Loading...
1977 07 13 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1977 e Mal MacAlpine called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Hud Hollenback, Dick Dutcher, Walter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. Les Bridger and Roman Roos came late. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HARRY PAULY Mal MacAlpine called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Harry Pauly was present. The Planning Commission dispensed with the reading of the official notice. The City Planner gaveohis report. Mr. Pauly is proposing to construct a parking lot behind the bar and build a~4t x 80t office building. Both requests require a conditional use permit. The CBD Committee met and felt this was consistent with the downtown development. The Planner recommended the Planning Commission look with favor on the proposal provided he be bound to the purpose and scope of the documents submitted to date. The Mr. Pauly post a performance bond to guarantee the construction of the parking areas and landscaping areas and pay for all city costs incurred in processing this application. The City Planner feels the access drive immediately behind the bar is dangerous. If the access were closed off possibly the area along Great Plains could be posted as a loading zone between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. There could be a service lane where trucks could back in to the service doors. Roman Roos came at 7:45 p.m. e A motion was made by Hud Hollenback and seconded by Walter Thompson to close the public hearing. Motion unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 7: 55 p.m." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HARRY PAULY: Members commented on the proposal. , Jerry Neher - I like the whole plan generally, very much. I am concerned that; it is $urprising to me that it has never happened before, that there hasn't been somebody hit coming out of th~ driveway. I hate to see it closed off but I think for safety sake itts the only route to go. Walte~ Thompson - I think it is very important that limited time parking be posted along Highway 101. It is convenient to use the back door there because usual~y the street is loaded. Other than that I see no problems once the drivers get educated as to how they operate there~ Hud Hollenback - I like the plan and I concur with Bruce. I think the loading area should be blocked which probably will hurt a littljebit but I think it makes it flow better and will be safer. I think the area along 101. should be posted for pick up and I would like to see some sort of continuity as far as the size of the sidewalk to tie into the whole program. Dick Dutcher - I concur with the Plannerts recommendations. Roman Roos - Not hearing the full discussion on 'it, I have only two comments. Possibly the idea of a truck loading area, if thatts your major concern. A limited truck loading area might be one possible solution in that area if the other were blocked off. I guess I wontt really comment on anything else. I like the looks"of it. I like anything that says there is going to be growth going south to Highway 5. Mal MacAlpine - I think it looks like an e~cellent plan. e Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1977 -2- Jerry Neher moved to recommend the City Council approve the plans as submitted with the modifications that work out and with the recommendation that the service lane be closed off and limited (15 minute) parking for ~ pick ups and deliveries during the day (suggested time period 8:00 a.m. ~ to 8:00 p.m.) be installed along the west side of Great Plains Blvd. Motion seconded by Dick Dutcher. Motion unanimously approved. Les Bridger came at 8:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - llIKE SORENSON Mal MacAlpine called the public hearing to order at 8:05 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Ron Enright and Mike Sorenson. 