Loading...
6 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Julie Holum, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1916 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE, TORY WALTON. Public Present: Name Address Carmen McMeen Karen & Duane Malmstrom Tory Walton Paul Pudlitzige Lynnae Nikolai 9391 Foxford Road 6460 White Dove Drive 1961 Crestview Circle 5 ! 07 Woodhill Road 6570 Galpin Boulevard Julie Holum presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions. Burton: Any questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I've got a couple questions. First of all, with the RSF designation this lot, at my reading could potentially have 2 homes on it. Is that a possibility in your view? We have to have some cross access agreements I believe but would that be a possibility if we rezone to RSF? Aanenson: If more than one house was to go on the property they would have to come in and apply for a subdivision. At that time you would evaluate whether or not you allow a private drive or how it would be subdivided. It is on a collector street so you'd want the house set back a little bit further so it's a possibility but again it would come through a subdivision so you'd have another chance to look at it. You may decide you may not allow it to be accessed by a private drive to two homes. Blackowiak: Okay. And that I guess kind of leads to my second question. I don~t know if it's for you Julie or Kate but, since we have a rural residential immediately south of this, which is a 2 ½ acre minimum. We have a 1 acre lot here. Would there be any reason we would want to leave this a non- conforming lot to force a variance and then essentially only have a single home on it as sort of a buffer between the rural residential and then the RSF to the north? Aanenson: Well if someone was to build on it with the existing non-conforming, they're going to have to request a variance and the setbacks, the side yards can still be 10 feet. The rear yards 50 and 50. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Blackowiak: 50.9 Aanenson: 50 in the front and the rear. It's just the side yards would be the same, the 10 and 10. Blackowiak: So why are the front and rear 50? Aanenson: Generally because you have a 2 ½ acre lot, you set back further from the street. Blackowiak: Right, no oh I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to this lot potentially. Aanenson: No. I'm saying if it was left that way. So you know. Blackowiak: I'm just curious. I'm playing devil's advocate in saying. Aanenson: Here's the other issue. There's always a cloud over the property so anytime somebody wants to do a deck or anything they have to come back and ask for approval and I'm not sure it was the intent to leave this out. In the map that we showed you there, at that time when they were doing the mylar and the zipotone, they went right over the lot. I'm not sure, we tried to research exactly what, was it an anomaly? Left over remnant piece from the subdivision? But as a general rule we wouldn't have left a lot remnant with a subdivision of 1 acre because at that time, it's always been 2 ½ acres so what we're trying to do is take the cloud off the property. So you don't have to, every time somebody wants to add a deck or something like that they have to come back and request that. Blackoxviak: Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Maybe Alison got at this and I missed it but, if it was subdivided into two, we don't allow more curb cuts on Galpin so they would have to have access through Crestview. Is that a correct assumption? Aanenson: Well you need 90 feet of frontage for residential single family so I don't know if they have 180 or, but you're right. We would limit the access points so that's what I'm saying. It'd have to be served by a common driveway, which would require a subdivision approval through the Planning Commission and you may decide that that's not an appropriate way to subdivide. It's appropriate the way it is as a transition piece. As part of your findings of the subdivision you would not approve it. Kind: Okay. How did this come to staff's attention? Aanenson: The applicant wants to sell the piece of property as a separate lot of record and has a cloud over it with the non-conformity. Kind: Okay. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah. Where would the access then go? Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Holum: It is off of Crestview Circle. I believe. There is right now, I'm not certain. Maybe the applicant, I think the applicant is here, could answer it but there is a house on this property right here and there is a private drive. Sacchet: So there is access from Crestview Circle up there? Holum: Yes. Sacchet: So the idea is not to access it from Galpin? The idea is to access it from Crestview? Okay. I just want to clarify that, thank you. Holum: Yes. Burton: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the commission? Is the applicant here? Are they here? You're okay? Do you want to address the commission? Do you have anything you want to add? Tory Walton: No, not really. Burton: Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to open up for public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing..The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody would like to address the Planning Commission on this matter, please approach the podium and state your name and address and tell us what you want us to know. Lynnae Nikolai: My name is Lynnae Nikolai. I'm representing my mother, Doris Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard. Our front yard would be directly across from this area. That's why my mother is very much concerned about access of this area because she doesn't want lights coming into the living room. Have any of you actually been out to the lot to see the ravine? It is not a normal building lot. It is all ravine. This was Roy Stellar's pony farm. That ravine, that water supplied the horses, the ponies. It also currently supplies water to all the wildlife in the area such as the deer, raccoon, ducks. There's nesting ducks in that area and everything else. I feel that it should be kept as a green belt area and left as it is. If Tory doesn't like that area he