that reason. He came in and requested this as a
PUD, I think as your staff report indicates, that this was at that time
and has historically, you' ll notice that it has at times a much higher
density than it currently has even. It' s just there and the concern that
we have had is that it is getting tagged , Mr . Chaffee is here from the II Public Safety Department and this is whether its Mr. Kirt who owns it or
anybody that owns it, it will probably always be the economic problem as
long as there's six units there. Our solution was to shift the valuation
or the debt that happens to be on the property from the 6 unit building to '
the land. To that end we purchased, or have option, an additional 21
acres because we felt that one thing we could not do is come in here and
ask for an increase in density in that particular area. So currently
there is 1. 2 acres per unit and our proposal is 3. 1 acres per unit by
adding the outlot. The configuration that we' re proposing is there
because we felt that this particular piece of land should remain looking II a little bit like it does at the present time, which you see is the fences
and things like that. By creating a large outlot and clustering the homes
around what is now the existing drive, we felt we could maintain the
credibility of the existing community. This is a PUD. It is a rural PUD. II
If you look in your ordinances, there' s nothing that allows PUD' s not do
you allow 6 unit buildings out in those areas . Nor do you allow duplexes
out in that particular market. They just happen to be there and what
we' re trying to accomplish is dealing with them. Gary dealt with it in a
way. He was in fact able to sell off two of the buildings to owners
occupants. Our concern now is how do we make this particular property II viable as a real estate place to live without just burning it down, taking
it off the tax rolls and forgetting about it. We felt that one of the
reasons people may not want to develop it is because it is outside the
MUSA line so we ' ve been in contact with the Metropolitan Council folks and I
they have no problem, at least verbally, with the plan that we have
presented here. In other words , either the City, through the City
Council , has an agreement that they will not increase the density. They
felt that this project is not increasing the density out in that area
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 3
1C
I therefore, from an agreement point with the City. There won' t be the
sewer and water there but at least we' re not violating anything so there
would be no opposition on their part , at least verbally, with this
particular plan. That was our first step.
IEmmings : Could I ask you, did you talk to the Met Council yourself?
IBrad Johnson: Harold did.
Harold Nasset: I spoke with Matt Paul of Met Council .
IEmmings: Was this a telephone conversation?
Harold Nasset : It was a meeting that Barb Dacy and I had over at Met
ICouncil .
Emmings : And they saw this drawing?
IHarold Nasset: They saw this concept and the idea was that we were going
no more units. That we were trading rental units for single family and
they were reading it as . . . So there' s 11 units if you count on there
I presently. If you count the number on the single families that were
converted to duplex , or the 6 unit into a duplex, it' s the same amount.
I(: Emmings: Okay, and they saw this land. That part of the land that ' s
being counted in is this long skinny trail going down to the lake?
Harold Nasset: Yes .
I
Brad Johnson : They actually saw even a more common area type of thing .
The idea of the common area, by the way, again was to maintain it from TH
41, the look that that property currently has . Using the PUD technique in
some communities, you go to more clustered urban type housing where you
cluster things. Here around the knoll or around the beauty area or you
I give them a view point and you try to maintain the other property as it
is . The other problems that we have in dealing with this particular piece
of property, other than the fact that it' s outside the MUSA line at the
present time, it ' s just that it' s there already. The road system has been
I there for a number of years, probably 40 or 50 years , so you have to try
to work whatever plan that you put together around what exists . The
orange indicates the three properties that are currently owned by people
I other than Mr . Kirt . The Gross ' , Chuck and Ginger Gross are here tonight
and we 've been working with them for a while. Each of these parties has a
certain interest in the project because they live there. I would say it
I would be safe to say that, and Ginger you or Chuck could speak to this ,
that they would like to see something done. How many years have you been
worrying about this?
Chuck Gross : We' ve lived there close to 15 and we ' ve seen a
deterioration. . . . is still there and yes, we are interested in seeing
something done about it. We would like to see an upgrading . Better grade
I of people living there as neighbors. We have a vested interest with our
manor home there that we ' re living in .
I - -
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 15, 1988 - Page 4
Brad Johnson: You' re faced with, let ' s say there home is worth at least II
$100,000. 00 but let's say there home is worth $200,000. 00 to $400,000.00,
which is the pinnacle as you come in. You have a small gatehouse that
fits in the sides. They have this huge monsterous building in the back
which adds value to their home until you get near it. I was just reading
Chaffee' s report, you can smell it as you get closer. That ' s the problem
we' re facing with in that property. What would you say about the state of II
repair Jim?
Jim Chaffee : It needs a little work.
Brad Johnson: We get tags and it' s not as if, in this kind of ro e
p p rty is
as close, I use to deal just in properties in 30th and Hennepin and 30th
and Lake and that area . It' s as close to that kind of property or is
getting to it from a tennancy point of view as you can possibly get.
Another party owns this property and another party owns this property out
in the back. They all have concerns and I think I 've listed them in our
presentation and I ' ll touch on them but in the design of the project we
have to deal with their rights. Currently there is a 25 foot easement
that goes with the project. In other words it goes with the back property
from this TH 41 to this point. Whoever established this whole thing
originally made sure that there was only a 25 foot easement , good or bad .
