Loading...
PC Minutes 01-04-2011Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 15.A stable emergency overflow shall be provided from the easterly basin to the pond. 16.The applicant shall demonstrate how the filtration swales are to be vegetated. At a minimum, fescues and/or other deep-rooted grasses should be used to promote infiltration. 17.The new outlet elevations are shown to be 1046 feet. It appears that the ordinary high water level (OHW) is at 1045.4 and the normal water level (NWL) is at an unknown elevation but likely at or around 1043.5. The newly proposed outlet shall be set at the NWL. 18.The applicant or their consulting engineer shall develop an operations and maintenance manual for the infiltration/filtration features and that this includes some type of vegetative filter to provide pretreatment of the water entering the system. 19.The applicant shall provide a security in the amount of $4,000 to guarantee erosion control. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHES MAR REZONINGS AND PUD AMENDMENTS: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN CHES MAR TRAILS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUDR); REZONING OF ND PROPERTY WITHIN CHES MAR FARM 2 ADDITION FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUDR) TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR); AND AMENDING THE CHES MAR FARM AND CHES MAR TRAILS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2011- 02. Public Present: Name Address Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Tom Dyvig 7250 Hazeltine Boulevard Kairies: Yes Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The item before you nd tonight is the proposed rezoning of Ches Mar Farms, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition and Ches Mar Farm Trails. The properties are bordered by Minnewashta Regional Park to the north, Camp Tanadoona to the south, Highway 41 to the east and Lake Minnewashta to the west. On the side, the way, I just want to point out how each plat is broken up. The blue parcels are part of the Ches Mar Farm Addition. The green property is, which is kind of hard to differentiate, the nd property most to the west, or I’m sorry to the east is Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition, and then the properties in yellow are part of the Ches Mar Trails Addition. The reason for the request before you tonight is that staff noted that there was a mapping error and did some research and upon that research it was noted that there were some inconsistencies with the approved plats and that they’re inconsistent with the actual zoning map so the intentions were not consistent with one 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 another. The proposed rezonings before you tonight is to clarify the zoning and the uses within the planned unit development in each of the districts. Also to specify that the Rural Residential zoning district would be the underlying district and back in early 2010 I believe it was, we did this with all of the planned unit developments in the commercial district so that if there was an issue or something that the planned unit development was silent on, there was an underlying zoning district to go back to and those standards would then apply. And also to permit, excuse me private stables as an accessory use within this planned unit development rather than require a conditional use permit. And just as a note, here are the existing conditions and the layout of the acreage within the entire Ches Mar area. As you can see that the reason for the planned unit development is because the properties are less than 2 ½ acres. Some of them are. Some of them are larger. And they’ll include 3 outlots, one of which is a beachlot and has a conditional use permit for that beachlot. And again just to clarify, the properties that we’re rezoning, again the nd blue is the Ches Mar Farm Addition. The very light green is the Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition and the yellow is the Ches Mar Trails. I’m going to go ahead and give you a little background on how this all began. In April of 1986 the Ches Mar Farms plat was approved and it was approved for rezoning from R1A, which is Rural Residential to a Planned Unit Development. And the purpose of this was because there was a single 12 acre parcel with 4 principal structures and 4 accessory structures located on that parcel, and what happened was the parcel was subdivided so that each principal structure had it’s own lot and that brought that non-conform, or the non-conformity went away by doing that. Unfortunately there is no record of the rezoning of that property and that is one of the reasons we’re here today so that we have a record of that. In nd October of 1989 the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition was approved and it was approved as a Rural Residential zoning district, and the purpose of that was to subdivide 22.8 acres into 2 lots and again those lots met the Rural Residential standards. And in the striped, I hope you can see it, in July of 1991 the Ches Mar Trails Addition was approved and what that was a combination of the nd Ches Mar Farm PUD and the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition Rural Residential properties. There was also an amendment to the Ches Mar Farm PUD as a part of this and this created 4 single family lots and one beachlot, and again there is no record of the rezoning of these properties to Planned Unit Development. As stated in the staff report the intent is to eliminate the inconsistencies between the intent of the zoning and what the zoning map actually portrays. So Option A is to rezone Ches Mar Farm and Ches Mar Trails to Planned Unit Development as was nd intended originally, and to rezone, what do I have here? Rezone Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition to Rural Residential. Currently it’s shown as Planned Unit Development and the intent was to leave it as Rural Residential. Upon further research staff found another option that may be nd viable which would be to leave the Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition as a Planned Unit Development and incorporate it into the entire Planned Unit Development so that all of the Ches Mar area would be consistent. It would all have the same underlying zoning district of Rural Residential. It would all allow horses as a permitted accessory use and it still incorporates the smaller lots. None of the lot lines are going to change. Everything physically on the site will remain the nd same. So again that would be just leaving Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition as a Planned