'I'he Planning Commis sion dispensed with the reading of the official notice. Th~ C~ ty Planner gave his report. Mr. Sorenson is proposing to build a retail office bu~ld~ng at 7900 Great Plains Blvd. The Central Business District Connnittee met and felt that the proposal is consistent with the s.pirit and intent of the City's plan for development. The Planner recommended the ~lanning Connnission find the request positively consistent with the City's plan for land usel transportation, and utilities, provided he be bound to the scope of the drawings submivted to date and the elimination of the parking spaces as discussed at the lant meeting, and he demonstrates to the Council the type of screening the outside storage area, and that he post a cash bond guaranteeing the construction of all the parking areas, landscaped areas, and pay for all costs incurred by the City in processing this application. Mr. Sorenson is proposing a full canopy on the building with lighting underneath. He is also proposing a redwood or cedar fence around the storage area. e A motion was made by Dick Dutcher and seconded by Hud Hollenback to close the public hearing. Motion unanimously approved. Hearing Closed at 8:15 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MIKE SORENOON: Members commented on the proposal. Jerry Neher - I like it. It's a good use for the land. Walter Thompson - I think the canopy is an improvement over the bearness of the other. I am satisfied with the efforts that have been made. Bud Hollenback - I think it's a very appropriate use for a difficult piece of property. Roman Roos - I think the earth tones and the cedar or redwood is going to tend to lead it in the direction we want it to go. I personally like it. Les Bridger - I like the idea. It will be a nice addition. It is a good use of the land. Mal MacAlpine - I think you have tried to do what we asked you to do. Dick Dutcher moved to recommend the Council approv;e~the,'pl~a.s it is cQnststeftt ~~P.: the' Oity'splan for land use. l-btion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. IvIINUTES: Hud Hollenback moved to accept the June 22, 1977, minutes as submitted. MOtion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Mal MacAlpine, Bud Hollenback, Roman Boos, Dick Dutcher,~val ter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. Les Bridger abstained. Hotion carried. NOISE ORDINANCE .AMENDMENT: OOmmi.$sion-members want to study the proposed amendment and compare it with the present ordinance. R-IB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The Planner recommended the Planning Commission look at Red Cedar Point, Carver Bea.ch, St. Hubertus, and Shore Acres as possible areas to be e rezoned R-IB. Staff 1-1ill identify lots that would fall into this zoning for the next meeting. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1977 -3-, . Dick DutcheT moved to hold a public hearing on August 10, 1977, at 7 :30 p-.m. in the Chanhassen Elementary School to consider rezoning certain hinds to R-IB. Motion seconded by Roman Roos and unanimously approved. LOTUS, LAKE BOAT ACCESS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK: Joe Betz, 'wally Coudron, Shirley -Chellis, Phyll~s Pope, and Pat Boyle of the .Park and llecreation Commission; Don Ashworth, Fran ?allaha~, Bill ~rezinsky, and Mel Kurvers were present. The purpose of this meeting ~s to f~nd a su~tabl& site for a boat access to Lotus Lake. ' Bill Brezinsky, Bob VJaibel, and Paul Reynolds visited the proposed site- on the north east side of Lotus Lake. Bill reported on their findings. The area near the shoreline is 10 plus feet deep of peat. The treeline along the shore has a good base. A road could be bridged using crushed rock or wood chips. Corduroy could also be used, possibly using elm logs. The lake is quite shallow at the proposed access point (100 feet out to the five foot bottom contour). The City Planner will approach the DNR to see if they vrould consider this a public ~ccess for their fish mainten,?nce and sanitation programs. 1.: 2. 3. e 4. Alternative sites vrere discussed. Thompson property, northwest end of lotus Lake,. This property has a very extreme grade to. the lake. It, vrould be verY difficult to construct any facilities that require flat areas. . Char Lyn property, south epd of Lotus Lake. The 'land is suited for active and water based activities. This property; is remote :fromthe north area of the lake. Kurvers property, east side of Lotus Lake. It is remote l'rom the north area. It is on an 'arterial street (Highway 101). It is across the street from Eden Prairie. The' land would be suited for active play areas. There would be grade changes and 'grade problems to the lake. . Moulton property, west side of Lotus Lake. The property is heavily' wooded and would not be sui-ted for active play areas .because trees would have ~9 be cut. This prope rty is remote from the north area of Lotus Lake. Persons present commented on the proposal. Joe Betz _ The Park and Recreation Commission is on record as having suggested that the City look at this site in terms of proposing a ~W90N Grant, ~iving ~t Pr.!