Loading...
1985 04 24 MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ~ APRIL 24, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Members Present Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. Members Absent None PUBLIC HEARING Hidden valley Estates - S.E. Corner of Hwy. 5 & 101, New American Homes: a. Preliminary Plan Review PUD #85-1 for rezoning to P-l, Planned Residential District and the development of single family detached residences on 80 acres of property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence. e b. Land Use Plan Amendment #85-1 to change a High Density Residential land use designation to Commercial. c. Rezoning Request #85-1 for Outlots A & D from R-la, Agricultural Residence to C-2, General Commercial. Public Present John Turnacliff Chuck Skrober Steve Masterson Bill and Marie Weber Ken Groen John Dobson Dennis Loechler George and Diane Frey 8037 Erie Ave. 8210 Grandview Road 8031 Erie Ave. 8034 Erie Ave. 8108 Dakota Lane 8040 Erie Ave. 8028 Erie Ave. 8117 Er ie Circle Dacy explained that the Planning Commission tabled action on the Hidden valley Estates development until the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could be completed. She noted that the Commission also requested the applicant for more house designs and a more detailed landscaping plan. e Dacy stated that as required by the Environmental Quality Board, the applicant has submitted information regarding the proposed project and its impacts on existing and future land use, drainage patterns, utility availability, physical characteristics, traf- fic, pollution, and wildlife. She noted that it identifies the Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 2 e following major impacts and mitigative measures; the land use designation from Low and High Density Residential to Commercial; erosion control methods, sedementation ponding and other construction practices to address construction impacts; the wetland area <i.e. construction within 200 feet); and the surface water quality with the regrading of the site in preparation for development. She stated that the information presented in the EAW is adequate and staff is prepared to certify it for sub- mission to the Environmental Quality Board for the 30 day review period. She stated that the City Council can then act on the request on June 17, 1985 at the earliest. Dacy noted that the Park and Recreation Commission will recon- sider this item at the May 7, 1985 meeting and staff will present the alternatives requested by the Park Commission for park improvements in Hidden Valley. Dacy noted that staff's recommendation is the same as presented at the last meeting except for minor modifications in the grading plan as recommended by the City Engineer. e Mr. Jerry Martin showed photographs of more housing styles that would be built in the subdivision. He noted that for the landscaping they have placed a larger tree on the boulevard ver- sus individual landscaping. He stated that they will offer to the home buyer the option of doing the landscaping for them. He also stated that that the average lot is 70 feet wide and the average house is 50 feet, so most of houses would have at least 10 feet on either side. John Turnac1iff, President of Chanhassen Estates Homeowners Association, asked the Commissioners if they would take into con- sideration the basements and double car garages when making their recommendation. John Dobson asked Mr. Martin if the average size home was 50 feet if that was with a single or double car garage. Mr. Martin stated with a double car garage. John Dobson stated that he was concerned about the homes having no basements and would like to see them with two car garages. Chuck Skrober asked about the screening from the Grandview Road neighborhood. Rick Sathre noted that the elevations on Grandview are much higher and that he would be looking over the roof tops of the homes. e Chuck Skrober also stated that he is concerned about off-street parking and also wanted to know if his area would be required to hook-up to sewer because of the development. e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 3 Bill Monk stated that the City would be requiring a sanitary sewer easement be granted as part of this plat so that it can easily be extended in the future, but not at this time. Dennis Loechler wondered if the city of the developer would be putting in street lights. Bill Monk stated that there is a standard development contract that the city enters into on any privately installed or publicly installed improvements and one section states they will be required to install lights at all intersections and wherever deemed necessary throughout the subdivision. Dennis Loechler also stated that he was concerned about the lot sizes and would like to see double garages and also was concerned about the covenants for the area. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e J. Thompson stated that he would strongly recommend the developer to have two car garages and basements and that he would rather see commercial in Outlot B rather than high density residential. Albee stated that she does not see this development as a PUD. She felt there was not enough open space, did not like the set- backs, that the church site is not large enough and felt that with no basements and only one car garages for storage the area would become messy looking. Conrad stated that the density in this development is alot less than the first plan that was presented. He felt that the developer should offer and strongly recommends the option of two car garages and basements and that it was not up to the Planning Commission to require them. He also felt that the tot lot issue was the Park Recreation Commission's responsibility to make their recommendations to the Council. Noziska stated that he also felt the need for double garages and basements. He also felt uneasy about the church site and felt that this plan was alot less dense than the first plan. M. Thompson felt that there should be a condition for this PUD that there should be double car garages and basements. e Ryan wanted to see some requirement in phasing that says that the average lot size must be maintained consistently throughout the total development. He did not want to see part of the PUD started and then the homes would not sell and have the developer come in again asking for smaller lots. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 4 e Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommend approval of the Planned Residential Development Request #85-1 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #85-1 approval for 109 single family detached units and 4 outlots subject to the following conditions: e 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. e 13. 1. Rezoning of the property will be P-l south of Drive A and the remaining Out lots A and D be rezoned to a commercial designation subject to city approval and Metropolitan Council approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment. A zoning ordinance amendment should be processed to allow churches in the P-l District. 2. A 25 foot front setback on non-cul-de-sac lots, a 30 foot front setback on cul-de-sac lots and a minimum separation between buildings of 15 feet with side yard setbacks of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the remaining side. The appli- cant shall submit a "staking plan" for each building permit application showing not only the proposed lot for building proposed but also the setbacks to adjacent structures. 3. Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement along the south side of the existing utility easement. 4. Reservation of the area below the bluff as a no cut, no mow easement. 5. Recommendations in the City Engineer's memorandum dated April 5, 1985, including the piping and grading modifications on Lot 1, Block 4, Lot 3, Block 3, and Lots 33 and 34, Block 4. 6. Installation of a five foot berm on Lot 35, Block 4 and Lots 1-13, Block 1. The applicant shall also submit a detailed landscaping plan showing additional vegetation along the top of the berm. 7. Installation of one tree per lot as indicated on the proposed planting plan, and two trees per lot along the Chanhassen Estates border. The applicant shall also submit a detailed planting and berming plan for Outlot B. Filing of the proposed deed restrictions. Satisfactory completion of Environmental Quality Board rules. Basements required on the homes. Two car garages required on the homes. The average lot size be maintained throughout the phasing of the development. That proper consideration be taken for park land dedication. e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 5 Merz, Ryan, Noziska and M. Thompson voted in favor. J. Thompson, Albee and Conrad were opposed. Motion carried. J. Thompson and Conrad both felt that the consumer dictates the design of homes with or without two car garages and basements. They felt that it should be an option only and left up to the developer. Albee stated that she did not see this as a PUD, did not like the setbacks, felt the church lot was not adequate and felt with no basements and only one car garages the area would begin to look messy. Hidden Valley Land Use Plan Amendment # 85-1 to change a High Density Residential Land Use designation to Commercial Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to recommend approval of Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment Request #85-1 from low and high density residential to commercial, subject to Metropolitan Council approval. J. Thompon, Merz, Albee, Ryan, Conrad and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson abstained. The motion carried. Hidden Valley Rezoning Request #85-1 for Outlots A and D from R-la, Agricultural Residence to C-2, General Commercial. Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to recommend approval of Rezoning Request #85-1 for properties described as Outlots A and D on the proposed Hidden Valley Estates preliminary development plan from R-la, Agricultural Residence to C-2, General Commercial District. J. Thompson, Merz, Albee, Ryan, Conrad and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson abstained. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING e Subdivision Request #85-5 to replat Lots 1-6, Block 1, Park Two into one lot on property zoned P-3 and located in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Jerome Carlson, applicant. Public Present Julius Smith (Representing the applicant) e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 page 6 Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to replat Lots 1-6, Block 1, Park Two into Lot 1, Block 1, Park Two Second Addition. She stated that for marketing purposes, the applicant would prefer having one large lot versus six lots. Olsen stated that the lots were to be accessed off Park Circle which now exists as a paper street. She noted that access from the site would be controlled at the time of site plan review. She also stated that currently there are utility and drainage easemenst along each of the six lot lines, the perimeter, Park Circle cul-de-sac and along the western border. She stated that should the replat be approved, only the easements along the perimeter of Lot 1 and the easement along the western boundary would be necessary. She then explained that staff is recom- mending all existing easements and Park Circle be vacated and the necessary easements be included on the final plat. Julius Smith appeared on behalf of the applicant in case the Commissioners had questions. Noziska moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e M. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee, to recommend approval of Subdivision #85-5 with the following condition: 1. That the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements and Park Circle cul-de-sac (Lots 1-6, Block 1, Park Two) will be certified along with the recording of the final plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Park Two 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Subdivision Request #85-6 to replat Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 on property zoned P-4 and located at Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition, Opus Corporation, applicant. Public Present Bob worthington (Representing the applicant) Olsen explained that the applicant has found poor soil and slope conditions are not allowing lots in the northwest section of the business park to be marketed as platted, and therefore will be consolidating and replatting certain lots. e Olsen stated that currently Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are divided by a north-south lot line and the applicant is proposing an east- west line. She stated that the applicant feels this will provide e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 7 for a better lot layout with the buildings being built along the slope. She stated that Lots 4 and 5 as platted were to be accessed off the Park Court cul-de-sac and the proposed Lot 1 could still access onto Park Court. She stated that Lot 2 will access instead to the east on Park Drive. She stated that staff does not believe an additional access onto Park Drive will cause any traffic problems. She noted that the utilities for Lots 4 and 5 are located along Park Court and Lot 1 can still connect to the utilities but Lot 2 may have to connect to a service line off of Park Drive. She noted that staff sees no problem with this and it will be addressed at the time of site plan review. She also noted that the new lot layout will require a different grading and drainage plan which will be have to be submitted during the site plan review process. Bob Worthington was appeared on behalf of the applicant in case there were questions. Albee moved, seconded by Conrad, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Conrad moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend approval of subdivision #85-6. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Minnewashta Gate - Southwest Corner of Hwy. 41 and 7, Tomac Development Land Use Plan Amendment Request #85-2 to change Low Density Residential land use to Commercial. Public Present Gene and Linda Conner Dale Jones Ralph and Kay Hegman Allen and Sandra Putnam Carol Regan Ben Gowen Dick Braun Pat Huttner 2521 Orchard Lane Minnetonka 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6285 Chaska Road 6320 Forest Circle 6440 Hazeltine 2630 Orchard Lane 6340 Forest Circle Dacy stated that she would first like to discuss the Land Use Plan Amendment and the Rezoning request. e Dacy stated that the applicant is proposing Land Use Plan Amendment Request, a Rezoning Request and subdivision Request. She noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan on March 13, 1985. She noted that the Commission recommended e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 8 the applicant to meet with the surrounding property owners before the public hearing was held. She stated that the applicants con- ducted a meeting at City Hall on April 17, 1985 for the neighbors in the surrounding area. She noted that the primary concern of 20-25 people was the land use impacts and traffic concerns. She also noted that representatives from MnDOT were also at the meeting. She stated that as a result of that meeting the appli- cants redrafted the proposed traffic alignment and have forwarded it to MnDOT. Dacy stated that the applicant is requesting a change in land use designation from Residential Low Density to Commercial. She stated that the subject parcel is located at the intersection of an intermediate arterial and a minor arterial. She stated that commercial areas should be located at major intersections in unified centers providing traffic designs that separate commer- cial traffic from the neighboring residential area. e Dacy also noted that the applicant is proposing to rezone the area south and west of the proposed roadway to C-l, Office Building District and the area north and east to C-2, Commercial District. She noted that because the C-1 District permits limited office uses, it was felt that this would provide a better buffer between the residential neighborhood and the more intense uses permitted in the C-2 district. Dacy explained to the Commissioners that they had to find that the land use in that location is appropriate before you can recommend an action on the rezoning. Mr. Conner made a presentation basically stating that he and approximately 30 others felt the property should not be rezoned to commercial. He felt that the property should remain residen- tial because of the natural slope which creates a buffer from Highway 41. He felt that a convenience store could not make it with a grocery store right across the highway. Bill Swearingen stated that he bought the south corner of Highway 7 and 41 knowing that this would be a commercial piece. He stated that if duplexes were built no one would buy them because the noise level is unbearable. He stated that there is no question this corner is commercial. He felt that the area should be planned as a unit, not spot zoning. ? stated that he has started running and felt that the area is not that noisy in the morning. e Allen Putnam stated that he has a concern about the traffic design especially with the road coming out on 64th Street and Chaska Road directly across the highway. He felt that there would be a significant amount of traffic on Chaska Road and e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 9 because there are no sidewalks felt it would be a hazard. He felt that people would take the residential streets instead of going to the stop light. Hud Hollenbach asked if they could see the traffic solution before it was approved. He felt that safe traffic patterns would determine whether it is a peaceful commercial property. e Bill Monk