Loading...
1986 06 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1986 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, and Michael Thompson STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City planner PUBLIC HEARING Final Plan Amendment proposed to replat Outlot C of the South Lotus Lake AddItion into 14 Single Family Lots and oneOutlot instead of the or[,ginally intended:28 townhouselWnits on-propert~zoned P-1, Planned- Residential Development and located wes~of and adjacent to TH 101, opposite the Chanhassen Meadows Apar~tS; Herb Bloomber~ -- ---- Public Present: e Judy Schmieg Dolores Arseth Wes Arseth John Segner Nellie Segner 200 West 77th Street 20 Hill Street 20 Hill Street 20 Hill Street 20 Hill Street Dacy: The property is located on the south side of Lotus Lake and across from the Chanhassen Meadows Apartments. The entire site is bordered by R-l Single Family Zoning except for the Chanhassen Meadows site which is zoned R-4. As you recall, the City Council approved the PUD on August 5, 1985 for 23 single family lots, 28 townhome units and 6 duplex units. The 6 duplex units were located adjacent to the public boat access part of the site. The 28 townhome units were located in the center of the site adjacent to the remainder of the park area. The remainder of the PUD is single family over on the Hill Street side and the Erie Avenue side. The PUD was approved without connection to West 77th Street. That remains as approved. There is to be no connection to West 77th Street. What is being done is that this area containing the 28 townhome units is being replatted into 14 single family lots and one outlot adjacent to TH 101. The overall number of units is not being changed. The total was 57 units so it will be 14 single family units and about 1 1/2 acre outlot. The applicant has indicated to Staff that the outlot is intended for a multiple family structure, possibly for elderly housing and that would contain 14 units. - t I " e e .e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986 - Page Two This area in here is the proposed replat for 14 single family lots. Originally the access drive to the townhome development was located across from West 77th Street but now the cul-de-sac that is being proposed is to the north of that by about 200 feet. The gross density of the entire PUD has not changed because the same number of units is being maintained. However, the net density is now being decreased from 3.51 to 3.06 and the net density is calculated minus the park area. The 14 single family lots that are being proposed, because of the cul-de-sac into the site there is created five, what we would call double frontage lots because each side, the front and rear of the lots abut on two streets, South Shore Drive and the proposed cul-de-sac. Our recommendation is that access to these homes be gained from the cul-de-sac and that the rear or the area along South Shore Drive, be privately landscaped and contain a 10 foot landscape easement. The addition of the 14 single family lots, the average lot size has been changed from 17,055 square feet to 14,230 square feet. The median lot size with the exact mil of the number of single family lots, is 12,500 square feet and the median lot size of just Block 2, just the 14 lots, is 11,400 square feet. As you recall from the previous PUD, there are a number of conditions placed by the Watershed District and DNR and so on. Those have been done according to the City Engineer. However, the revised plan would have to receive Watershed District approval and that is a condition of approval. The landscaping plan, you will recall, I'll go back to the overhead here, was quite extensive but adjacent to the park area between the townhomes and the park area boundary, we are recommending that this be maintained as well as vegetation along TH 101. However, what needs to be altered and submitted is a revised landscaping plan that shows one tree per lot that is required in the development contract as well as the additional vegetation along the double frontage lots. To review the overall concept of the PUD again, it is basically the same as what was considered last year. That the single family is created around the perimeter of the site, say the park area. The smallest lot site is now contained in the center of the site. The proposal for the multiple family structure is directly adjacent to TH 101. It's access would have to be from South Shore Drive. Specific plans for the development of the multiple structure on this outlot would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission and Council for review again. Approval tonight by the Commission and the Council eventually, but what you are approving is to amend the final plan to the PUD to have 14 single family lots instead of 28 townhome units and approving an outlot for potential multiple family uses. The Planning Staff is recommending approval of the final plan amendment request subject to the access of Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 considered the cul-de-sac lots, be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. Second, that the landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along the double frontage lots, landscaping along TH 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. Third, utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. Finally, a detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. . .. , e e e ,I Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Three Chairman Conrad asked Mr. Bloomberg if he had any comments at this po i n t. Herb Bloomberg: No, really I don't. I feel that the single family development is preferable for the City in general and I felt there was a general feeling of opposition to the condominiums. There certainly was concern. It seems that the current time for marketing condominiums is falling off whereas the development of single family places has been going along just great. We just feel this is going to be a better use. Judy Schmieg: I live at 200 West 77th Street. A couple comments that I have on the new proposal. I think Mr. Bloomberg is right that it is good business sense to convert from condominiums to single family homes but the planning of it on the outlot C, as you call it, with no present plan for it now, just to leave it as an outlot, leaves buyers kind of unsure what is on that spot and if it is approved as an outlot with a 14 unit building on it, it could be almost anything. For a future buyer or future neighborhood, you don't know what it is. I guess I'm concerned that isn't platted along with the whole piece of land there. Also the fact that you have lots with two roads on both sides for children with no backyard kind of thing, doesn't seem like it makes a good planning of a lot. There are no backyards. One other comment, Barbara mentioned about the trees and stuff on the different lots and blocking the park and stuff. I would like to request that there also be trees along that road, that South Drive down on the west side there. Dacy: There were trees approved on the original landscaping plan for that side. Judy Schmieg: My concern is, again because we have received a letter every year for twelve years to come to a public hearing, and the development is being put together as a unit. I would like to suggest that it be continued to be looked at as a unit and not just an outlot that has 75,000 square feet of space available for future discussion. Noziska moved, Emming seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Steven Emmings: I don't have any questions on this. Robert Siegel: Barb, that piece of property just to the southwest of the proposed PUD that is labled an outlot. Dacy: You mean the 1 1/2 acre outlot on the plan? Siegel: Yes, is it in the plan? It's not within the dotted line. Dacy: Yes, it is within the dotted line. It is part of the proposal. " Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Four - Siegel: The one on the lower left hand corner of the plan? No, I mean the one across the street. Dacy: That was approved for park use when the original PUD came through last year. This outlot is not part of the final plan amendment request. Siegel: Okay, but what is the usage there on that outlot. Dacy: That is dedicated to the City for future park use. Siegel: I guess the only question I had was if, I hadn't heard about the future plans for this outlot for multiple, if this also was multiple to the southwest but it is definitely intended for park? Dacy: Right, it is not intended for multiple. Siegel: I guess I'm not overly concerned about the future development as multiple. It would have an access off of South Shore Drive however. e Dacy: Yes, Ilm sure MnDot would not approve another access there. A condition of approval can be that the outlot not exceed 14 units. As you recall in other PUD's that we have had, for example the Chan Hills development on the south side of Lake Susan, there is an eight acre outlot reserved for future multiple family use. The developers do not know at this time the exact size of the structure, etc. but what the Planning Commission and Council is going to be deciding is the use of that outlot and what the applicant is requesting is that it be used for a multiple family use. Howard Noziska: Barbara, what do you think about some of the discussion that Judy carne up with? In particular about time that large outlot comes. Dacy: As I had just stated, that as a condition of approval the Commission is within their prevue to condition that the outlot not be used for more than 14 units. As you recall, during the review for the Chanhassen Hills PUD, there was an eight acre outlot reserved for potential multiple family use. Specific struture, site plans, etc. will have to corne back through the process to receive Commission and Council approval before construction can begin. If you don't agree to the concept of multiple family uses in that area, then that is the direction you should give to the Council but the applicant is requesting that it be approved for multiple family use to contain 14 units. Noziska: What about her comments about trees on the other lots? e Dacy: The approved landscaping plan for the previous PUD is upstairs in my office in the previous file, but there was landscaping approved , .. . e e e , I Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Five for the west side of South Shore Drive. What is being requested through this final plan amendment is that they revise the landscaping plan on the east side contained within that area. I can forward a copy to Mrs. Schmieg. Michael Thompson: Let me just get this straight. On the outlot, what would be the present zoning? Dacy: It is zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development District. Thompson: If we just designated it an outlot and no designation, then it is what, nothing? Then what could be approved under P-l, you would have to come in and reapply? Dacy: What the applicant is intending and has requested is that it be approved for a multiple family site. Thompson: Does that make economic sense to plan a 14 unit elderly housing site? Dacy: That is up to the option of the applicant. What the Commission and Council needs to decide is whether that is an appropriate land use at that location. Thompson: That outlot is 74,000 square feet? Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Thompson: So if they are planning 14 units on 74,000 square feet, that is somewhat less than 2 acres. Would we normally designate a density of 7 units per acre on a piece like that? Would that be fallible to that neighborhood? Dacy: The range identified in the comprehensive plan for high density is approximately 8 units per acre. What you would have to look at is, is it compatible with the adjacent uses? If that outlot for multiple family uses is compatible with the adjacent uses in the subdivision. It is located across the street from existing multiple family structures. I have to believe that when the site plan would be submitted that the City is going to look for a lot of buffering and screening and so on, between those single family lots and the outlot. Thompson: I would agree with you that based on the fact what is across the street and the fact that it is sitting on TH 101 probably makes it two reasons to have it a multiple family site. However, it does back up to single family which you have no transition from single family to multi-family. You usually have a scattered upward densities. That is the only thing I would question. There is nothing we can do about he double frontage lots? , I . e e e , I Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Six Dacy: I think because of the design of the interior of that outlot and so on, that it is about the only way you can design it and that you are always going to run into a double frontage lot situation because of the ring road, if you want to call it that, of South Shore Drive. The horseshoe alignment. Thompson: Now that they have added the additional single family lots, normally what is the smallest lot size we have here, 113,131313 feet or something like that? Dacy: Yes, the smallest lot size in this proposal is 113,131313 square feet. Thompson: Why do I in the back of my mind for some reason think that the smallest lot size we usually have on our PUD, the minimum is 11,71313 or something? Is there some measure on that? It seems to me that we were closer to 12,131313 on minimum lot sizes. Dacy: In the recent applications that is what has been approved. Thompson: Doesn't the ordinance site some standard? Dacy: No, it does not. Thompson: You can go down to any size? Dacy: That is correct. There is no minimun lot size in the "p" Districts. Thompson: Do you have any idea why the 11,71313 sticks in my mind? Conrad: There is no reason for that. We have just not gone down smaller than 12,131313. I think 11,71313 sneaked in there for some reason. Noziska: 11,81313 stuck in my mind. Thompson: The one advantage, I understand the single family might be more fallible to the neighborhood, but the one advantage they had and he used the word condominiums, I thought as we were looking at this we were talking more of a townhome type development, but the idea of a PUD and a townhome type concept, assuming that the market will accept it, is that you can take those units and you can cluster the units. Cluster all the units together and you can have your open spaces. By taking a PUD really what we have here is a subdivision project going back to subdivision standards going down to the minimum lot size of a single family at 113,131313 square foot. Some people like that and some people don't. I think at the time we were going through this there was a lot of public here that had a lot of things to say about this whole original project. Now that they have come back in with a revision, I just wonder how the overall neighborhood and public would feel if they were looking at this plan when we had it originally. ,,' .'\ Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Seven e They might not agree with it. Obviously they aren't too concerned at this point but maybe it is because they aren't aware. Conrad: Who was notified? Dacy: Everybody that was notified last year. Thompson: We had a lot of people here at that point. For some reason we don't have them here tonight. Conrad: Everybody that was here by person based on the roll who was at the public hearing, based on a roll call or based on a sign-up sheet. Dacy: I told vicky to make sure she got every name between sign-up sheets and the public hearing list and within three hundred feet. I don't know how many people are here from that neighborhood. People from the public than raised their hands. e Judy Schmieg: Can I comment on that? The notice stated that it was to change the townhouses to single family homes. Nothing on a outlot, meaning is that a beachlot? Now an apartment building. A very vague letter public hearing again on the South Lake and my neighbors asked me and it said single family from townhouses. End of discussion. End of outlot which meant to them beachlot. So there is no idea on most of the people's mind in that neighborhood about an apartment building. Thompson: Do you suppose if you went back to them now, there would be more interest with what you know today. Judy Schmieg: Definitely yes, because of the problems, I think you were at some of the public hearings, on how things change all the time. That can end up being a bowling alley. I agree when you say that we can put some restrictions on it but we've been there before kind of thing and they could. It could be an apartment buiding, it could be a Meadows apartment there. It just doesn't fit and you are back to that whole thing being developed across from here and all of a sudden you are across from the park with something that is completely different than people spent weeks coming to see. Thompson: I just wish all those people were here before we had the opportunity to react on this before I voted. Other than that I don't have anything. Conrad: That was published. Maybe not as fully as it could have been I supposed, but then again I wouldn't know how to word it to make sure it was crystal clear. I think if somebody thinks the public has not been informed, we certainly could table it for another hearing. Let that be an option if somebody feels so moved. e .' Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Eight e Emmings: As a point of clarification, I was a little confused maybe by a couple of things. Barbara said a couple of times that we were approving the notion of multiple, some kind of apartment building here for the outlot but I don't see that as part of the motion. It looks to me like what we are doing is changing the townhomes to single family homes and creating an outlot, referred by general statement of intention that there might be something going on with the outlot but that has to come back here and everybody would have another shot at that point in time to come in and comment on the specific plan for the outlot at that time. Am I right about that? Conrad: I think you are, and there is no guarantee that we are going to grant 14 units there. Emmings: I'm not saying anything about what is going on that lot just that it is being created but it is just going to sit there and a person would have an opportunity at that time. Conrad: As far as I see it, the only thing we are reacting to is changing the Block 2 from duplex's to single family and creating an outlot but not, as we have seen yet, giving any indication what is on that outlot unless we want to word it that way so a motion could word it that way for the use of outlot. Right now we are not tied down to anything. The applicant knows what he would like to do on the outlot but we're not tied to that. e Noziska: Is that correct Barbara, that we would have to go to another public hearing on that outlot? Dacy: Yes, what the chairman has stated is correct that the applicant has indicated that a potential plan for that outlot is an apartment structure and it is within the Commission and Council's discretion to determine whether or not multiple family uses on that outlot is appropriate or not. Thompson: In order to have the number of units that was originally approved in the PUD he would have to have 14 units on that? Dacy: That is correct. Thompson: So what we could do was to eliminate the 14 units at this point until we see a plan. Can we lower the number of units approved on the land that we are designating other than the outlot as the outlot has no designation? Dacy: Approve the 14 single family lots but reserve final action on the outlot until a specific application? Yes. e Thompson: Yes, in other words, he has got approval of x number of units total but really he wouldn't. We would eliminate 14 units. I think the other way if we went ahead and approved it with the outlot, , ' Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Nine e it is still kind of an unwritten understanding that it is 14 units and maybe that isn't acceptable. I don't know, I haven't seen a plan. We've approved an overall density but we are back. Siegel: How can we retract from that now? He's got the 14 density and that kind of thing. Apparently not from the 8 units per acre. Thompson: You've got a residential neighborhood and normally you have three units per acre or three and a half. Now you are talking about seven or eight units. That might be very acceptable. Obviously next to TH 101 and across the street it would be. Whether it is there, I think you have to look at specific plan and say yes, I like that plan or I don't. Is it compatible with the rest of the property and the other thing too, if the developer can sell that piece to somebody too. Dacy: If you feel uncomfortable approving it, I would recommend that if you do approve the final plan amendment to make a motion for approval on the single family lots and as far as the outlot is concerned, to require that detailed development plans be resubmitted when available with no specific direction as to the number of units to give you control. Noziska: Isn't that automatic. e Dacy: What's not automatic. Noziska: He has to come in anyway with a plan. Dacy: Yes, but my point is that you are not specifically stating 10 units, 14 units, 20 units, whatever. Siegel: Does that have any affect on the previous approval of the density and the PUD? Dacy: They are proposing a plan amendment so through that application... Thompson: It has opened up and subj ect to change once we are here we can change it unless he wants to withdraw. Conrad: Just a couple of quick comments. Generally, I find the lot sizes going below what I would like to see in a PUD. I don't have a problem with, and probably what the neighborhood would like, I sure wouldn't mind seeing the multi-unit buildings there, whether they be 14, 16, whatever the number being, for senior citizens or whatever the need is in the community, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the transition to the single family unit that I see it bordering to and I do have a problem with the very small lot sizes that we have really not been granting up to this point in time on PUD's. We have really been, as Michael said, I think we have gone into the 11,000's but not by much and really we have gone to 12,000 as e , " . e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Ten a number that we have gone down to but these are a little bit less so I'm not real excited about the small lot sizes especially when there is no backyard. Those are my comments. As I say, I don't have a problem at this point in time with the outlot and I certainly see the need for some Senior Citizen