The balance of the property is owned by the Gross ' . The road itself is
on both parties property. Now we could put a road to the right of that II and infringe on these folk ' s homes but that ' s not the proper way to do it
so we' re working through them. One of the requirements that both these
parties have relative to a road system coming in there, at least until
public utilities are there, is that that road remain private. They are
concerned about taxes. They' re concerned about traffic and any
connotation that would have to do with a public road entering into the
property. Traffic, things like that. Much like what has been established I
like at the Hesse Farm which is a well established subdivision in this
particular community. From there on in we are okay with most anything
that could happen . What we did say though as an alternate and for public I
safety reasons or whatever , we needed a public road and these two parties
would not agree. Then we have provided an outlot around the back of the
property through the acquisition of the property to the south. We also I
have set this outlot up in case, in some future time , maybe 12 years away,
that they actually want to run sewer and water in and then that City then
could do that . This would just be deeded over to the City or accessed to
them so they could do that. From this point on we would like to lay the
road system out a little bit different than it is but there' s an easement
that runs from here to here to service this particular party. Her feeling
is that she does not want to allow any change in the easement on this
road. That it must remain as it is and rather than argue that point out
we therefore run the road in along the northerly portion of the property
and spun it around here. We had a couple of other ones that wrapped it
out and probably very small as a cul-de-sac or an effective way of dealing
with it. Thus the plan. I don ' t think there would be too much problem
within the plan to meet a 1 acre standard for most of the lots except for
the duplex lots. The duplex lots, they' re kind of, there again, we just
can ' t do much about it. Again our contention is that the outlot concept
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 5
1i
I with trying to maintain some type of identity within the farm is the way
to do it. We also have set it up, whether it ' s a useable beachlot or not ,
at least it' s perceived to be that way. Concerns that people have raised
are things like septic. I believe you have in general , in the rural area,
I 2 1/2 acre requirement primarily for septic purposes . In checking around ,
there are other methods of handling septic on the lot. Actually the two
adjoining properties are examples of that . Camp Tanadoona and Dogwood
I both have what ' s called the mound system, which is a community septic
system and they've been in operation for 10 or 15 years and according to
our engineers who have been out there, they're working very fine. Both of
which are on the lake. There are probably engineering ways , let ' s say, of
I getting around the lot size and the septic system problems. There' s been
a concern about is there water out there or not. Again, that ' s an
I engineering problem. We' ve been sort of assured by our engineers that
water has serviced through private wells , a few homes out there in the
past and there should be plenty of water for a number of years more out in
that particular area. The lot sizes , as I said, I think we could
I configure it to make it 1 acre . We could actually increase some of them
to 2 1/2 acres but we think from strictly planning and aesthetic point of
view, we'd be distroying a lot of the things that the current property
has. As I said, we designed it so that the density is 3. 1 acres per unit.
I As I understand we ' re coming in under an adjustment in a PUD and the
purpose for a PUD is exactly this. How do you deal with something that
shouldn ' t be there probably in the first place and/or how do you deal with
I something where you ' re trying to preserve the beauty of the site without
exceeding the density? We felt that if we stayed under 2 1/2 acres per
lot, in other words more, that we'd at least be showing you an effort of
not trying to increase a high density and therefore we went with the cost
I of purchasing the balance of the property. The private versus public
road , as I said, Hesse Farm has a private road system. There we ' re
dealing with, and maybe Ginger or Chuck can speak to that private road
I system concept . What is your concern? I know what they are but you might
point them out.
I Emmings : Why don ' t you make your presentation and then I ' ll ask for
comments from the other people.
I Brad Johnson : Setbacks, I think most of the other kinds of things could
be met. I think the only, our concern from the land planning point of
view is that we realize that this does not meet standards currently
established by the City. We are here just to explain our case. The
I owner ' s got a problem and you may or may not want to address the problem
at the Planning Commission. We are looking for some feedback. We ' re more
than happy to come back again if you have some ideas of things that we
I should change or concerns and make some modifications to our current ideas
but we will persist I guess is what I 'm saying . We think we have a legal
right to proceed based upon the PUD and that ' s kind of the comment I ' ve
IL been given by the guy who ' s basically knows about it. That ' s my comments.
Emmings : Just a couple of questions . You know our regulations . When you
say this one doesn ' t meet our standards , that ' s really an understatement.
I It doesn ' t meet any of them. It doesn ' t come close and I understand that
you' re here, making a proposal on behalf of the client and you've come up
I - ..._ ... . ,_ ,A
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 15, 1988 - Page 6
with a plan . That ' s fine , we ' ll take a look at it but I 'm sure you' re
also aware that when we looked at this before, there were some, in ' 85
when we looked at this and we made it a PUD, it was done at that time,
very different things were said to us than are being said now. One of
them was we want to maintain the character of this piece of property as a I
farm and now it looks to me like a lot of buildings. Now it looks to me
like it' s going to look like a residential subdivision . I guess I 'm
wondering, that bothers me because I 'm wondering if that was part of a
plan. Was I getting the straight shot then? Am I getting a straight shot II
now? I wonder about that. It 's probably something you can ' t answer. You
didn' t represent them before.
Brad Johnson : He was planning on living on the property. It just didn' t
come about.
Emmings : The other thing is, both at the City Council and at the Planning II
Commission we' re very concerned that there not be any increased density.
We were talking about the land area that was there within the PUD at the II time and all that' s getting shuffled around. Is there any reason to think
this isn' t subject to our subdivision ordinance? Do you agree that it is
subject to our subdivision ordinance as well as the PUD?