should sell and leave it as a full 2 ½ acre rural place. That house he's in now used to be Roy Stellar's house. His son Merle Stellar also lived up on that top area. I think that's when the area was all subdivided up when Roy passed on. And I believe Merle's daughter, Kathy Stellar, I don't know her married name, also has a house on the back side of that area. What is now, what used to be Lake Lucy Road but that was cut off some years ago and is now White Tail Grove or whatever now. So the history of that area was rural. I played with the ponies. I fed them. I watched them and that whole area is nothing but ravine. What I'm concerned about is the watershed area. At the top of Murray Hill is the watershed divider line. To the north flows into Lake Minnetonka. To the south flows all the water into major culverts that go past 65th, down the road in front of our area and then when the city bought the land in front of our house to put in the trail, other big culverts were put in under Galpin Boulevard to flow into that ravine. That ravine also flows into the Lake Lucy/Lake Ann area. All the wildlife things. In order to build on that property you're going to have to fill it in. And that is a big mistake. Ali those hills are butter clay. You have to use drain tile or you're going to have nothing but water in the basements. So these are all items that I feel that need to be addressed and to put another house in there is folly. If the Planning Commission wants to change it to single family, then they need to put in something else that that chunk of land, that one acre cannot be subdivided into little 1/3 acre Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 parcels. It's all ravine. It is all sloped unless you're a mountain goal or a mountain sheep. There's not really any place that you can walk standing up straight without some effort. So the erosion factor, the clay factor, all those building factors need to be taken into account. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Can I have a motion then? Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Comments? Kind: Kate, I'm wondering if you can comment on, is there a bluff present? Would that require some setbacks for future building? Aanenson: No. There is a ravine that runs through the area. The Stellar subdivision, the Stellar Court Subdivision is encumbered by a lot of wetlands. It's the area surrounding this, up in here. When xve looked at the comp plan, that area was left A2. We don't believe a lot of it can be further subdivided. We are aware that there is...coming in for the rest of this property here. That subdivision xvill be at your next Planning Commission meeting, but that area immediately to the south, this property was left out of that subdivision. We do not believe that can be further subdivided again. As the previous person stated, it is encumbered by some wetlands and slopes, it's not suitable for further subdivision. This property was looked at by the staff and we do believe, if you do not rezone it someone will come in and ask for a building permit on the property. What we're trying to do is, it will have the variance with it and that's another way to go. But someone is seeking a building pe~wnit on the property. Kind: And there is a suitable building pad on the property? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: That meets setbacks from bluffs and that sort of thing? Aanenson: We'll have to look at that in the siting of the house, correct. But there is enough buildable area. But it is, the rest of that Stellar area again, we made the decision on this being left. There's no sexver to that property. It's left because it has wet soils and cannot be further subdivided. Kind: Okay. Sacchet: Well, it appears that this property has been going back and forth in zonings and it's basically, there's a fat line.., so if it strays I'm assuming it xvas actually zoned into residential at one point and then it was kicked out again so I think it's reasonable to grant this request. That this is included xvith the smaller lots because it is a smaller lot. However, if subdivision comes back for that lot I would oppose that. That's where I'm at. Sidney: I think while the application is straight forward, I agree with staff's recommendations. Since it is a non-conforming lot with the rural residential regulations, this rezoning would bring that into compliance with residential low density and I think that makes sense and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We can speculate about what will happen with the property but until we see that, I guess I would rese~we judgment. We have mechanisms to address issues of siting of buildings or subdivisions or whatever at that time. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Burton: Comments? Blackowiak: I think my questions kind of tipped my hand. I'm almost in favor of a single home on this lot. Not only to kind of preserve some of the bluff and some of the natural. Or I shouldn't say bluff. I guess it's technically not a bluff. The ravine and the natural features but also to act as a buffer between the homes to the north and to the 2 ½ acre lot to the south because I think that's a very, it's a very natural break at this point and that's why I was asking if we should even leave it non-conforming just to force the issue to have a little more control. However I do understand the rationale between rezoning to low density but I would like to make it clear that I would only support a single home on this lot and would vote against any potential split in the future because I don't think that that would fit with the character of the neighborhood or the character of the lot. Burton: Okay, thanks. Ladd. Conrad: We probably have more control if we keep it on non-conforming. Aanenson: Yes. You would have reasonable conditions. You have more control but then it also puts the burden on if you try to get financing or anything because it's non-conforming. If there's a way that the seller's interested in the lot and wants to put one home on there, if we could get a home placement plan before it goes to City Council to show it. Conrad: I like that idea. Aanenson: Where they place a home is going to preclude a subdivision in the future. Conrad: Yeah, that's