-ority number one. I think vre should be able to come to a Jo~nt conclus~on ton~ght J.n terms of giving staff direction to go on. That's vrhy vre wanted td get together so we could solve this problem once and for all. If you look at that particular piece of property and take out the boat access, in terms of 'the ordinance and the proposed development of that area, there is a need for a park up there. It1s consistent with 1968 so Park and Rec., without that other is sue involved, said, yes, we do need a park. If we put the boat access into it we end up wi tha deal where we "can apply for the LAWCON Grant, get a bundle of money and vre so~ve tvro problems at the, same time. That IS not to say that the Char Lyn property ~sn't also a good locat~on for, a park but vre would sort of like to post pon~ that and look at that as a. separate ~ssue. Shirley Chellis _ i think most of it has been stated bef?re. " I think t~e boat access and park shou-ld be combined in one park. If they are go~ng out for_ farru.ly recreation after they go swimmi.ng or boating they are going to want a park to go to. Phyllis Pope _ I 1.0J0uld like to .speak to the access thing. ~ think the fact !,hat ~t , :' does limit the size of boats by the depth of 'the water and ~n that way ~he c~ty WJl.;ll, have to make a decision on limiting the size of boats' on the lake., - I l~ve on the e lake and I agree that it is very dangerous. Planning. Commission Meeting Ju~ 13, 1977 -4- Pa~ ~yl,e .- I concur with both what they have said and what Joe has said. In our onglonal motion we did ,make this particular site the primary focal point for the LAWCON ii;nds this year. We also rea,lized that we need to expand Lake Ann but we 6 are puttlong that off a year just so that we can acquire this property now while we · can, while it's still available. Wally Coudron - I am in favor. of it as long as it linrl.ts the type of boats that will be able to gain access tu the lake and also the parking spaces. Jerry Neher - As a park, I buy it all the way. I never was against buying park land. As a publ~c ac~ess, I j~st ?an't see it. As far as the ~wi~ing pool is concerned, I can't, vlosualJ.ze spendlong $100,000 or whatever for a SWlommJ.ng pool when we have so many good lakes in the area. If we want to buy that land for park area I would be all for it but if it meant what our charge was to buy lake access or find lake access for boats and swimming and so forth, and if it would mean we didn't buy good lake access. If we bought that property, I would be against buying it at this time. I feel we should buy the good lakeshore first because that is our charge. I don't believe that is good lake access for swimming or boats either one. What you are doing by saying that you can limit the size of boats by the depth of the water, you are telling me that I can't put rrw bo.at on the water because it's to big, so the people who live on the lake can have their big boats in the water. I' don 't want l!l;Y ooat, because it is to big, on that lake but you are telling me I can't do it. If it's good enougtl for one person, it's good enough for everybogy on' the lake that they can't "flave anytfiing bi~ger than a 10 horse motor or a canoe. You are limiting the size. wit!lOUt legislatJ.ng it. I don't think it's right. Les Bridger - I don't agree with the sWimming pool concept but that's a concept that can be dloscussed later.' I am in a~reement Wl.th the general concept of bpat aMess and the park. I think a public sWJ.mming .beach should be considered. e Roman Roos .. I think the Park and Rec. has done an excellent job. The only comment that I vpuld like to rrfake is that the charge we have been directed by the Council 1<8 to find a better boat access"irrespective of size of boats. The Carver Beach area didn't want it because of the sloilles and the drop off. That's a handicap. I look at this access and there is a handicap there. You are putting a limit on the type of boo. t. I like the basic concept and ,I like parks in general. I guess I have to take a look at the other areas. The Char ~ area, if we are looking for lever~ge on our dollars, if we are looking for a way to meet the ,Council's d~rec~ive, the 9ha~ ,Iun area does meet that criteria. At this point we .are not cons1.derJ.ngthe SWlommJ.ng pool. We are meeting the requirement of a park. \ie need a park on that south end also. There is ~o reason why we can't also look at a park in the north. It does not have to be tied into the lake. Walter Thompson _ I think the park idea is great but I question whether the access would be suitable for it. Whether or not' we can acquire the Char Lyn or the other property there, at this time we cel'tainly don't know. Hud Hollenback _ I think we are lOOking at two issues, we are lo~king for someplace to apply fbr LAWCON funds and secondly the Council wants Park and. Rec.to come forward with a recommended place for a boat access. We are look~ng a~.a lake t~atmr~~ ilreadY met 1.. ts match as far as tx:affic, size of baats, etc. on J.t. W1.th that lon thO k' i terms think this would be an i?eal loca.tion. I agree with. Jer~c~~~ th~~,;n~igg to of that, if ;oo-'ba:v'e' W.)