Brad Johnson : I guess if you looked at, I 'm not a lawyer okay. I do know
that you can take cases like this a long ways and normally the City would
lose because it ' s generally felt that they have this lost . I think it' s
one of those hardships that somebody has dealt with in the past and when
you have a grandfathered type of a situation. In other words, I wouldn ' t
come in here and say this is the thing to do. I was contacted by the .1
owner , who ' s a friend of mine, and he 'd been trying to market the property
for 2 years. I said , well Gary it looks like it isn' t working . Let ' s try
to figure out what the problem is . I met with all the neighbors . Done
the history of the thing and my bottom line is , from my experience in
rental property, that this place will tend to degenerate forever until the
MUSA line is extended and you put 60 lots in there or 30 or 40 or 50.
It' s just a problem. Even if you bought this building for nothing , it
would still cost you more than you could rent it for .
Emmings : The sixplex?
Brad Johnson : Yes . It ' s just a
j problem. It ' s a very nice duplex
interestingly enough.
Emmings : The sixplex?
Brad Johnson : The sixplex is really a nice duplex but they' ve modified it I
over the years. It used to be a barn years ago.
Emmings : So it' s at his highest and best use?
Brad Johnson: Yes. It's been moved . If you look at this , it ' s very
creative. I found out that the duplex that ' s way out in the back of the
property was a chicken coop so this thing has gone on and on and on and
the neighbors , you could think what kind of credibility I had when I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 7
Ic
I proposed to them that we change this again . So Ginger said, you ' ve got to
be honest. Now Ginger I 've been talking to you, because we tried to
figure out. What you see here is something that , not what we want but is
what they would probably accept.
IEmmings : Yes , you' re having the same problem here.
I Brad Johnson: I think Gary in good faith was trying to figure out what to
do himself. I said Gary you' ve got to accomplish something . It may not
have been the right thing certainly at that time. Now the 21 acres we
purchased back was part of the farm but even when they subdivided this
Iwhole thing out for many different reasons they did it incorrectly. Gary
could have come in here , not a very months ago , a year ago , and come in
for a 2 1/2 acre subdivision on this property after acquiring this and
I probably making it work. Today we' re just stuck with the current
ordinance. I told him, I don' t see for 12 years you ' re going to see sewer
and water on that street. I don ' t know what to do and so we thought that
I we'd try to create a real posh community out there. Now we got stopped a
little bit, not by all the neighbors , by some of the neighbors , that this
doesn ' t come off the way we thought it should. We have to deal with
existing houses . We offered for example to buy this back and try to
I straighten it out a little bit. They' re just there. We did acquire this .
One of the covenants of the transaction is that this will never be
subdivided. It will always be an outlot. Interestingly enough, as we
I moved along and started talking this way, we found people, we ' ve got a
person in the crowd tonight that ' s willing to move in along with one of
his friends and families and they will actually move in here and start
II work on this project July 1st. To live there which we've been looking for
a long time for somebody who wants to live there other than Gary' s family.
Emmings : You said something just now that I want to follow up on. You
I said that one of the covenants on your option to purchase , if you do
purchase the 21 acres, one of the covenants will be that you can' t
subdivide that 21 acres .
IBrad Johnson: This parcel here.
I Emmings : But those lots go into that parcel now don' t they?
Brad Johnson: No, I said the outlot that would remain.
IEmmings : Okay, the new outlot?
Brad Johnson: Yes . I think one of the reasons the Gross ' , again I 'm
I speaking for them, I don ' t mean to do that, but one of the reasons they' re
interested in this is that we perceive the , and again we don ' t want to be
stuffy but the average valuation of a home in here will be $300, 000. 00 to
IL $600,000. 00. Currently the tax base in there is $400, 000. 00. We think we
can increase the tax base. Secondly, the scale of houses that we'd have
to build in here would then be the size of the Gross ' or the size of the
monster duplex in the back which until , quite honestly, 7 months ago I
thought was a big single family house . I thought that was the main house
but the main house has always been the Gross ' house. That's where the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 8
I
Johnson' s used to live in the front . So we ' re just trying to deal with I
it. I 'm not saying this meets , I 'm sure Barb just enjoyed seeing me walk
in the door and saying I ' ve got a problem but on the other hand this is an
opportunity. That ' s where we are. We've got a couple of other ones like
this in town too we ' re working on and this is a classic problem. The PUD 11
is a solution and it'd be a real easy solution if there was sewer and
water there but there isn' t .
Emmings : Would the gatehouse, the Gross ' and the duplex have access to
the beachlot?
Brad Johnson : I think actually by the way it was set up, they do not.
There' s a deed that transferred this property and within that deed it said
Ches Mar Farm, which at that time was this piece of property, shall always
have access to the lake. So technically they may or may not.
Emmings : I specifically asked when this was here before, whether or not ,
Ches Mar Farms, what we were dividing into a PUD, into 4 lots , whether
they had access to the lake and I was told they did not . Is that wrong?
Brad Johnson: There' s an easement that runs from this point to here.
Under the original transfer . The property itself was not owned by Gary.
There was just an easement that ran from this lot over to here. Now he
may not even have known that but that ' s what we found out later . Nobody
has ever exercised the use of that easement. Now wasn ' t there always a
concern by Margaret or somebody, I hate to ask but they have the answer .
That' s the idea .
Emmings : This is a public hearing , is there anybody else who wishes to
speak on this proposal?
Ginger Gross : I 'm Ginger Gross and we 've been on the farm for about 15
years and we are thankful to see something proceeding at this point. Mr .