Unit Development. And here I just wanted to put up so you can see the differences. Unfortunately this is a little lighter but again in Option A would be to rezone everything to PUD except for, nd except for the 2 Addition which would be rezoned to Rural Residential. Or Option B, keep everything as Planned Unit Development and rezone those first two. So there are two recommendations before you tonight. The first again is Option A. Rezone Ches Mar Farms and nd Ches Mar Trails to Planned Unit Development and rezone Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition to Rural 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Residential and adoption of the Findings of Fact. Or Option B which would be to rezone Ches nd Mar Farm, Ches Mar Farm 2 Addition and Ches Mar Trails all to Planned Unit Development and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. At this time I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: I’m going to jump in and just make sure I’m clear on the point that the actual use of the properties, regardless of A or B will not be changed? Kairies: Correct. Aller: So there’s no impact to the actual residents or owners of the property by our rezoning at this point? Kairies: Correct. Aller: Okay. Aanenson: And maybe Angie didn’t give you this in the background but a letter went out ahead of time to the property owners informing them of this. Again the legal implications of the zoning map is our official tool and in researching this we came up, we discovered the problem so a letter went out to the, to all the property owners ahead of this hearing to tell them about the direction that the staff wanted to do, because we’re the initiator of it. The City is to fix this problem with the map so, so that letter went out to the neighbors explaining just exactly what you said Chairman. Is that the intent is not to change anybody’s lots. Anybody’s use but to clarify the zoning map and make sure that it’s correct. So if someone was to do research on a piece of property for example there are some non-conforming structures out there and that’s why the PUD was put in place. So if someone was ever to sell that, you want to have that record in place. Aller: So in fact it will actually make it easier for those individuals and property owners now… Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And to show that they are legal non-conforming. They have that right. Aller: Thank you. We’ll start on the other side. Kevin. Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. Chair. Angie this, I read this a couple times and I’m apparently not very bright because it’s kind of confusing to me. Aanenson: It’s complex. Ellsworth: I guess you had the history here and trying to describe what had happened. It seems the one parcel was listed as a PUD and it shouldn’t have been and the other parcel was listed as Rural Residential and should have been PUD. How, how could that happen or where is the original documentation that talked about the requirements of a PUD? Isn’t there quite a few different things you have to go through to get a PUD and all kinds of requirements and things? I 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 didn’t see any of that and it seems like we’re just going to go ahead and approve this and we just created a PUD without a whole lot of discussion. Kairies: As part of the original PUD it was lacking a lot of that documentation and so what we did is we took anything that outside of the Rural Residential standards, because that would be the underlying, and incorporated those into what would be the new permitted uses. So that would include the stables. That also includes this lot here, which is Lot, call it C. Thank you. Which doesn’t meet the 2 ½ acres and it also contains an existing two dwelling unit, so that is a permitted use as part of the PUD. And that was original and that will stay in but there really wasn’t very, there really wasn’t documentation for standards for the original Planned Unit Development. Ellsworth: So do we by this action have to create and document those standards that will be in place now under the new PUD or the PUD that should have been there? I didn’t see those in the packet. Kairies: It should be an attachment. Ellsworth: Maybe I just didn’t recognize it. Kairies: And it doesn’t look like the typical Planning Unit Development because it doesn’t have a lot of variation from the Rural Residential standards. Ellsworth: So where in here would it be? I mean I did read this front to back and I guess I didn’t recognize it as such. Aanenson: It’s actually the ordinance. Kairies: Right. Aanenson: It’s actually the ordinance and so what happened before is there’s history, just to be clear. There is record of the Minutes that it went to the meeting. What we’re missing was the ordinance and the rules that, so you know there’s a record that there was a public hearing. There’s a record that there was a public hearing and there was a record of Minutes but what you need to do is adopt your ordinance and within that ordinance, as Angie said, like when we did the, all the industrial ones, there needs to be an underlying zoning district that sets up the standards. So we’re acknowledging that those uses are in place. They’re non-conforming but we’re saying that they still have to meet the RR setback except for the exceptions that Angie stated and that would be for the stable and the other one already has a Conditional Use Permit. Right now horses in the Rural Residential are, would need a Conditional Use Permit so we’re taking that burden off of that one. But the rest of them would still follow that so whatever they have legal non-conforming, even if it was Rural Residential, it would be legal non-conforming. So the PUD what it does is takes all those mix of uses as was put in the background and record them as there are on the record. And I think the timeline is really where you find out the detail and that’s where Angie spent most of her time is putting together the whole timeline. It shows you the history of the documentation that’s out there. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Ellsworth: But wouldn’t the ordinance then need to spell out what those exceptions or grandfathered items are, and I don’t see that in the ordinance. Kairies: If there were separate motions for a Conditional Use Permit, that’s it’s own thing. If there was an exception for a variance, that’s it’s own thing. It doesn’t need to be part of this PUD. Ellsworth: Okay. Those exist elsewhere? Kairies: Right. Right. They’re their own motion and those are still existing and will remain the way. Ellsworth: Alright. Very helpful, thank you. Aanenson: Yeah, and that was part of the purpose of putting the time line in I think just to show you all those things too so. Again when someone’s financing some of this is where the record the bank’s going to go to to say what’s on the property? What do we have documentation of so this is something that we just need to get fixed so. I just want to make one more clarification. So when we looked at the two options, I think Angie did a good job explaining the difference between and, we’d have a donut hole and typically we don’t like to see that. Leaving the one RR so rethinking, we came back and said we should really just make the whole thing PUD because whether it’s still going to have the underlying Rural Residential standards and if they wanted to have horses on that property they could too but it just makes the whole neighborhood consistent you know for, again so we don’t have the Scribner’s or interpretation area that it’s all PUD with the underlying zoning district of RR. So the one change on that one was a permitted use which allowed. Kairies: Which allowed for the duplex on this property right here. Aanenson: And that was called out specifically for that one lot. Kairies: Correct. Aanenson: That they could have a duplex so then everything else is, that kind of tracks Commissioner Ellsworth what your issue was. That that was documented then in Option B. That that could be legitimized as non-conforming. Kairies: Right, so you should have Option B. That includes the duplex and just not rezoning Lot nd 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition. Aller: And because of the way this is done as Option B, my understanding would be, and I’m asking this as a question. We don’t need to re-notice this. Aanenson: No. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aller: Because it’s really just leaving it as it is. Aanenson: Correct. That’s correct. Yes. And re-thinking that, that’s kind of where, it is complex because you had some uses that didn’t meet the underlying zoning district that wanted to make some changes so incrementally they were made. Instead of looking at it holistic so now we’re stepping back and saying really let’s look at all three plats and make some sense out of all three. Without penalizing anybody but just clarifying it. Aller: Sorry I jumped in Kevin, did you have anything more? Ellsworth: No, that’s it. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That’s all. Aller: Thank you. Kathleen. Thomas: I don’t think I have any questions but I’m happy we came up with Option B because when I was reading it and I was trying to figure out how we were going to do this and have one outlying property that was going to be different and I was thinking is there any way we could combine so I’m happy that there’s an Option B now. Aller: Tom, any thoughts? Doll: Of letters that went out, what was the response from the residents? Kairies: I received phone calls and the majority of them were just making sure that we were not changing anything physically to their properties which includes no further development. Connections with sewer and water. Just making sure that nothing physically was going to change to their site. And I believe that there are some homeowners here that may want to speak to that as well. Doll: Nothing further. Undestad: No. Aller: Okay. Thank you very much. With that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting and anyone that wants to come up and actually speak on this. If you’d come to the podium and state your name and address, that would be great. Tom Dyvig: My name is Tom Dyvig and I own the property just to the south. Right there, 7250 Hazeltine Boulevard. I rent that property out but it’s going to be developed down the road. That’s kind of my plan 5 years out that I was just clarifying. I think you stated that it’s not going to affect, there’s not going to be any changes in the surrounding there. It’s just kind of a clarification. I think I was the one that called today so. That was the only question I had. Aller: Thank you Mr. Dyvig. Thank you for coming. It answered all your questions? Tom Dyvig: Yep. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Aller: Great. Anyone else? Ma’am, if you could come forward and state your name and address for the record. Geri Eikaas: Geri Eikaas, 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road. Just came here to get clarification and I’m very glad for what I heard. Thank you. Aller: That’s always nice to hear. Thank you. Aanenson: It’s confusing but it makes a lot of sense. Doll: So she was for this? Aller: For this. Anyone else? Okay, we’re going to close the public portion of the hearing. Comments. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair, a question for Angie. We talk about no underlying change to the physical area. Does that mean the Rural Residential piece prevails and the current structures and the current platting can’t change? So when I see PUD I immediately envision you know 30 homes and all kinds of development. None of that’s changing. That was kind of the comments I think I heard. Kairies: Right. So if what’s there that does not meet the 2 ½ acres is legal non-conforming or part of the PUD. Anything new would have to meet the 2 ½ acres or it would have to be a PUD amendment to decrease or to deviate from the RR standards. Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And just another point of clarification. So we don’t anticipate any of that happening unless something was to change down the road and that would maybe being sewer and water. Then somebody may want to urbanize that area but right now it’s not in the near future plans. Ellsworth: That’s all. Aller: Okay we’ll entertain any motions. Thomas: Okay I’ll motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City nd Council approves the rezoning of Parcel 1, Lot 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms 2 Addition and Parcel 2, Ches Mar Trails and Parcel 3, Ches Mar Farm to Planned Unit Development and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Doll: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - January 4, 2011 Thomas moved, Doll seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the rezoning of Parcel 1, (Lot 1, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms nd 2 Addition), and Parcel 2, (Ches Mar Trails), and Parcel 3, (Ches Mar Farm) to Planned Unit Development and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Doll noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 2010 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. None. Chairman Aller adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14