stated that he looked at the plan both from a residen- tial and commercial standpoint. He stated that even if this was a residential subdivision, the intent is to see what can be done about upgrading this intersection on Highway 7. He stated that in discussing the issue with MnDOT, the Highway Department con- tinues to repeat that state monies are not available so improve- ments will have to be privately funded. He also stated that moving the intersectionto the east where there is additional street width would more readily accommodate a separate left turn lane at the end of the existing traffic island. He stated that another major issue is the separation of commercial and residen- tial traffic. He stated that by using the frontage road concept, the neighborhood could exercise all of the options of getting access to an from the highways yet remain separate from through traffic. He explained that MnDOT has controlled access on this highway and they will only allow one from this point to the intersection. He also stated that in trying to get the separa- tion of traffic, they have been looking at a cul-de-sac from T.H. 41 in this area but MnDOT probably would not approve a full intersection in between 64th street. Hud Hollenback stated that if the property was commercial he could see the need for hooking a left westbound off of Hwy. 7. He stated that if it was residential high density, he felt that they should enter and exit off of Hwy. 41 because they don't need that type of traffic. He stated that accident rate along Hwy. 7 was astronomical. He asked how far from Hwy. 41 to the left turn lane was? Bill Monk stated that it would be approximately 690 feet. Hud Hollenback felt that having the left hand turn lane was going to create additional problems. Gary Reed stated that there is water draining is this area and that should be considered. He felt that there should be townho- mes in this area bordering a park and that there was a need for townhouses in Chanhassen. Kay Hegman asked what the developer's experience was in the field. 4It Todd Thompson stated that this was his first project. e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 10 Betty Lang stated that she is not for this site being rezoned to commercial. She stated that they have heard about the wonderful buffer that is going in there to protect the homes. She wanted to know why they can't put the buffer out farther and build those new homes if it is going to be so great. John Schumacher stated that he is concerned about the control of the commercial area, making sure it is built as proposed. He also stated that he is concerned about the Cermak property which has a conditional use permit. He wanted to know what would stop them from trying to change their property to commercial. Bill Swearingen stated that they should take into consideration what Shorewood is going to be zoning across the highway. e Rick Sathre stated that he felt very strongly about commercial or higher density housing being at that intersection. He stated that from his experience in the business, commercial use is a better neighbor than an apartment kind of use because it is more of a daytime use than a nighttime use. He stated that how we buffer from the proposed development to the single family neigh- bors is critical. He stated that there is alot of down grade changes from the intersection to Oriole and 64th. He stated that they are looking at major changes because of the way the water flows and the grades. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. M. Thompson stated that he would like to look at the Comprehensive Land Use Map and see how we got to the uses in that area. He wanted to look at the area overall to make sure we are doing the right thing. He felt that this particular property should not be dealt with until we are willing to deal with the whole surrounding area. Ryan stated that at one time the property was classified as commercial. Mr. Reutiman stated that eighteen years ago he bought the northeast corner and put up a filling station. He stated that until recently it was zoned commercial. Noziska stated that he felt this was spot zoning. He stated that this issue has been brought up before. e Dacy stated that the original Land Use Plan Amendment request in 1983 for the 4.5 acre request in front of the Planning Commission was tabled so that you could look at other areas. It was recon- sidered a couple of weeks later and staff had looked at the e e e Planning Commisssion Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 11 Swearingen piece and two other pieces further west on Hwy. 7 for potential medium to high density development. She stated that the Swearingen piece at that time, had traffic concerns and access concerns as well as topographical concerns. Noziska asked staff if this was spot zoning? Dacy stated that she did not believe it was because of the loca- tion of the uses at a major intersection is appropriate if oppor- tunity exist for adequate traffic separation and adequate area for buffering and building. She felt that these types of advan- tages on this site do not exist across the street. Noziska also stated that he agrees that a commercial use would be a lot less intense than high density residential. Conrad stated that something will happen to the parcel and he hopes that something can be worked out with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that it probably will not be low density residential and it is a good intersection for higher density zoning. He stated that two years ago he felt it was spot zoning, but this is a larger parcel and felt it is not spot zoning. He felt that the Planning Commission zoned the property residential because they did not know how to handle the traffic situation at the time. He stated that he can't say it would be a good commer- cial site until he has a report from MnDOT on the traffic design. He stated that from a planning standpoint he is not convinced the