Johnson is right , there has been a good deal of deterioration and it does
not appear it' s going to get any better . We' re not 100% sold on the
proposal as I 'm sure yourselves are not . There are some questions that we
have and some other avenues we 'd like explored. What we would like to
know is if they have been explored . As things stand , it is most
unacceptable. We've had deterioration that has been almost life
threatening in many regards out there at the farm so something does have
to be done. If Mr . Johnson ' s plan does not go through, I think if you
move to put Mr . Kirt in some regard . I
Emmings : What are your concerns about this specific proposal?
Ginger Gross : We would like to see the area remain as rural as possible . '
Obviously if we had preference, if it was my property to develop, I 'd
still like to see horses . I 'd still like to see wildlife . The current
residents there would like to see people who appreciate the outdoors and
take part in it. That' s the concept of the farm. In regards to Mr .
Johnson' s proposal , again I do appreciate what he ' s trying to do. I would
like to see something a bit more natural . Some of the houses maybe
snuggled within some of the contours of land, if that' s possible. I don' t II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 9
Ili:
II know how realistic it is , I 'd like to see 2 or 3 parties there as opposed
to as many as he ' s proposing . We really don ' t want to see a public road
going through. We feel that it would be most inappropriate to the entire
II area. I think then you would probably have a lot of people approaching
you and wanting to develop there if we had a 50 foot road. Now it' s a
quaint private road and it does not stand out. There is some
consideration that we might have a privacy gate or security gate at the
I entrance. I think should Mr . Johnson do the development, I think he would
do it in good taste . I don ' t know, I 've not seen his work but if that ' s
what his plan is. Mr. Johnson is trying to work with all of us and we
appreciate that . He' s trying to observe the things that are important to
I us. I don' t know how much you can preserve the existing character. A lot
of the existing character does not need to be preserved . We would like
the feeling that it still is a rural area. He ' s right, if we wait 10 or
I 12 or 14 years , whoever sells off the property will not have appropriate
use of the property either . Anyone who would come onto the farm, want to
buy those properties at this point, probably would also let them continue
I to deteriorate. A lot of people who think that they could have a lot of
house for little money. I don ' t think it would lend anything to the area
at all . Again, I don ' t know if it ' s been properly marketed . Previously I
I know Mr . Kirt had marketed it through his own realty company and Mr .
Johnson through his. I did some research, I went to Waconia and Victoria
and I understand that the kinds of things that we assume they were trying
to develop on the farm, those things are happening in the Victoria and
Waconia area . I don ' t know if Mr . Kirt or Mr . Johnson spent any time in
those areas or with people who , most people think you have to go further
out than we are to have that kind of acreage and the comments that I had
Iout there is that what we thought should be done on the farm is being done out there all the time.
Emmings : And that is what specifically?
IGinger Gross : People looking for 10 acres or 20 acres . 2 or 3 people.
Not necessarily revitalizing the area . A lot of those people want to
I build private homes that are going out there. If that ' s what it takes , it
would be nice for something like that to take place. I don ' t know how far
Mr . Johnson or Mr . Kirt are willing to go or can go in marketing property
to say, horse people or animal people or outdoors people. I don ' t know
Ihow much control they have over that but they have indicated that they
would work with us as much as they could. Obviously there' s some economic
factors and there are a lot of considerations that are coming into play
I that that may not take place . That does concern us . We don' t want
plastic people in plastic houses . The public road would be a problem. We
share a well with the family at the gate and the road separates the two of
I us. Our well is on their property. They have easements , Mr . Kirt ' s
property has, Mr. Kirt the owner , their property has easement for the
road , I think that ' s the appropriate term. If you were to widen the road,
IL, it would take it up to the front door of the little cottage that has our
well and the well is right under that proposed roadbed area so you do have
a problem there. We could work with Mr . Johnson on some of our property
but we really don ' t want to give up a good deal of our project . Mrs .
I Johnson, the original owner , again I don ' t know the technicalities, she
laid her plan out accordingly. Her attorney laid it out so that she would
Planning Commission Meeting II g
June 15, 1988 - Page 10
not ever have more road coming into her yard . She sold the property to II Naegele's who were bringing new developing but she sold the property that
she sold to them with the understanding that her property would always
remain her property.
Emmings : So in other words, if they widened the entry road , none of the
additional land would come out of your parcel?
Ginger Gross : That' s right . Obviously a lot of things have taken place
down through the years. That little gatehouse burned down at one time. I
think if people had really been on top of it , the little house would have II
been rebuilt because that did not allow them the appropriate roadbed that
they needed . . .but apparently they needed a roadbed . That' s the only place
it could come from is where that house is . Mr. Kirt and Mr . Johnson have
some definite problems that they have to overcome there that are going to
have to be dealt with at some time. We like some of their proposals .
They' re trying to work with us as best they can but we are concerned about
the private road. We would like to see it that way. Obviously for the
next 10 or 12 years , if it remain private that it remain as it is but it
would also remain as it is for the. . .
Terry Jones : I was asked to come here this evening to address you all
because I 'm the person who is , also like Mrs . Gross , moving onto the
property. I 'm with Southridge Development Incorporation.
Emmings : Where are you moving onto the property?