building but I would sure like to see how that fits in to the single family unit lots that are there. with those comments I will certainly take a motion. Herb Bloomberg: I would like to bring up one point. We've been in this process for some 2 1/2 years working out lake access, the park and all that and we went through so many hearings and up to the last day we had four duplex lots on the west side and I was, frankly was so weary of the contest that when it was objected to I said okay just turn them into single family lots. Those lots on the west side backing up really could have been made into more lots and still be within the... In selling and merchandising these lots, obviously we have to satisfy the buyers. We would like a fine community. We are expecting to a degree to work up a trade to get this bottom lot by the park board and provide a lane for children to walk from the park area across there. When you consider that entire strip and the fact that we are facing a solid line of apartment buildings and we have reduced it now to single family, park and then finally asking for one of those concessions down there in the planning of that outlot. I expect you to see a design acceptability, that I would expect to satisfy all concerns. The opportunity now to try to get this through. The construction is finally going on the lake access and we surely would like to be able to move along. We've been developing and living here in Chanhassen for thirty years and we really don't have any... and I would appreciate some degree of concession but we kind of need it. I can't see single family lots backing right up to the highway across from those apartments and if we have to end up selling it or giving it to the park board, in any event I have to sell the other lots and we surely will be doing an interesting job of landscaping. I think it can be a beautiful section there and I just wish you would trust me a little bit. Siegel moved, Noziska seconded for Planning Commission approval of Final plan Amendment Request #85-4 for 14 single family lots and one outlot on Outlot C, South Lotus Lake Addition, based on the plan stamped "Received May 28, 1986" and subject to the conditions as recommended by Staff: 1. Access to Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. 2. The landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along double frontage lots. Landscaping along TH 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. 3. I utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. , , , e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Eleven 4. A detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submited for approval by the City, watershed District and DNR. 5. The outlot be restricted to multi-unit development of no more than 14 units. Steven Emmings Robert Siegel Ladd Conrad Howard Noziska Michael Thompson Opposed Favored Opposed Favored Opposed Motion failed. Tim Erhart had not arrived yet and therefore was not present for this voting. Noziska: In discussion, I guess I understand what you are saying Ladd and also Mike, about putting a multi-family dwelling next to single family. I sort of look at that in a couple different ways. I fortunately wouldn't have to worry about the economic viability of a 14 unit senior citizen residence. It seems like that might be kind of a tough sell. But then on the other hand, I think with proper landscaping and proper approach to some sort of a buffer, maybe in landscaping, after all the size is not huge, there isn't an awful lot of room to start stepping up and around and down from one density to the next. I guess I can see in my mind a reasonable solution to that problem and as we have discussed, TH un is a freeway and right across the freeway there is a whole ton of apartment buildings so what do you do with it? Multi-family dwelling is probably as good as any. Right next to it you've got a park backing up along TH 101 so these are both kind of non-caustic events sitting on TH 101. Those were just some thoughts in my mind. Emmings: I guess I am opposed to this. I just thought I would throw that comment out. I guess if it were just a couple fewer lots I wouldn't be. I don't mind the design, I don't mind the outlot. There are six lots there that are 10,500 square feet or less. There are three that are about 10,000 each and I think this is just too many for that spot. If there were 12 lots instead of 14 I could vot for it. Conrad: Is there another motion? Noziska: So then it goes to the City Council with that recommendation. If it stands the way it is Barbara, how would that go to City Council? Dacy: It would go exactly as you have just made it but it really doesn't give them a clear direction as to what the Commission wants. 12, 13, 14 lots, whatever. Conrad: It basically goes as no direction to the City Council. e e e . . Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twelve Emmings: As part of giving that direction can we explain out votes. Does that help? Conrad: Could be. Siegel: It would go to Council as a 3-2 vote so they fully understand the implications in the discussion here. Noziska: The other approach, of course, is from a planning standpoint and the lot size is what is stuck in the crop. Take one of those lots and spread it over five. Take that 60,000 square feet and split it into five lots rather than six and youlve got your 12,000 square feet. The Counc i 1 can do wha t they wan t to anyway but if tha tis the direction from a planning standpoint we think we should go, maybe that would be the motion to make. Dacy: You can very easily make a motion for approval subject to the elimination of one lot, two lots, whatever. Conrad: What I find tolerable to me is eliminateing a couple of units of the single family and making the trade for the multiple family. Does anybody find that a trade-off? That would increase lot size. 11m still concerned we can put units on that one outlot. I donlt know how that fits into the whole, overall development at this point. It just sits there. Thompson: I donlt think on that outlot that anybody said that they would be opposed to 14 lots, 6 lots or 18 lots. I think if you look at a plan and you liked it and it made sense and everybody in the area thought it was alright, it would work. I just hate to say that it should be 14 lots, or it should be 16 at this point until somebody sees something that makes sense. Conrad: Is that the reason for your turn down? Thompson: And I also agree with Steve. I think he could reduce the single family by one or two lots and come up with the lot sizes. The history of this goes back and that this deal was cut before it ever got to us a long time ago. Conrad: We can either send this through as stated with some changes or we can send it through as we voted with the reasons for turning it down. Does anybody have a preference? Siegel: Just one comment here. I fail to see, the intent here seems to be decreasing the usage of the property from what it has previously been approved as PUD. I guess I am a little puzzled at why we are worried about some 10,000 square foot lots that formally would have been multi-unit developments or the usage there would have been overly used then they would be in a single family dwelling. I know there is a direct follow-up on a small lot minimum, but if you are familar with Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirteen e that area, there are a lot of lots there along TH 101 there where the homes are a lot closer to one another than they are in a lot of other areas of Chanhassen. To me this is not aesethically a problem to approve this as a lower used area than what was previously approved in the PUD. That is why I fail to see some of the reasons why we are possibly not granting this as Staff has submitted. Conrad: A quick comment on my part. Just because you have some guidelines for single family, you have guidelines for duplexes, you have guilelines for multiple family and when we have approached PUD's, we have in the past, only gone down for single family to a 12,000 limit and maybe it averages a little bit higher than that, maybe 14,000 we would allow. It is just a standard. What you are doing here is saying, don't worry about the past. We are going to decrease that standard. Regardless of overall density. That is a different issue all together in my mind. We don't like 10,000 square foot lot sizes. In every other PUD that has come in over the last year, we have said and the City Council has reinforced, we do mind 10,000 square foot lot sizes, especially when you many of them. Maybe many is not a word to use for this particular plat. Siegel: What is the particular reason of why we won't go below 12,000 or 11,700 or 11,800? e Conrad: Primarily just some standards that we have set as a community. Siegel: Then we are set to a large lot community then. Conrad: A standard for a subdivision is 15,000 and if you look at the zoning ordinance, the standard for a subdivision is 15,000 square feet. Siegel: I understand that but this is probably the average of this subdivision too when you consider if you averaged them out. The 21,100 and the 18,900. If you took an average, I don't know what the average is, Barb what is the average? Dacy: The average with the 14 lots is now 14,230 square feet for the entire single family units. Siegel: So the argument here is what is a small lot and I think a lot of people are attracted to a small lot versus a large lot and especially in a neighborhood like this. A lot of people might find a smaller lot more buyable or purchasable than a large lot where they don't want to have the upkeep. So I think we are restricting things by setting an arbitrary minimum in some of these PUD's. e Thompson: Well, in a way we aren't. Some of us have some opinion and some have some others. , . Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Fourteen e Siegel: What we are saying is that it has got to be this and we won't waiver one way or the other. Conrad: No, on a PUD you can. That is the advantage of a PUD. Thompson: There is nothing in here that makes this anything glamorous in relationship to a PUD. In other words, the concept of a Planned Unit Development is to see a lot of things. In a typical PUD we don't see much, and Ladd has always taken, if I can speak for you, has always taken the basis, well okay, since you are going under the PUD concept and you really aren't following the philosphy of the PUD but our ordinance at this time requires that you apply on that basis and you are asking for some of these concessions, then give me something for it. Give me open spaces, give me green areas, give me something that really makes sense. I don't see anything in here that really makes sense except that he has a park on the lake that was a done deal before it ever got here. Everybody has their opinion on this. Certainly you are entitled to your philosphy might prevail. I don't disagree wi th you. I think in certain cases it is val id and so on. I voted for issues on the Derick plan that did have some small lot sizes at that point but we were sold the whole concept at the time. It came in on a phase basis. e Conrad: I think we are still in a discussion mode here. A motion has been turned down. Does anybody have another motion. Thompson: I guess I would vote for the motion if you reduced the lot number by two and that you take the outlot and don't designate anything to it other than the fact that it is an outlot. Conrad: I would vote for that also but the motion has failed so somebody would have to make that motion. If you wanted to do that Michael, you could. Noziska: What is so holy about one or two or three, what do we have in mind there? Thompson: As far as eliminating two lots? Noziska: Yes. Thompson: It is just to bring the average lot size up, to get rid of those small lots. Noziska: The other way of doing that is to draw the lines in. If we have an average of 14,000 square feet. Thompson: I'm just looking in here for instance, you've got 12,000 and 10 and 11 then you've got an 18 and 15 and 16,500. I don't know engineering wise of course, obvious it didn't otherwise they would have brought it in that way. e e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Fifteen Conrad: what is your preference. Another motion and should we just state our reasons for turning it down? Thompson: I don't see any support for my proposal. Conrad: Okay, so the motion is going to fail that Bob made. The reaon for the turndown Michael is? Thompson: I would like the outlot not to be designated multi-family or have any indication of the number of units that might be considered and I would like the single family lots to be reduced by two to bring up the minimum lot size in the existing lots. Emmings: Same reasons. Conrad: I would agree as a third vote for the negative reason. This item will go to City Council? Dacy: July 7, 1986. Conrad: Thank you all for coming tonight. We appreciate your being here. Barbara, to clarify for the neighborhood before City Council meets, what can we do on this last issue? Dacy: We could send out another notice advising them of the Council meeting. Conrad: Would you do that for us? Dacy: Sure. Conrad: I think that would solve some problems, at least keep them from getting involved in that. PUBLIC HEARING proposed Subdivision request to plat five commercial lots on 17 acres of land zoned C-3, Service CommercIal and located at the northeast corner-of the TH 5/powers Boulevard Intersection, ~C~urdick. Dacy: This should be pretty recent in everybody's memory. This matter was brought before the Commission and Council in April regarding the subdivision of the site north of TH 5 and east of Powers Blvd. and south of West 78th Street. Council did approve the three lot subdivision of this parcel on April 21, 1986, I believe and they rezoned the property to C-3. Now the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to create five lots instead of the previously approved three lots. Staff advised them that it was necessary to go back through the process because it was a substantial change. What e e e '. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Sixteen you see in the red will be the originally approved lot lines. This was Lot 1, 2 and 3, so basically what the applicant has done is split this third lot on two sides, kept this middle one and split the extreme northwest part of the property into two lots and moving the easterly property line over 7 feet. The plat also shows the proposed line at this time for right-of-way acquisition by MnDot. It has also calculated lot area recorded after the acquisition. The lot sizes proposed are large enough for the uses listed as C-3 District. However, the major issue regarding this plat remains as one of access. As you recall from the pevious plat application, the Commission and Council approved it with the understanding to the applicant that the City was very concerned regarding the number of access points onto West 78th Street. Specifically the access point on the northwest corner of the property because of it's proximity to Powers Blvd. The Staff's recommendation that the proposed two lots on the immediate corner be combined into one lot instead of being created now as two. If, as individual site plans are processed for the four lots, at a future date the city may be in a position to split the lot further and so on. However, the Engineer and Staff maintains that the access point into the property on the northwest corner should be approximately at the location of the easterly lot line of this lot here. The Engineer is opposed to creating an access for the lot in the extreme northwest corner because it is too close to the Powers Blvd. intersection and is not adequate for stacking and turning movements. You also recall that another issue regarding the property includes the West 78th Street realignment. You see on your plat sheets here the option that the applicant has proposed to realign West 78th Street. That option is not part of the plan approval and is merely to propose an option for Carver County and the City and the proper ty owner on the north s ide to eval ua te to see wha t des i gn movement would be appropriate for West 78th Street. This is proposed as a 30 mph design. The City has been looking at a 35 mph and 40 mph design. I believe the City Engineer is continuing to meet with Carver County and the property owner on the north side. As of Tuesday we have arranged a joint meeting with all the technical property owners regarding West 78th Street alignment. To update you a little bit, if West 78th Street is realigned, access to the northwest corner of the site would have to be gained by reservation of an easement to provide easement to the newly created West 78th Street in approximately this type of alignment. The applicants are here and will express their concern regarding that proposal. In any case, despite the realignment issue, Staff still maintains that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined and that as individual site plans come through, the City will recommend that only one access be approved into this first lot in this approximate location. The utility issue remains the same. The extension of the sewer mains to the property will have to be finalized before final plat is approved. If you recall, there are two options to come directly from the south or from the west across the agricultural property. Detailed drainage plans will be reviewed during the site plan review process. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Seventeen Therefore, Planning Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to Lots 1 and 2 be combined into one lot so it will only be a four lot subdivision and that sanitary sewer plans be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval. William F. Kelly: I'm here representing Mr. Burdick, the owner of the property and would like to give anyone else a first opportunity to address the Planning Commission if there is anyone else who wishes to speak. Conrad asked if there was anyone who wished to speak. There were none. William F. Kelly: Certainly we didn't expect to be here again quite so early. We have a problem. The lot sizes as proposed on this particular plat meet the requirements of the City of Chanhassen. They have indicated that the proposed lot sizes are adequate. The original plat was submitted for three lots. It was recommended by the Staff that there be only two driveways into the three lots. The three lots would have been extraordinarily large, quite large. We expressed our opinion at the time that we would not necessarily agree with a joint driveway. It would be difficult for us to use this property with a joint driveway. One of the problems that we have experienced between the last time we were here and tonight, is that there has been continual talk about the change and location of 78th Street. By changing the location of 78th Street, of course, it directly effects the economic viability of the development of this particular piece of property. Particulary if the change of the location of the street is such that, in fact this property be moved from abutting upon a collector street of the City of Chanhassen, it no longer becomes a viable, sellable, economical piece of property. This is a very important aspect of development of this part of the city because as indicated in an earlier report by the engineer, one of the stumbling blocks of development of this particular area has been for some time, the sanitary sewer service. Particularly along the trunk line which requires bringing the sanitary sewer to this area and the cost of bringing it into this area. Now, Mr. Burdick was in a position to assume that cost and put the sanitary sewer in to this particular property which would be made available to all of the property of the development in that particular area. But, in order to do so, he needed two things. One, he had to have appropriate driveway entrances into a commercial piece of property. Two, there had to be some stability in the roadway system. Without those two things it just isn't going to work and that is exactly what we ran into over the past two months. In discussing and working with developers on this property, they shied away. They were not interested in potential problems and lawsuits of access and road changes and other problems that might arise. They were interested in building buildings and being involved in development of the land. We can't do that without those two things occurring. We suggested to the City a possible way by which a stacking lane could be achieved. We show this on the plat - - e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Eighteen here and we show it as a curve of 310 mph. Now this is in the commercial district of the downtown area of Chanhassen. It's not like Chanhassen is going to have a 45 mph speed limit running through the center of Central Park of a business district of the city. It just isn't logical to have that kind of minimum speed limit. By having this type of a development for the stacking lane, it will provide an opportunity to develop both the property to the north and the property to the south. Anything other than that will eliminate any potential development of any kind. The plat that is submitted calls for five lots and one driveway. into each of the five lots. None of these lots are small lots. They are all large lots. The area is 17 1/2 acres, I believe and we have here five lots for that size of commercial district. Again, you can't have a comercial lot without having a driveway. We were willing originally to have a lot on the corner which would approximately be the size of Lot 1 and 2, a little less smaller than that, if we could have half to have a separate driveway for it. Initially, the Staff felt that wasn't possible. Now if their recommendation follows for four lots, there would be a driveway for that one piece but in the meantime we can not develop this property as we originally anticipated because of problems with the road. We need to have smaller lots and we need to have driveways into each of the lots. When I say the lots are small, they aren't small. In size I see that the smallest one is 53,101010 and the largest is 279,101010 square feet, so they are quite large. We are merely asking two things. One, approval of the plat with appropriate access and some stability in the road system. We can't develop the property without stability in the road system, not only is this parcel stymied but a couple parcels in the city are also stymied. Noziska moved, Thompson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Thompson: Barbara, what we are looking at here is the developer's proposal and that other alignment is their concessions to your request? Dacy: What you have to decide on is the preliminary plat for the Burdick property. There is no way that you can make any type of determination on the design curve on the north piece. That is not part of the proposal. It does impact... Thompson: Then we don't have to worry about that. In other words, we assume that the road alignment as it is will be that way and it will stay and therefore if they want to talk about stacking problems in the future, we don't have to worry about that. Dacy: If the realignment issue didn't exist, Staff's position would still remain the same on Lot 1. The Engineer feels that a driveway for Lot 1 would be too close to the Powers Blvd. intersection. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Nineteen Thompson: Now that lot as it stands today, before they take the highway right-of-way, if they do take it, is 1.44 acres according to this plat? Lot 1 and if they do take the amount they are talking about as 53,500, so it is 1 1/4 acres, right? Dacy: Okay. Thompson: What is the distance of the width of that lot? I don't have a scale so I can't tell. Dacy: It is approximately 225 feet. Thompson: That is frontage on 78th Street right now? Dacy: Yes sir. Thompson: Then what is the frontage on the next lot? Dacy: Lot 2 is 240 feet wide. Thompson: Now, if the highway right-of-way as it is shown here, is taken then you add a combined Lots 1 and 2, if my calculations are right, you would have 144,000 square feet or about 3.3 acres. What is the minimum lot size in the C-3 District? Dacy: There is no minimum lot size. Thompson: You can go all the way down to 10,000 square feet as long as you meet the building setbacks? Dacy: Correct. Thompson: Maybe you can refresh me, a C-3 zoning is a service commercial district. What kind of uses can be used? Dacy: It is the most intensive commercial district. Auto service stations, restaurants, retail uses, outdoor storage as a conditional use. Thompson: Right now there is proof of that? Dacy: Yes sir, that is correct. Thompson: What is the standard on stacking distance? I mean, you said the Engineer and Staff... Dacy: I can not quote the specific criteria that Mr. Monk is going by but he has remained firm in his recommendation about access to this particular portion of the site. The issue is not one of lot size. You can have a 60 acre site but access to it could be the poorest. To Staff's feeling, the lot sizes are fine. The critical issue is the access and Mr. Monk is adamant that access for Lot 1 would be too Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty e close to the Powers Blvd intersection. with the right turn movement coming off of TH 5 and then there would have to be a deceleration lane into the site for Lot 1, that it would be too close. Thompson: We aren't giving them any access off Powers Blvd., we're giving them off of West 78th Street? He fronts on a highway, he fronts on Powers Blvd., he fronts on West 78th Street and now we're telling him we aren't going to give you any access to that. What we are going to do is make you combine the lots because we don't want to give you any access and you are going to have 3.3 acres. That seems a little tough to me. Dacy: You can easily recommend approval for the five lots but Staff's recommendation is for four. e Thompson: I understand the problems Staff has a little bit, but you are taking into consideration some things that you asking us not to consider and one is that we really can't consider that fact that road might move. I think Mr. Kelly stated his case pretty well that the stability of the road system is obviously a problem. I suppose if they are talking to people who might want to come in and take a look at this piece of property, then they come in and talk to the Staff or County and everybody says well, the road might be here, it might not be here, it gets a little difficult to make some plans on this thing. Actually, it just seems to me, I know Mr. Burdick has owned this land for a long time and the only reason the engineer is suggesting that we combine those lots and get 3 and some acres is because he doesn't want to be faced with an access problem in the future that he might have. I don't think that is fair. Dacy: The real i gnment of West 78th Street is an issue but if tha twas not an issue, his recommendation would still remain the same that the lots should be combined. Thompson: I understand and that is because he doesn't want to face an access problem in the future. The other thing is let's say you move the road, in other words, if the road was moved up or wherever you might move it, he might not have any access because he doesn't own the property up to the road. In other words what we are looking at here, you could move it 100 feet that way and then he has no frontage on the street. Dacy: Part of the consideration is that as the north piece is platted there would have to be an easement provided from the realigned roadway down to Mr. Burdick's piece to provide access. We couldn't realign the roadway without providing access to him and the applicant is saying that they do no favor that option and they prefer a smaller design curve whereas the higher design curve would turn north. e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty One e Thompson: How far back do you have to go in order to give him the proper access as far as the engineer? That is 200 feet plus how much more? 100 feet, 300 feet? Dacy: The engineer is recommending in the area around the east lot line of Lot 2 which is at least 400 feet. Thompson: I thought he wanted it where the old lot line was. The original Lot 1 because I don't have those red lines like you do. Dacy: The original lot line was 60 feet to the west so what the engineer is saying is that basically, originally this was 400 feet from the corner and what they are doing now is halving that so what he is saying that originally we would be looking for the access into the site to be in this location. Thompson: Which is 200 feet plus another 60 feet. Is that what you are saying? Dacy: A minimum of 400 feet. Thompson: What standard is that basis? I don't know is there a stacking standard or something? e Dacy: Yes, he uses the MnDot engineering standards and so on. Thompson: I would just like to reserve my comments for later until everybody else has talked. Noziska: I guess the question Mike has been pursuing, and probably the only one that really has any validity. If the engineer has a problem with stacking distance rather than dictating to the developer, he should have three lots, four lots, five lots or ten lots, why doesn't he just say, well let's grant an easement or have an access easement in Lot 2 so Lot 1 can get out and fulfill all of the engineer's wildest dreams about stacking distances. Dacy: We looked at that option but the problem is that we don't have a specific site plan now. Remember what we are saying is that if it is combined now, but if a proposal comes in later, a specific site plan that would propose the one access and two structures, the City could consider a split of the lots in the future. For example you just got done with the Hidden Valley commercial development over there. That was one unified site plan that the city was assured that those structures would be built and we did do a lot split to create a separate lot for the separate commercial building. Right now, if it is approved as two lots, it could potentially go to two separate owners right off the bat and those separate owners may not agree to a coordinated site plan. He states in his report, as individual site plans are generated, the City may be in a position to review further subdivision upon submittal of a specific access plan. The position is e , .. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Two e if we are creating a lot now, we are creating the potential for an individual access for each one of those lots and what we are saying is that it should be combined at this time rather than split at this time. Noziska: You are telling me that we can't require him to have an access easement on the back end of that lot so he can do whatever is necessary traffic engineering wise? Dacy: At the back end of Lot 2? Noziska: Along West 78th Street. Along Lot 1 have an access easement and on the back end of Lot 2, or the end that is next to West 78th Street, so that is the engineer determines that 200-500 feet is necessary for this stacking distance or for the traffic can be fulfilled. Dacy: So you saying an access easement for example along the frontage of Lot 2? A driveway would cut east/west from Lot l? Noziska: Yes. e Dacy: It can be done but we didn't recommend that because each lot would be created separately under separate ownership at this time and I know it's not the applicant's intent either, to have a cross easement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their intent was to have an individual driveway. Without a specific site plan at this time, it would be very difficult to plan for that access easement especially with two lots being under separate ownership. Noziska: So instead of doing that we are forcing him into a 3 1/2 acre lot? Dacy: That is Staff's recommendation. obviously you can make that motion. If you feel contrary to that, Noziska: Have you talked with the developer involved about that? Dacy: Yes. Noziska: And he doesn't want to do that? Dacy: That is correct. He is proposing the five lots. Noziska: With access onto West 78th Street? Dacy: That is correct. e Siegel: I am assuming the reason for the request to subdivide this into five lots instead of three which went through in April, is based on economics? Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Three e william F. Kelly: There were two basic reasons. One, economics as to the inability of the purchaser to get the proper access onto 78th Street and know that 78th was going to stay there. Every time we came in to talk, it was going to be moved and we were not able to arrive at any agreement as to having appropriate access to the three lots. If you don't have purchasers wanting to buy a lot that would have more than one business on that lot, having one access. He had to have two access. If he wanted to have one access used jointly between Lot 1 and Lot 2, that would something in the neighborhood of 10 acres with one access. We are looking at the cost of bringing sewer into this area is high and there has to be come kind of economic ability to use the lots. If we don't use the lots, we can't develop the area. Siegel: Wouldn't the larger lots allow more adaptability for access than five smaller ones? Dacy: Are you asking me or the applicant? Siegel: Well, whoever has the answer. e Dacy: The issue on the first two lots is the proximity of the driveway to the Powers Blvd. intersection. It could be 600-800 feet deep and it could be 20 acres. The key here is the distance from the driveway from the intersection and what the engineer is recommending is that it be located at least 400 feet from that intersection. I understand the applicant's concern for creating a number of lots to defray utility costs, etc. but Staff's position remains that Lots I and 2 should be combined. During the previous application that we would be looking at no more than two access points along West 78th Street and the other lots would have to share a driveway also. Now, if you don't agree with that than you that is your progative. B.C. Burdick: I agree wi th Barbara to the extent that entrances are the key and I am perfectly willing to agree to stay 200 feet back from the west end of this property with the first entrance. I think 200 feet is a lot of stacking distance. I can't imagine talking about 400 foot stacking distance. That is like Highway 7 during the rush hour. I am perfectly willing if we could come up with 200 feet back and to have this resolved. Our buyers backed away but we do have people interested in smaller pieces. I would like to clarify at this time, it might be a little misimpression that we favor moving 78th Street back. We don't. I love 78th Street just the way it is. I'm from Excelsior, we don't have a smoother street in the whole town of Excelsior except Main Street. We don't have a straighter street either, so we like 78th Street just the way it is, but if it had to be moved, this drawing would do it. The 30 mph curve. If the driveway was taken 200 feet back from the edge of our west line with our first entrance, we would never ask for it any closer than that. That is 200 feet for stacking distance. e e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Four Siegel: It would seem that if 78th Street is realigned, that it would be better to have that Lot 1 and 2 as one lot. There is no way we can guarantee that West 78th Street, the alignment is going to change tonight or in the immediate future, so it seems to me it would be to your benefit and the potential benefit of a purchaser that Lots 1 and 2 remain one lot. In relationship to that possibility. B.C. Burdick: Out there talking with perspective people about that, it doesn't seem that way. Siegel: The implication here is that you could sell those to two different parties without their being privy to the information that those are going to be changed and they will be coming in here with a problem for the Planning Commission to solve about their access problems, and we would be dealing with two people instead of one. B.C. Burdick: That is why we drew this proposed change of 78th Street the way it is. Believing that they could visualize a change about what we have drawn here and that they could live with that if they started with the way 78th Street is now on Lots 1 and 2 and if it is changed, a problem in showing Max's drawing and they assured me, Carver County is happy with it, the State is happy with it and we just feel that if and when, 4 or 5 years or whatever, the street should be changed like this, they could live with this. Emmings: It seems to me that we don't have any choice but to decide this on the present alignment of West 78th Street and we've go to ignore the West 78th Street alignment question because it is not in front of us. This proposal is being made with West 78th Street being the way it is. Similarily with the stacking question, I don't see what we can do except to go with the expertise of the City Engineer. That is what he is here for and if he says 200 feet isn't enough than I guess I'm satisfied as a matter of common sense, that it isn't enough also. During the presentation I thought of the same thing that Howard mentioned, and that is the easement across Lot 2 and I guess I totally agree with what Howard said in terms of not dictating to the developer how many lots he has, but rather is he wants five lots, I think it is important, if we are going to go with the Staff's recommendation, that we simply make it clear that we aren't going to allow access off of West 78th Street into Lot 1 and let the developer do what he wants to do. The entrance of Lot 1 is going to come at the east side of Lot 2 and whether he does that by an easement or by turning Lots 1 and 2 into one lot should be up to him it seems to me. Erhart: I guess I have a real problem with Staff's recommendation here in combining Lots 1 and 2. It seems to me what the engineer and staff has done is to convert a stacking distance to a totaly unrelated issue and that is lot size and widths. To me the two are separate. If the problem is stacking distance than lets set a minimum distance that the first driveway or access can be from Powers Blvd.. Related Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Five e to that I haven't heard anything here that the City has a consistent policy in what that distance is, is there? Dacy: I don't know. I would have to defer to Mr. Monk on that. Erhart: I look across West 78th Street and I see outlined Lots 1 and 2, is that platted already? Dacy: No and that will be coming before you shortly. Erhart: What is so magic about that over there that those lots...? Dacy: That was just put on for sketch plan purposes. Staff has not commented on that plat yet. Erhart: I really think that the City somehow owes the developer and owes other developers in the City some kind of a consistent policy on what minimum distances from access from that type of a major intersection so they can make plans on those consistent policies rather than trying to arbitrarily say, you ought to put that lot Ine here. I don't think that is the right thing to do. On the other hand, I don't think the City owes anybody any promises that streets are going to be here or there in the next few months or years either. e Noziska: A couple of things. One, the letter we got from Carver County dated June 6, 1986 on the back end of the packer here as Attachment 6, the first comment, the plat shows a change of alignment of 78th Street and two horizontal curves appear too sharp to meet state aid requirements and curves to this degree of curvature would require... So I'm don't know as though the County is real red hot about all those curves either so the curves aren't something we need to be considering. I'm surprised that we don't know where our street is or isn't going to be from one moment to the next. I'm surprised when someone comes in here to ask about a development, we can't tell them what we are going to do with our street. What is the story on this? Dacy: We've been working on this issue for the past 2-3 months. It has really been spurred because the applicant and the owner to the north are serious now about developing the property. It has always been considered through the Downtown Redevelopment Plan that West 78th Street would be realigned and now it is coming down to the details as to how should it be realigned and the engineers will have to decide what design curve and that is what is being discussed right now. The applicant is proposing 30 mph curve, the property owner on the north, I believe, is proposing 40 mph design curve, the City and the County are going to have to redesign and pay for the improvement and so on, so what the specific design standard is, is going to have to be decided in the next few months. It is in the process of being decided now. In the meantime, the applicant wants to proceed with the development of this particular property. e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Six e Emmings: And the applicant is involved in all discussions? Dacy: Yes sir, they have been involved in the discussion. We try to keep you up-to-date as we've progressed here. Noziska: So then all this discussion about stacking here and stacking there is inmaterial anyhow because the road isn't going to be there anymore so we don't have to worry about stacking because nobody will have access. Certainly Lot 1 won't. If you stretch out the curves much further, Lot 2 will be lucky if they have access. Dacy: That is why when the property to the north comes in for platting and the street is realigned, there will have to be an easement or right-of-way provided to provide access to the northwest corners of the Burdick piece and that is why they are objecting to a higher design speed realignment. The applicant would prefer the 30 mph because it receives closer access when it is realigned. If it further to the north, then it is a farther distance away to the realignment. That is what they are objecting to. Noziska: I understand what we are saying about that but all this discussion about 300-500 feet from the corner is simply inmaterial and irrelevant because we are going to move the road anyway. e Dacy: But if the property is to be developed now, there is going to ha ve to be access to the site and the eng ineer is recommend i ng a minimum of 400 feet. Noziska: Okay, then I understand what he is recommending and there is a lot of ways to handle stacking distance problem with different methods of getting people off the road with an extra lane. There are all sorts of ways of handling that. We aren't out in the country that far and there are a lot of difficult access on and off to a lot busier streets that West 78th Street ever hopes to be. It certainly hopes to be before we do something with realigning the road. Dacy: But you have to remember, this is going to be one of the major intersections of the community. The consultant that is doing our traffic analysis for the Braun Study Area, when TH 5 is improved, that intersection is going to be a major intersection and there is going to significant amount of traffic coming from the east through West 78th Street to the west. We've got commercial planned on both the north and south side. Noziska: Barbara, I don't have a single problem with that. What I am saying is if and when, you say when, I say if and when, all that takes place, we are going to be totally changing the access to Lot 1 and 2 anyway so when I look at this from that standpoint, I wonder if we aren't climbing a mountain that isn't there. Again, if and when we get around to developing that much traffic on that particular road with whatever speeds we happen to develop it at, the situation next to that - " . , .,' e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Seven corner is going to be totally changed anyhow. undoubtedly we are going to have to combine Lot 1 and 2 into a single access with who knows what, maybe some special turn lanes, whatever for safety and maybe go all the way to Lot 3. We might have to have three lots accessing onto a new realignment. Dacy: We are coming down saying that we should plan for the appropriate access points at this point rather than having to go back to a property that has been developed and saying, I'm sorry you have to close your access and it has to be realigned through the adjacent property owners. Remember too, at 200 feet there is also a left hand turn movement going to Powers Blvd. that has to be made as well as a right turn in. Again, we aren't trying to dictate to developers how many lots they can or can't develop. That is not Staff's intention. Our intention is merely to make a recommendation based on where the appropriate access points into the lot is achieved and we are saying that combining the lots would be more practical than providing an easement. If you disagree with that, I understand. Noziska: I understand what you are saying but again, you've got to realize that it appears we are applying a design standard to an old road that we should be applying to a future road and in the meantime we are telling the developer that because in the future you aren't going to have access to that anyway, we don't want to give you access to it now even though perhaps the traffic doesn't demand all those fancy standards. That is my opinion. I think we are climbing a mountain that isn't there. Erhart: What was the 400 feet? Is that a number I heard that you are recommending? Dacy: Yes, because that is consistent with the boundary of the eastern lot line of Lot 2. Erhart: That is where that number carne from? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: That wasn't the number at first and then they established the lot line recommendation? Dacy: The number first meaning? Erhart: Is there a policy that says how far an access should be from this kind of intersection? I guess we already answered that you didn't know at this time. Dacy: And based on the proposed submittal, the engineer says that it should occur at the eastern boundary of Lot 2. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Eight e Conrad: But we donlt have a standard right now that we know of and we have to assume that Bill Monk had some standard from someplace but we donlt know what that is. He is picking a lot line as a standard and I donlt thing that is his intent but I donlt what the standard is? Noziska: MnDot has standards of access based on traffic count and a whole lot of different parimeters so that is probably what he is looking at. Again, he is looking at future traffic counts from some consultant and applying it todayls situation when tomorrow the situation wonlt apply anyway because everything is going to mumbled jumbled up with the different access anyway. Erhart: Okay so Ilm saying that we should make the recommendation but rather than based on combining Lots 1 and 2, we should recommend that the developer be required to maintain a minimum distance between that intersection and the first access based on the standards. Siegel: That we donlt have. Erhart: That is up to Bill Monk to find the standards. Conrad: I think that is a real valid point. Siegel: You are proposing that you make a requirement on a developer ~ when the developer may not own that property. Dacy: The easement would have to be recorded along with the final plat. Lot 2, when it is sold, would have to be subject to that easement. It would be part of the record. Conrad: This should be fairly cut and dry. Whatever the standard is, that is where the access can be. We are talking about things in the future that we donlt have the foggiest idea what is going to happen. William F. Kelly: We have never heard the figure of 400 feet before tonight. No standard has ever been talked about, no one has ever spoken about a standard. The only thing that has ever been told to us is that there is going to be a joint driveway, when we had three lots, a joint driveway for Lots I and 2 and you can have a driveway for Lot 3. Tonight we hear that they would let us have a joint driveway if we combine Lots 1 and 2 and then two more driveways for the other four lots. They have always stuck to three driveways somewhere in among the four lots. There has never been any discussion of standards and that is what we have come back to discuss. On what basis do you determine you are going to take away our access to the street because we canlt sell and develop the lots and put the money in for sewer unless we can get to the street. Thompson: Barbara, what is the traffic count on West 78th Street? e Dacy: I don't have that information. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Twenty Nine e Thompson: What is the traffic count on Powers Blvd.? Dacy: I don't have that information? Thompson: What is the traffic count on TH 5? Dacy: I don't have the information right now? Thompson: What is the projected traffic count on West 78th Street? Dacy: Based on the meetings we have had with Benshoof and Associates, the TH 5-powers Blvd. intersection will be a very congested intersection by the year 2005. Specific numbers, I have their estimates. e Thompson: I can appreciate that you don't have the numbers but I think those are valid points. In other words, if you go down to the intersection of TH 5 and County Road 4 and there is a Burger King sitting down there, I bet that access to that access to that Burger King that is on County Road 4 isn't more than 250 feet off that intersection and that intersection is a lot busier than this one will be. They have a Super America station across the street and they probably pumps 400-1,000 gallons per month which is about four times the average of any other station plus the shopping center. So I think we have a little problem with the standards. I don't think we should try to impose anything other than the fact, because if we get a traffic consultant and the developer gets a traffic consultant, two experts. They could disagree or agree. I don't think Bill has given me any information, and Bill is a very capable guy, in this report that is based on any standards. It just says it is his opinion. I think since I have been fortunate enough to serve on the Planning Commission with two or three engineers, I have become more detailed as to some of these things. The point is there are some things there and I don't think we are really being fair about this. I understand what the City is trying to do, or the Staff. Staff is saying okay, I think in the future we are going to faced with a problem here and we don't want to be in a position where we have to come back and try to close this access if we give it today so we would just as soon as him combine these lots and that solves a lot of problems for us. Okay, that is assuming first of all that the traffic count on West 78th Street meets the standards that you think it will in the future. I've been on the Planning Commissin for five years and we've talked about a ring road in the downtown area and I haven't seen a thing happen that is going to generate the kind of traffic you are talking about there at this point and we are talking 2005. That is twenty years from now. Dacy: At this point I would recommend that the item be tabled until the next meeting and the City Engineer will be present to make a presentation on this. e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty e Thompson: Maybe not everyone agrees with me on this but I think the developer ought to have a chance to talk to some traffic expert too to find out some standards too. I've got to believe that it is to everybody's benefit Barbara, to make this thing work. It is to the City's benefit, the developer's benefit, the planners's development right? Dacy: Right, I'm not disputing that. My only suggestion then it seems that the Planning Commission has a lot of concerns and maybe it wouldn't be prudent to make a decision tonight and when Bill is here you can ask him the same direct questions and then act on it later. Siegel: I think we should also consider the fact that things are starting to move off dead center on this HRA, and if you are up on things. I attend the HRA meetings and it looks a lot more positive than it did last year or three years ago for things happening in downtown Chanhassen. e Thompson: I agree with you Bob, but I know I used to own the station where the Super America station is years ago and when this other fellow and I bought it, the thing was pumping 5,000 gallons and within a month we had it pumping 100,000 gallons. When you take a look at TH 5 and the kind of traffic. You've probably got 20,000 cars on TH 5 but you come down to West 78th Street and you take a look at that intersection of TH 5 and County Road 4, that carries a lot of traffice. It carries a lot more traffic than this intersection is going to carry, ever. Conrad: When there is a connection to 169? I don't know that is an absolute. Siegel: You've got to consider what these guys are going to put in on West 78th Street. It might draw a lot more than a Burger King on County Road 4. Conrad: I would have a hard time reacting today without a standard. I don't have the fogg iest idea what motion I can support. I think Mr. Burdick, if our preference would be to have agreement between Staff, the Engineer and yourself. I think you can see us leaning your way but we have a problem with the standard. We are trying to plan for 10 years out and we're not sure if we can't plan for next year, that is pretty tough. But we are trying to plan down the pike. Would you feel comfortable if we would table it and you could talk to the engineer and find out what that standard is or would you rather have us react, and that doesn't mean we are going to do what you ask us to, but I am looking for your preference right now. A two week delay is what we are talking about. e B.C. Burdick: I think either one would be okay. I would have no objection to it being tabled to next meeting. I would like to have Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty One e Bill Monk the engineer here and I would also like to have Schoell and Madsen here with their recommendations and standards. Conrad: I think it might work out better in the long run if we did that rather than react to something that we are kind of, anyway, I think that might make sense. Thompson: Can Bill Monk sit down with Schoell and Madsen and try to work this out? Dacy: Yes, we will meet with the applicant and Schoell and Madsen. Noziska: It doesn't mess up the developer's plans. Conrad: It doesn't sound like it. Thompson #86-6 as until the Staff and favor and moved, Erhart seconded to table action on Subdivision Request shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received May 14, 1986" next Planning Commission meeting until the developer, City City Engineer have had a chance to review it. All voted in motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING e Sign Variance Request for an off-premise temporary leasing sign at teh southeast corner of HigiiWay5 and TH 41, Chaska Investment.