property can be accessed properly and does not know whether the neighborhood is buffered properly. He stated that he feels com- fortable that the site can be commercial, especially to the east/ northeast. He felt that buffering the neighborhood with pro- fessional office use is not bad but felt that another way to buffer the residents from a "bad" commercial use would be a higher density residential like townhouses. He wants to wait to see what MnDOT has to say about the traffic situation. Merz stated that he disliked the idea of commercial in the resi- dential area because their rear access is facing the neigh- borhood. J. Thompson stated that he felt we had to look at the entire area. He felt it is more of a residential neighborhood. He urged everyone that has ever had a problem turning left on Highway 7 note it and call your legislator or MnDOT because they are only going to know that there is a traffic problem if everybody tells them that it is. He felt that until we get the traffic problem solved, we should not be considering anything in there because it only adds to the problem. Ryan felt that the site is adaptable commercial as long as we can address the traffic situation. He felt that unless we can show an adequate buffer he would recommend the whole parcel be zoned light commercial. e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 12 Albee moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment request #85-2 from Residential Low Density to Commercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council and approval of Rezoning request #85-2 for rezoning the southwesterly 1.9 acres to C-l, Office Building District and the northeasterly 4.5 acres as C-2, Commercial District as depicted in the preliminary plat. Albee and Noziska voted in favor., J. Thompson, Merz, Ryan, Conrad and M. Thompson were opposed. Motion failed. Conrad moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to table the Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning and preliminary Plat requests until the traffic situation is addressed by MnDOT and the submission of a buffering plan. Staff was also directed to study the adjacent parcels as to their present and future land use designation and zoning. J. Thompson, Merz, Ryan, Conrad and M. Thompson voted in favor. Albee and Noziska opposed. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS e Sketch Plan Review for Campus Business Development on 100 acres of property zoned P-l PRD and located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 5 and County Road 17, Eckankar, applicant. Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to develop a 100 acre international administrative campus with the 175 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and County Road 17. She stated that the applicant, Eckankar, is a religious organiza- tion currently located in California. e Olsen stated that currently the 175 acre site is zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development and according to the 1990 Land Use Plan, the site is split into three designations. She stated that the lower section of the site is commercial, the middle sec- tion campus business and the upper section is low density resi- dential. She stated that the applicant has a purchase agreement and will be subdividing it into three lots closely corresponding to the land use designations. She noted that Lot 1 will be the upper 25 acres, Lot 2 will be the central 100 acres, and Lot 3 will be the lower 50 acres. She noted that the applicant's pri- mary objective was the development of the campus business portion of the property and is proposing to rezone the 100 acre piece from P-l to P-3, Planned Community Development. She stated that the first phase of the campus development would consist of two buildings, an administrative building and a graphic arts or publishing building. She noted that the buildings would be e Ie e Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1985 Page 13 approximately 20,000 - 35,000 square feet and 15,000 - 35,000 square feet respectively. She noted that the applicant stated that future phases of the campus area may include additional office/administrative space, a small retreat and/or a small training center and until then the site would remain in its natural state. She noted that there will be two access points located at the north and south portions of the central campus site. She explained that since the proposed use is campus busi- ness and under single ownership, staff felt a private drive built to city standards was acceptable. She noted that staff felt the graphics art/publishing building should be located more to the west to maintain a campus business appearance from County Road 17. She also noted that the campus site as proposed reaches into the low density residential and commercial areas and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required and processed during the preliminary plat stage. She stated that at this time the applicant has no formal plans for the remaining 75 acres and it will remain zoned P-l until future development. Peter Beck stated that he is representing Eckankar and would respond to questions that the Commissioners might have. Ryan asked if they intended to develop the other two parcels or would they split them and sell to some other developer. Peter Beck stated that there was no intent to sell at this time and Eckankar has no plans for the two sites. The Commissioners felt that the plan was reasonable and met the objectives of the P-3 District and recommended the applicant apply for preliminary development plan review including the rezoning, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment, and also apply for site plan review with staff's recommendations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson to approve the April 10, 1985 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Merz abstained. J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m.