Terry Jones : Into the double home which is now a sixplex . We' re also the -'
proposal, depending upon the outcome of this entire proposal , to purchase
and develop the rest of the project. My partner couldn' t be here tonight,
David Kenneth is also personally going to live on the property and my
cowboy boots show that we like horses also . The property is a very
tranquil setting. That ' s what attracted us in the first place. Speaking
for myself and my company, which becomes very personal , we also would not
like to see a plastic type of development but rather a development which
would lend itself to homes positioned just right in the right places so
that it preserves the beauty of the property. These are things that have
to be dealt with down the road and I was just here tonight to introduce
myself and say that depending upon the outcome of this entire property, we II
do have someone who ' s willing to throw in the necessary money to make sure
that these things happen .
Emmings : Do you feel this plan meets your desire to have things laid out II
in the best possible way for the property?
Terry Jones : Basically yes . With the time that I 've had to spend with
the property, I think it does. I 'm moving onto the property at the first
of the month where I can deal with that more on a hands on basis .
Brad Johnson: As a part of our proposal Mr . Kenneth, when we first met
they had a number of objections to the current status of the property. As
as far as Terry and his family and Dave Kenneth and his family moving onto
the property, Mr . Kirt has agreed to fund basically the exterior of
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 11
II C
refurbishing the sixplex and the clean-up of the yards which is something
I he just didn ' t feel comfortable doing. He' s done it once before and now
we ' re doing it again 3 years later . So he feels comfortable he can
I attract a good tennant, worse case, potentially with development, best
case, if we can get it done. Fix it up. Fix it up and it falls apart.
Somehow we've got to stop that and we think the concept is simply to
transfer , what we call a debt of the sixplex into the land and sell the
I land out so the whole cost of the project is taken care of in that way.
We just can ' t reclaim anything from the sixplex . Planning Commission ' s
historically aren' t concerned about that. The problem is we've just got a
I problem we ' re trying to solve and that' s an economic problem. I think
Terry came after they started the process . He ' s the type of guy I was
sure I was going to be able to attract to this project . It will work. It
will be a very nice place. I thought about moving up there myself. If he
I doesn ' t, I am. I hope he does because I 'm comfortable where I 'm at but
we ' re going to get this done and that 's where this whole thing originated .
IBatzli moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
I Wildermuth : Brad , what is on the outlot A? You ' ve got 3 things there.
There' s a green box. A circle.
IrBrad Johnson : Somebody said preserve the character of the farm and keep
the barns and stuff like that. We ' re leaving some on there. Some are
falling apart so this is a barn that we' re going to move. I think we can
buy the one that' s over on Westin. What ' s the subdivision just over this
I way? What ' s the name of the one on Minnewashta that was just completed?
Olsen: Pemtom?
IBrad Johnson : Pemtom has a little barn that ' s for sale so we thought
could bring in a barn. There' s a stable. These are just images for a
Ihorse corral that we could add back.
Wildermuth: But there ' s nothing there now?
IBrad Johnson : No . It ' s interesting , if you look at that photo . I always
thought, if you ever go in there and it looks like there ' s a bridge where
water used to go under . Look at the photo . It ' s the bridge where the
I horses used to go back and forth across the road so that ' s the way that
whole thing was set up. I always through there must have been a huge
gushing of water continuously. In real life , this whole thing was just a
Ibig farm years ago.
Wildermuth : Outlot A, just outline the part that will never be . . .
IL Brad Johnson: And we did it, if you saw, somewhere I ' ve got some other
plans but originally we were just going to even shorten the length of
these lots and make it a little bigger but it got to be too much of a
I variance . This would work nicely with 1/2 acre sites but we felt that was
a little bit too much for the farm.
I
Planning Commission Meeting II 9
June 15, 1988 - Page 12
Wildermuth : I guess I 'm inclined to agree with the staff' s analysis of
it. It no way meets our rural subdivision. It appears something has been
attempted with the sixplex . It ' s in a pretty sad state of repair and the
house that was moved onto the site really with those two structures on the
site , even if something like this were to be acceptable, I don' t see how
you could attract $100, 000.00 into an area like that. I guess other
conditions that would be required or a bending of the rules , bending of
our ordinance structure, would be that there would be a central watering
system and a central sewage system for this PUD. I 'm surprised that the
PUD was . . . That' s all I have . '
Batzli : I guess I 'd be interested in hearing what the Public Safety
Director has to say about putting up structures such as this . If they' re
going to have individual wells , obviously to bring your own water but then
again the buildings that they've got now are supposedly hooked up to , not
the mansion . . . I think something needs to be done about the site . I
think it' s a beautiful old farm and I kind of got nostalgic wandering
around it when I went out there but I don ' t know that the economic
hardship of developing in a different way, if that' s the criteria for why
this plan in particular was presented, is enough to convince me that this
is the best plan for that area.