real clear. If we grant the change, then I think we lose some control. And they could come back and have a pretty good argument if they meet all the codes. They could put, and we have nothing. We have something here. So I guess, I don't mind taking it out of the non-conformity if we have some guarantee that there's only going to be one house, and until that's there, I can't. I can't do that. So I suppose we can pass this along if we attach some kind of condition to it with the house placement and if the applicant agrees to that so we have something enforceable. Otherwise I won't move it. Burton: Okay, thanks. My comments would be the same. I have the, I think it makes sense to rezone it. I would like to keep the control over the property and to limit it to one house. The question is how to do that. I don't know the answer. So do we want to take a crack at a motion? Does somebody want to? Kind: Mr. Chair, I'd like to continue the discussion a little bit. Burton: Sure. Kind: I'm thinking maybe the best way is to leave it non-conforming. Do you think there could be a condition? Burton: But then it does affect their ability to finance the property. Kind: Oh, is that right? Burton: That's the problem. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Kind: That's the issue? Conrad: We shouldn't care. We don't care. That's not our deal. Our deal is to allow one house and we shouldn't impose some restrictions that are unnecessary but on the other hand we want what we want and what we want is one house. So I think it's up between the applicant and the staff to figure that out and if we can do that tonight, that's fine. If we have to bring it back, that's fine too. We don't need to move this through tonight for any particular reason. Kind: Is it reasonable to put a condition for this specific lot that only one house is allowed? Conrad: You could attach a condition. Aanenson: I guess I would just add, if you could see the home placement plan, if you could see where the ravine is, it may preclude how you can further subdivide it. Access, etc. So if there was a honqe placement plat it may put your fears at ease that it cannot be further subdivided. There might be some other physical constraints that's going to prohibit that. Also where they're going to put the home. So if you could get that information I think that would be helpful. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Kate, would something like that be binding? I mean they provide us with a plat. Aanenson: Well just the landform itself was what I'm saying. If the ravine is a topographic break, which it is, it's going to limit some of the setbacks and access to the lot so if we can get that information to-you, that may ease your feat's on how we can further subdivide it. Which is the issue. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I'm trying to be clear what you just said Kate. Did you just say that we could, as one possibility, wait to see house placement before we settle this? Aanenson: Correct. Tabling it and getting additional information. We'd bring you back a topo map showing you where the buildable area and that would alleviate. Sacchet: I kind of like that. I think that xvould bring this to a common denominator. Kind: And Plan B would be to recommend approval with the condition that staff prepare that information before going to council. Which I think would be my preference. Just to move it along. Conrad: Then you lose control. Kind: Right. Conrad: But that's okay. Whatever you want to do. Kind: I don't have high control needs. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I don't think it's a matter of control to me. I think it's a matter of making sure that the best possible solution is reached and I consider that our responsibility here so I'm in favor of seeing Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 that first. I think that's a fair resolution. And I think that can happen pretty fast. I don't think it's too much... Aanenson: We can put it on the next meeting. Burton: That makes sense so does somebody want to bring a motion, or make the motion? Blackowiak: Well I'll do it. I will make the motion that Planning Commission tables rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property until we receive a plan for the proposed building site, including topographic information. Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission tables Rezoning #2000-3 for property located at 1916 Crestview Circle until the applicant supplies a plan for the proposed building site, including topographic information. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Aanenson: Just another side bar on that. The law does require that the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan be consistent so if we do decide to leave it as one lot, then we should amend the comprehensive plan to make it a large lot so whichever way we go, but we want consistency. So I guess the reason we took this tact is we believe that was the inconsistency on the other side. To that information, I believe we can have that for you by the 16th. Sacchet: Mr. Chairman, one comment for staff. In the Findings of Fact,-number 3. The legal description of the property is blank. Aanenson: Okay. OLD BUSINESS: Aanenson: Old business, we have advertised for the Planning Commission vacancy so I'm not exactly sure when that date closed but it was in the Villager so we're expediting that. Conrad: Do we have any applicants yet? Aanenson: I was just going to, we had some from before that we'll go back to when Uli interviewed so we'll ask those people if they still wanted to be reconsidered and hopefully they'll come through. I haven't seen any come in. I did put in here your meeting attendance. That will be modified as we add an additional person so if you have a conflict, if you want to just find somebody to trade with or whatever. I did put the Planning Commission update in your packet. Kind of where we were on some of the issues. Again we're continuing with the comprehensive plan, land use amendments. Again the consistency issue. Bob's setting up some neighborhood meetings on those. Sidney: I had a question about the Mattson property. That caught my eye. What does that involve? Aanenson: It's guided industrial. I walked it with the developer and the developer's engineer. Engineering and planning. They're putting together, it does require right now, it does require an EAW so they're working through that process. It is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District so we wanted to walk that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Get an idea of where the buildable area is. We also have the bluff on it. It's our opinion that that was man made so we're working through some of those issues. What's required for the scooping of the EA. I do believe that's a spring project. It's 82 acres so it xvill be a large project again in the primary, part of it's in the primary zone for Bluff Creek. Sidney: And this will be industrial office? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: Industrial xvarehouse. Aanenson: Yes. We talked about some of the noise issues upfront that we'll be scoping a little bit differently in the EA. Lighting issues. Yeah, you're south of Stone Creek and then it'd be west of Autumn Ridge. No, Audubon. Well the subdivision that's right there. The other side of the creek and there's not as much buffering right there so we're trying to resolve orientation of buildings and trying to get thresholds of square footage so that will, we again continue to do a lot of industrial development so. Sidney: Then I saw code enforcement. Aanenson: Yes. Those are the landscaping issues that we still have ongoing that we've got hearing dates with the judge of Carver County. Sidney: The arraignment and then. Aanenson: Yes. Yep. With the people. So we are pursuing those and we do have dates on that with the judge. And again continuing to follow up on conditional use standards. Some of the old complaints kind of come back. Some of the conditional use standards. Some of the businesses. Snowplowing. Blocking the driveways and then just some of those sort of issues so we're continuing to monitor those. Blackoxviak: Mr. Chair, Kate I had a question on, two things. First of all it says 2-2 Work Session. That's 2-6 right? In the meeting schedule. Meeting and hearing schedule or xvhat's that? February 2nd is a Friday. Aanenson: 2-6. First meeting in February, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, that's alright. I just thought maybe I missed something. Kind: Uli caught that on the e-mail. Blackowiak: And the second one. Talk to us about this John Hennessy amendment. Is that right on Highway 5? The first one. LUA1. Aanenson: Oh right. Again that's a. Blackowiak: Where's this property? Aanenson: 41. Galpin. Excuse me, Galpin. Just north of VanDeVerie's property where the frontage road for Highway 5, West 78th. Just north of that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Is it just south of the entrance to Walnut Grove? Aanenson: Yes. Where are you reading that from? Blackowiak: Oh I'm sorry. It's the second page of this comprehensive planning meeting and hearing schedule. Aanenson: Okay, yep. Right, that's where that is, right. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: And then Dogwood, we're working on that because that's part of the extension of the sewer with the West 78th Street. There's a failing collective system down there that we're trying to resolve. If the sewer gets extended down that way, it takes care of that problem although there's issues with assessments. But...other parts of the city where there's failing septic systems is going to continue to be an issue. That's another example where they were given small lot zoning but they don't have the septic, or they don't have the municipal services in place to handle that so. And there is other people that want to further subdivide in that area. The church is taking the largest portion of that property. The 67 acres on the other side. West side of 41. There's some.other properties in back there that would like to subdivide. Obviously they need access to sewer and water to subdivide but they were trying to maintain that character of Dogwood and try to provide other ~iccess into there without, off of Tanadoona but leaving the character of the Dogwood the way it is. Just minimal widening. That will be some of the discussion that takes place with that rezoning. Kind of maintain that with allowing further subdivision. So with that, you do have a lengthy meeting on the 16th so, again as I mentioned the Lundgren subdivision. That's got a lot of issues with it too. The subdivision itself was pretty straight forward but it has wetlands. It has slopes. There's surrounding property providing access to it. Prince and then the other property to the east providing... I believe we've worked through all those issues so. But we haven't done a big subdivision for a number of years besides PUD was the first big subdivision in a couple years. Besides the multi-family ones. Kind: Mr. Chair I have a quick question. In our packet was a letter from the Paulsen's regarding the Igel subdivision. What's the update on that? Aanenson: It's scheduled for the second meeting at the City Council. I believe that's the 20~ of January. Kind: So it still has not gone before council? Aanenson: No. They've asked, their waived their rights. Their attorney is involved in a legal case that's tying him up so they've asked to have it extended to the second meeting which again I believe is the January 20th meeting. City Council. Burton: So any other old or new business? Conrad: Just a quick, did we pass a light pollution ordinance? Aanenson: Yes... shielded lighting, yes... Yes we did. And we're working on the...that are in Chapter 20 which we enforce and 18, a lot of it's just enforced by Carver County Sheriff's so we're working that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 It's the attorney's opinion that some of that is hard to measure.., so we're trying to revise that ordinance also. The attorney's office is drafting that based on some ordinance that they've used in other cases. And not only noise but some of the other nuisance. As we continue to grow that's an ongoing problem. Noise pollution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2000 amended to reflect that LuAnn Sidney was absent, not Ladd Conrad. Chairman Burton adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10