- -- " Dacy: At the southeast corner of Highway 5 and TH 41, there is an existing 32 square foot sign advertising the availability of land in the Arbor Park Industrial subdivision 2 1/2 miles south of Highway 5 in Chaska. Staff notified the applicants stating that it was a sign that was in violaton of the sign ordinance and in order for it to remain, they would have to apply for a variance and that variance would have to be granted. Basically, the intent of the sign ordinance as to what we call, off-premise real estate advertising signs is to allow such signs only in the area, for example in an industrial park that the sign is advertising. For example the Opus-Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is zoned P-4, Industrial in it's entirity. As a matter of fact, the provision of the ordinance was amended at Opus' request to allow them to advertise availability of lots within the subdivision itself. The sign would be located within the industrial subdivision. In this instance, we have an advertising sign that is advertising an industrial park that is 2 1/2 miles south in Chaska. The sign is not located in the same zoned area. It is not even located in the same city. Because the sign is not located in a commercial or industrial district and because it doesn't exist within the same subdivision as the premises as it is advertising, Staff finds that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance and we recommend denial. e e - e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty Two Charlotte Johnson: All I needed to say is that I am the applicant and this is a representative of the company which I am going by that is listing the proposed industrial park in Chaska. It is probably not in your packet the letter I wrote. It is, to take advantage of the traffic count because my properties, I need all the help I can get. Also because it is located on the property that is owned by the owners of Arbor Park. Dale Ahlquist: Chaska Investment Company and I guess it is Char's sign that is on our property and it is also advertising our property and while I certainly can appreciate the Staff, Barb, trying to maintain the integrity of the sign ordinance, I don't think we are unreasonable in requesting this variance. First of all, it is not 2 1/2 miles south, it is only 1/2 mile south and we own all the property between the sign and Arbor Park. It is one large adjacent piece. My first question is who is being protected by this ordinance because the main property owner is us? We own all the property to the south and all the property to the east of the sign and I guess it seems fair that we get to put a sign on our own property to advertise our own property which is adjacent to it. I realize it is in a different city and I'm sure that is a concern, but by the same token we do have the problem that we are kind of suffering from a double standard in that the property on the corner of TH 41 and Highway 5 is designated as agricultural and that is why you do not allow a sign there but we certainly have a problem with the County Assessor not giving us that same break. If we could get it to be taxed as though it were agricultural, I will go down and tear the sign down tomorrow and tell Char here tough luck. I don't think that is what is going to happen so I ask that we don't get the double whammy and we are able to at least do something. We are an agricultural site. We are restricting as to what we can do with it but we do own the property adjacent to it and we should be able to benefit from our own property. I guess if you have an inclination not to recommend the variance, I would ask you to at least consider tabling the matter and going to look at the sign. I don't think it is that garrish or obnoxious. I don't think it bothers anybody. I really don't. I guess the testimony to that is the other people who are here, which is no one. Emmings moved, Thompson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: Before I get into my discertation maybe we can clear up this 2 1/2 miles-l/2 mile problem? Dacy: If it is 1/2 mile, I apologize for the mistake. Maybe I got the 2 1/2 from the information on the sign but the issue here is not the distance but the issue is that it is an off-premise sign and that the municipality has a right to create sign ordinance regulations that effect every lot in the city and the City chose in 1982 or 1983, when this amendment was processed, that off-premise advertising signs Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty Three e should only be located in the district in which the sign and the property be advertised is located. Erhart: As far as this is concerned, if it doesn't fall within the regulation of being on premise, then I guess we apply the ordinance for off-premise signs. To respond to your question, who is the ordinance protecting? I think it is clear to us that it is protecting the citizens of Chanhassen from adverse visual affects and not the property owner as such. If I'm wrong on that, comment. Conrad: right. I think Pat Swenson would be proud of you. You've got it Erhart: I've got a lot of empathy for you wanting to get people down there. On the other hand I oppose allowing the variance because we have a standard that we have and whether or not you own that particular property with the sign on it, I think it is irrelevant to the discussion. We have to apply this ordinance consistently based on the provisions of the ordinance. e Noziska: I don't know how many citizens of Chanhassen are adversely affected by the sign. I agree there are some obnoxious signs and it does appear to me not to be located in a commercial, industrial district. It's kind of in the middle of a pastuer that someone hopes to turn into a commercial district at some point and its on a cotton pickin freeway that you really have to dodge the next driver when you are driving on it. Maybe that is another good reason why there shouldn't be a sign. We don't want to have any distractions. I don't get real emotional about applying the sign ordinance. It is so far removed from what I would consider adversely affecting our citizens but on the other hand if it is what we have to do to maintain consistency in apply our sign ordinance, then maybe we should do it. I guess again, I don't have any great big, tremendous feelings about that sign especially knowing the owners of the property that it is on and the fact that they are trying to promote their own business. Conrad: Do you want to change the ordinance that way? Noziska: No, I don't. I can see both sides of the thing Ladd and I guess I don't see all that many residents that are being adversely affected but then on the other hand, it's not in accordance with our ordinance so I guess I will go either way on it. Thompson: Normally I would go for something like this but I have a hard time with it being in another city so I support the Staff. Conrad: I look for the rationale. It seems unjust when you own the property, you can't put a sign there. e Charlotte Johnson: What is the purpose of a variance? Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty Four e Conrad: Variances, we try not to grant variances unless there is situation that the normal ordinance couldn't have foreseen. Dale Alhquist: I think we've got it here. That is what we are trying to do. We're not asking you to change the ordinance, we're asking for a variance. Because the ordinance really is taking into account this situation. I appreciate Howard's vacilation when he said that he doesn't think citizens are being adversely affected and that's the point. Here are the citizens that are being adversely affected that are here opposing our poor sign and I guess we're asking please at least recommend the granting of the variance. Erhart: Maybe I can add a little bit to the question of what a variance is for. I think to help better explain, a variance is intended to serve people where the ordinance creates a special hardship because of the particular situation dealing with that property, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm the new guy here, and I guess what we see here there is no special hardship. Obviously there is a unique situation in that you own that property, but you are not being treated any differently than the next developer next to you who wants to put a sign up there that doesn't happen to own that property either. So I think the question here is the hardship situation and I don't feel there is anything unique that would justify a variance. e Noziska: I think the other thing we could think about consideration again, is this correct Barb if this was sitting on a commercial or industrial piece of property it would be in accordance with. Dacy: Right, if the Arbor Park Industrial park was at that very location, then it would not be an issue. Noziska: We've got it right now on a R-1A district and who knows at some point that piece of land probably once it goes from farm land to used land will probably end up as a commercial or industrial piece of property so if you look at it from that standpoint and the fact that they own the land. Ordinances were made to be varied. There isn't a set rule that will govern some of these conditions. I think it is a screwball condition myself. I guess if it was in a different location I would have more of an objection to it. I, for the life of me, can't see how anybody can even read that sign driving down highway 5 because you are too concerned dodging the cars, so I'm not sure it does a lot of good there. On the other hand, if it does citizentry of the great city of Chanhassen any four deed for the inhabitants sitting down there in that pastuer. Conrad: I'm looking for reasons to change something and the fact that the property is contiguous or next to, and the fact that they own all of it. It's not industrial but it's right next to their property. e Dacy: You could have the property next to the electric. The intent of the ordinance is to draw a line somewhere. If you broaden it any , 1 . e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty Five more, you could literally have a lot of parcels along the major highways advertising the sale of property that could he half a mile down the road or a mile down the road or whatever. Conrad: If they owned it. Dacy: If Ted Korzonowski owned five acres along TH 5, would he have the right to install an off-premise sign advertising his restaurant? Conrad: All I'm saying is in this case, and I'm not saying change the ordinance, I am saying maybe. Dacy: That's what I thought. Conrad: The fact that these people own the land and it is right next to the industrial that they are developing. Would that concept change anything. Would that hurt if we changed the ordinance. Noziska: I don't thing we should change the ordinance but that is the reason for a variance so you don't have to goof around with the ordinance but in special, unique conditions you can accept a special unique situation and allow the rules to be altered ever so slightly without having to change them permanently. For that condition, for a specific situation and you can put a time limit on it or whatever you want but I think it is a special, different condition and not something that could be foreseen by those glorious gods writing ordinances. Conrad: That's us. Noziska: I know. Siegel: I agree with you Howard. I think there are certain conditions where we have issued variances on the sign ordinance. Some of the reasons you have given for the location and special considerations here. Being that they own the adjacent property, but that could be subject for granting a variance in this case. I went either way on this too. I'm not sure how secure I am in my own feelings about past votes on sign ordinance variances and this one but I can see your point. Conrad: I don't see a hardship. I do see a problem maybe with the ordinance. That was all I was exploring. Emmings moved, Thompson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Sign Permit Request #86-5 for placement of an off-premise sign for Chaska Investment Limited Partnership based on Section 3.13 (b) (2) of the Sign Ordinance No. 36-E. e e e Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1986-Page Thirty Six Tim Erhart Steven Emmings Robert Siegel Ladd Conrad Howard Noziska Michael Thompson Favored Favored Abstained Abstained Opposed Favored Motion carried. Erhart: Will our new ordinance read the same as this? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: That might be an area worth looking at. Approval of Minutes The Commission, on a motion by Siegel, seconded by Thompson approved pages 1-13 of the May 28, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Action on the remainder of the Minutes will take place at the next regular meeting. Open discussion was centered around the resignation of Michael Thompson and applications for the open positions on the Planning Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner. Prepared by Nann Opheim