Conrad : I have just a few comments . I think something should be done . I
like the concept of this a whole bunch. If I could design Chanhassen 10
years ago and no doubt at 15, this type of development would have been ,
still is , real attractive. I have a problem of the ordinances that are
quite sound . I 'm not even getting into the design in terms of some of the
details of soil conditions and septic things . I 'm hung up on our
ordinance in which it talks about 1 unit per 10 and 2 1/2 acre minimums in
the rural area and I just don ' t know how to justify changing those
standards to other rural people that might want to do the same thing. I
wouldn ' t know how to defend any action if we took a look at this and tried
to massage our standards a little bit. I don ' t know on what grounds
somebody. . . tell me how to do it . I thought about it and I can ' t figure
out how to do it. I can ' t tell Brad, Brad ' s in here for a concept and I
thought about what I would tell him to go away with and come back with and
I don' t know what I would do. I honestly don' t know what would work
within our ordinance so we wouldn' t have to drastically change it . I
guess I 'm kind of at a loss . I go back to some concepts, however , that I
think something should be done. I 'm empathetic to the situation and I do
like the overall concept but I don' t have a clue as to how to get it done . 11
Ellson : I don ' t really like it . I think the PUD was , you could say the
City and the Planning Commission and the City Council bending to try and
accomodate somebody who , at that point had economic hardship also . He
wanted the PUD so that he could eventually separate the parcels which he
has been able to do in a couple of the cases . I think we went above and
beyond just granting the PUD to help him out and I think he' s stretching
it and trying to get a little bit more. I 'm not sure that I can go along
with being that much more accomodating because that really is a lot of
increased density. The area is gorgeous but I wouldn ' t want to see having II
any units in there. I 'm not opposed to looking at other plans and things
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 13
1C
' like that but I think it doesn' t conform so drastically and I think trying
to slip under , well now that this is a PUD we ' re trying other things is
kind of taking advantage of the good nature that they gave you the PUD in
the first place which was for the original plan and not this one. I don' t
' really think this is called a PUD anymore because now they' ve changed it
so it ' s not the existing conditions when we called it a PUD. I don' t know
what ' s been used to what will hold it in court . Now that it ' s a PUD we' re
' going to go for different things so I 'm against it. I 'm not against
something about the area but I 'm against this exact one .
Emmings : I made the motion when we turned this thing into a
' PUD, I noticed in our old Minutes so some ways I feel like I 've got to
justify that. It made sense at the time based on what we were told by the
applicant that he couldn' t sell the individual . It was all one parcel and
' he couldn' t sell the whole parcel , he needed to break it up. To be able
to sell it, he wanted to maintain the farm and rural character of the
property and that sounded very nice and we' re concerned about him wanting
' them to subdivide the four parcels we let him have at that time so we put
in a specific condition that we' re not going to have any greater density
here. We ' re not going to let you subdivide this down . Now they' ve come
back and basically it looks to me an attempt to backdoor or shoehorn in
' what is basically an urban subdivision into a rural area and I think it' s
totally inappropriate. I did drive through the property tonight. The
Gross ' property is very beautiful and the rest of it is in a sad
' condition. I sure can ' t approve of a plan that looks like this. Our
PUD Ordinance says it has to be coordinated with the subdivision ordinance
and it has to be coordinated with the provisions of the, what is all
around it there? Is it A-2 or RR?
Olsen: RR.
' Emmings : In either case , they both require the 2 1/2 acre lots and we ' ve
got the 1 in 10 problem. I 'm real uncomfortable allowing somebody to
count as acreage in their density a long hallway of land that really could
never be built on. That doesn ' t make any sense to me at all . I think
that ' s very inappropriate .
Conrad: So what would we like to see done here?
Emmings : When we have an outlot like this , this Outlot A, do we typically
pi cally
count those in computing density?
' Olsen : We usually do the net and the gross density and the net density is
just the lot areas and it doesn ' t include the outlots or park areas and
' street areas . Typically we have used net in the past. Although in the
Comp Plan the densities are determined by gross densities .
IFConrad: Jo Ann, under our ordinance, what could be done to . . .
Olsen : Under our ordinance, again we'd have to meet the 1 in 10 density.
' Conrad : And there' s 28 acres?
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
June 15, 1988 - Page 14
C
Olsen : Yes , so you get two units . 1
Conrad : 28 acres , help me figure that out .
Olsen: Two units .
Conrad : So they would get 2 units? ,
Olsen : Right . If Met Council is willing to forego that l. unit/10 acres, the
would still have, to have a minimum of 2 1/2 acres per lot. The reason
that we have the common mound system on Dogwood was because the system
failed and the City had to put that in. Never have we permitted that
common mound system' simply because of the lots created would not support
the septic system. '
Wildermuth: What about a central water system and a central sewage
system?
Olsen : I don ' t have an answer to well system. I don' t know whether we
have done that. We may have done that for the Lakeview Apartments. It' s II
not determined that each of those lots couldn ' t support a well .
Wildermuth: In reading Mr. Whitehill ' s letter and he seems to be very
concerned about that .
Olsen: About limiting his water? Yes . _'
Wildermuth : His concern has impact upon everybody.
Olsen: I asked our engineer if that would impact other wells and he
did not know.
Emmings: I 'd also like, I noticed in the Council ' s Minutes from January
21, 1985 that Councilman Horn , at the time this PUD was before us said
that in this case we' re dealing with pre-existing conditions . We really
don ' t have a choice because this stuff was put up before our Zoning
Ordinance was there. We can be comfortable with this because of that but
if we were creating something from scratch, that ' s one thing but this
already exists and I think now they' re going back and creating something
from scratch . I think they' re going over that limit and I don' t see any
way that we can support this kind of concept at all . As far as what ought
to be there, I don ' t know but that ' s not my problem. I don ' t own the
property and I think we' re being asked to do this to make this marketable II
and by god I don' t think that ' s the City ' s role at all . I don' t think we
help developers make a bad investment good . If it doesn' t meet the
ordinance , it doesn ' t meet the ordinance and I 'm sorry. I wish I had a
great idea to make the property look nice and I guess you need somebody.