~ppl1':;a.Q~ess we want to furn1.sh a limit the size of boats, we can limit the number of boats by the size of the parking a lot, this would certainly limit the size of the boats, from the water depth and .. the road going down there. . So that in itself, if that were the site, would. take . th lak . th future You are g01.ng to care of another problem and then zon1.ng e e 1.n e · regulate the boats with this concept. ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1977 -5- ~l MacAlp~ne - I just want to recap some of the concerns that I have heard here. we are s~Y:Lng that the boat limitation is a definite concern of the Planning Commission. becaus~ It does ~eally restrict boat size by the very nature of the boat access. The~ lS a questJ.on whether a pool really is necessary but that's not paramount to the J_ssue. ':Je should be looking at the alternative sites such as the Char Lyn property and the ~hompson property saying that even if this were acquired for a park it wouldn't necessanly have to be the area that we Hould put a boat access although we do hear from Park and Rec. strong recommendation that this seems to fulfill both needs. There seems to be a strong feeling that this is a good area for a park but by the same token 1ie should be looking for park land acquisition on the south :r;a rt of wtus Lake as we 11. Bruce Pankonin - There are a number of neighborhoods in the City that need neighborhood parks. 'tle have 3,000 acres sewered right now. That represents 20,000 people. They are going to need neighborhood parks throughout the community. One neighborhood park is not going to satisfy all the needs. One other point is the positive shaping~affect that a park has on a community. The City has invested an awful lot of money putting sewer into that area. Bonds were sold and debts are being paid. The City Council made that investment in urbanizing that area, this ..rill be a stimulas for that and that is important too. Roman Roos _ It is a matter of weighing 19 different situations. I guess on what you just said Bruce, that's a very, very important consideration. I guess if I were to try to Heigh it all out I would have to say that Pleasant View, in my mind, be just a little better than what I said earlier. I would have to go along with the majority. Mal YJacAlpine _ I think the other consideration is to talk to the larger boats. I think the lake is quite crowded now. I think in time there is going to be an ordinance restricting boat size, engine size and you could also have the possibility of dredging and I don't know if that is desirable or not. Dick Dutcher moved that the Planning Commission support the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation that proposed Pleasant View Park be considered by ~he City Council as their public access to the lake satisfying thetr.inter:-~in asklng us for a recommendation and that an application be made throu~h the LA~v?ON ,proce:ss to obtain funds. Motion seconded by Les Bridger. The followlng voted In favor. Mal MacAlpine Hud Hollenback, Dick Dutcher, Walter Thompson, Roman Roos, and Les Bridger. Jer~ Neher voted no. Motion carried. MINNE'tlASHTA REGIONAL PARK: Bruce Pankonin gave. a ~eport on th~ meeting held July IT lY ( ( Wl 'th 'the lVle'tropoli tan Open Space COmm:LSSlOn to conslder an. amendmen~ to' Carve~ County's Master Plan. The Commission unanimously voted to lnclude sltes C and D as part of the t1innewashta Regional Park. TOUR: The Planning Commission invited Park and Recreation Commission members to tour neighborhood parks in other communities on July 30 at 8:00 a.m. COUNCIL HINUTES: Roman Roos moved to note the Council minutes..Motion seconded by Les Bridger. Hotion unanimously approved. CON1YlUNITY FACILITIES STUDY COHHITTEE: Les Bridger gave a report on the status of old st. HUbert's vhurch. A motion was made by Dick Dutcher and seconded by Roman Roos to adjourn. unanimously approved. Heeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Motion Don Ashworth City l1anager