If a horse farm isn ' t viable economically, and I see them being built out
in the Waconia area, as the Gross ' were eluding to. They just put up
another big one up on the way to Waconia . They two out there now just II recently. I don' t know, maybe land cost is too high in here to do that, I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 15
i (7
' don ' t know but if they can do something like that , that would be
wonderful .
Conrad : One of the neat things about a concept plan is where we can give
the developer some input. That ' s the point of a concept.
Emmings : You know why I think we can ' t on this one? Because this one is
' so far off that it doesn' t advance anything. Lots of times when you come
in with concept plans we say, yes change this a little bit . Shove this
over here a little bit but this is more like okay, if we can' t do this ,
' what can we do? This is so far off it doesn ' t just need a little
massaging, it' s got to go back to the drawing board and start all over and
I think that' s why we' re having trouble coming up with ideas . That ' s my
impression.
' Conrad : I don ' t know how to change it but I think it ' s just smart for Mr .
Johnson to take it to City Council . He ' s obviously dealing with some
economics that we are not inclined to deal with.
Wildermuth: The addition of the tax role I think is very attractive.
There ' s no question about that but when the PUD was granted it was to
' provide parcels that could be sold individually, I think the easy parcels
were sold individually. The sixplex is a mess . The house that was moved
r onto the property is probably a good candidate for practice for the Fire
I Department . I don ' t think you could probably put $250 , 000. 00 in that
thing before you could get it to look like some of the other homes that
you might anticipate building . You 'd probably have to put $250, 000. 00
into that Herman House.
Brad Johnson : $150, 000. 00 to $200, 000. 00. The valuation that ' s the
$400, 000. 00 to $500, 000. 00. It ' s a very historic house. The real trick
there is the lot . The lot ' s worth , just sitting there by itself. . .
Wildermuth: The lot is a nice lot . It ' s a nice size.
' Brad Johnson : We ' re basically selling that particular thing , we ' ve been
able to sell that as either a group home or individuals like myself that
are interested in purchasing . A group home is permitted in this whole
' area and that is probably another alternative to the whole situation. In
both cases , people who wanted to buy the Herman House looked to the
sixplex and they wouldn' t buy the Herman House if there was a sixplex . We
get a call a week on the Herman House and the price is a buck for the
house and $125, 000. 00 for the land , that kind of thing. People are very
attracted to that house . I think there were one of our salesmen already,
' had they be able to appropriately pass the sixplex and that ' s why I 'm
here . You guys want to know why I 'm doing this is because I was going to
buy the Herman House and we finally figured it all out and when we got
done with it, like you said , we 'd have $150, 000. 00 into it or $200, 000. 00
' but until the sixplex question was taken care of and you look at the
economics of the whole deal and it just doesn ' t work. You' re right , it ' s
an economic problem which Planning Commissions aren ' t supposed to deal
' with. I 'm here realizing that . We deal with those every day in the
downtown area . I do know that people ' s cities take care of it. Otherwise
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 15, 1988 - Page 16
II
they end up with a downtown like Chanhassen has . Sooner or later the I
problem will come up and it will be taken care of more from the Council ' s
side . I ' ve listened to the neighbors . I ' ve listened to you guys . You ' re
telling me what I thought I 'd hear . It'd be interesting to figure out a
solution and I 'm not asking for a solution per se . What you see there is 11
what we came up with as I understand a PUD. That' s my business and my
business is understanding that kind of stuff . Now I understand that in -
the PUD ordinance that we have to have out there, you have all the I
flexibility in the world . In theory. That ' s why it' s there. PUD' s are
there. You've got an apartment building we approved over here not too far
away that ' s got 23 units per acre. The minimum in town is 12 . Why is it II
there? It's there because of the great need .
Emmings : Brad but you ' re aware too that our PUD ordinance says that a PUD
may include only those uses consistent with the general land use category I
for the area on the Comprehensive Plan and also that subdivision review
under Chapter 18 has to be carried out simultaneously with the review of a
PUD so it also comes under all the subdivision ordinances .
II
Brad Johnson: Without a doubt and the last thing you want to do is change
the ordinance.
Emmings : I ' ve got pages of questions here. If I thought this plan was II
close to being approved, there are buildings on lot lines in this and I
f don ' t know if those buildings, if you ' re planning to tear them down.
There 's a garage right behind the Herman House. I don' t know, maybe II
you' re planning to tear them down but I ' ve got a lot of little questions
like that.
I
Brad Johnson : In this kind of thing , the only thing that would be left
would be part of the sixplex and that would be all .
Emmings : And why is the sixplex on two lots? II
Brad Johnson: We' re going to divide it. It 's truly a good duplex. You
II
run it right down the middle and go in and it ' s a very nice place .
Seriously. It was built. . .
Emmings : And is Lotus Realty, now you ' ve got a sign out on the road . Have II
you listed this property? Is that what ' s going on?
Brad Johnson : Six months ago he asked me what I should do and we left it I
on the market for a while and I said this isn ' t going to work.
Emmings : And our mayor is still working with Lotus Realty? I
Brad Johnson: No .
Emmings : He ' s not? What is he doing now? I
\- Brad Johnson: He works for Realty World . He has for about 8 months .
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
ng
June 15, 1988 - Page 17
11(7
' Emmings : I didn' t know that . Alright , anybody else have any more
comments?
Brad Johnson: Should I take it on? My real question is , should I bring
it back or should we go on to the City Council?
Emmings : We' ll ask for a motion here to get you out of here.
Ellson: I move the Planning Commission deny approval of a subdivision of
11 acres into 9 single family lots and a double lot on property zoned
' PUD-R on TH 41, Ches Mar Farms. Does that make sense?
Conrad : Do we need a motion on the concept?
' Olsen: You' re really not acting on the subdivision itself.
Emmings : Okay, so we' re just going to pass our comments up?
Conrad: Brad ' s got our comments . Brad can run with them and do whatever
he wants . Council gets the Minutes and Brad know more than he did when he
came in here.
Emmings : I 'd like to ask staff one other thing that didn ' t seem to come
up and that is, this is a private drive. Don' t we have limits on the
number of houses that can be on private drives?
Olsen: Yes. It would have to be improved to a public street. The
' question is whether it would be rural or an urban street . 50 foot or 60
foot right-of-way.
Emmings : And how are we going to deal with that gatehouse problem that
Mrs. Gross brought up if that has to be improved to a public street?
Brad , how do you plan to deal with that?
' Brad Johnson: The request that we have was that we needed , one of the
reasons that we bought the neighbors property to the south is we have the
ability without having to deal with that entrance.
Emmings : So to go around the Gross property?
Brad Johnson: If that was the requirement and if the neighbors were
' against it, that ' s what we' d do .
Wildermuth : How would the Gross ' feel about having a road on four sides
' of their property?
Brad Johnson : I wouldn ' t feel very good about that . That ' s just the way
it is. When I took it out as a road and left it as the outlot for public
utilities but . . .
�- Batzli : Can you see down TH 41 at all if you move the street further to
' the south like you ' re proposing? The sight line is bad already when
you' re coming out of that street looking to the right down TH 41.
1
Planning Commission Meetin g
June 15, 1988 - Page 18
Brad Johnson : In talking to the engineers , the corner potentially is just '
a bad corner in the first place. When that corner was there, there was no
TH 41 . The old Ches Mar Road used to go down the hill there so it ' s just
another problem but it 's got to be corrected over time.
Emmings : Would they be allowed an access that close to the other road
coming out on TH 41? '
Olsen : You mean the outlot?
Emmings: Yes . '
Olsen : No . One of them would have to be closed . That' s what the
engineer was saying. They are providing the 50 foot right-of-way with all I
those outlots .
Emmings : So if they got that , then the people who live in the gatehouse
would have to come in on the road on the south side of the Gross ' and go
back around . All around the Gross property and back to their house?
Olsen: That' s something that we still have to work on. '
':_ad Johnson : That' s what they want to do . That ' s what they would like
to do. '
Batzli. : That would avoid all the traffic by their house everyday.
Brad Johnson : That makes the problem bearable. What you see there, when
you go through this process is consensus building an agreement . . . I have
certain economics working against me.
Batzli : Your concept is probably great . It ' s just it ' s in the wrong
location.
Brad Johnson: It' s there already you see and the question is , and it ' s
not a Planning Commission thing , we' ll get out of here, should the City
continue to allow the deterioration of this property? They say well , the II
common thing is we' ll let the landlord improve it. What ultimately
happens in these kinds of properties when you go into an urban renewal
district and tax increment financing, they' re improved and that' s the
classic with the hotel downtown . Any of those that go into this kind of a I
cycle. Until the uses change.
Emmings : It ' s difficult for me to understand how this owner had so little
foresight two years ago when he came in to ask what to do what he did then
that it got to this condition today.
Wildermuth: When I went out there, it' s pretty unimpressive. There ' s
trash . There are old appliances . Old furniture.
Brad Johnson: And you know who puts that there is the tenants . That ' s
where the problem is. It' s not the landlord that does that. It ' s the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 19
I
' tenants .
Wildermuth : I 'm surprised he didn' t haul it off .
' Brad Johnson: It is being hauled away this week. As I said, it ' s part of
a general clean-up that ' s under process . If it were cleaned up, we' ll
figure out a solution but the solution, until there is that kind of
' property. . . I wouldn ' t believe it had I not gone back and guys like Bob
Naegele owned it and a guy by the name of. . . Both of those were of
considerable net worth at the time and the place just kept going nowhere.
' Emmings : So this just goes onto the City Council and we don' t have to
take any action?
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-813 TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT,
' INSTANT WEB, INC. .
Publzc Present :
Richard Warren
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Emmings g called the public hearing to order .
Dick Warren : I 'm Dick Warren with the Instant Webb
Company. I wrote the
letter that is included in the packet . I told Barb that I would bring
' along a copy of the revised 4 , 300 foot structure plan to give you a sense
of what that would look like. It ' s the same concept. The fundamental
issue is we ' re dealing with so many ratios , space ratios , it ' s a little
bit like designing a . . .and we just couldn ' t get the job done in the
structure design. I 'm available for any questions that you have otherwise
I don ' t have any further comment .
Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All
g voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
' Ellson : I love it. I love the idea . I think it ' s great . I think you ' re
idea is great. You can hire me any time because I 'd love to have an
' office that had a daycare . I think it ' s wonderful .
Conrad: No comments. I think it ' s a good idea .
IL Batzli : I had a comment and I realized probably how silly it is now that
I reread the definition of an accessory use and my question was going to
be why don ' t we make it a conditional use but it ' s a permitted accessory
' use so 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other, I guess, and since they' re
licensed , I don ' t have a problem with that .
1 - .
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mir Iiimr• l