Loading...
1978 01 11 REGULAR :PLANNING COW1;I;pp;I;QN ,MEE'l';I;NG JANUAg~ll, 1978 . M~l MacAlpine called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with the , following members present: Jerry Neher, Les Bridger, Roman Roos, Hud Hollenback, and Walter Thompson. Dick Matthews came at 7:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Hud Hollenback that Roman Roos be appointed Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Motion unanimously approved. VICE-CHAIRMAN: A ~otion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded by Roman Roos that Walter Thompson be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission to serve in the absence of the Chairman. Motion unanimously approved. . RULES OF ORDER: A motion was made by Walter Thompson and seconded by Hud Hollenback that the Chanhassen Planning Commission shall conduct business pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order. Motion unanimously approved.' MEETING NIGHTS: A motion was made by Hud Hollenback and'secontled by Walter Thompson that the regular Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting nights shall be the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:30 p.m. The first meeting of each month shall be reserved for developers petitions and the second meeting of each month shall be solely reserved for development of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Motion unanimously approved. ~~ AGENDA SYSTEMS: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Hud Hollenback that all meetings shall be conducted on the agenda system. The Zoning Administrator shall be responsible f6r preparation of the agenda and agendas shall be closed 14 days prior'to.thenext. 'regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion unanimously approved., SIGN COMMITTEE: A motion was made by Hud. Hollenback'and sec:onded by Walter Thompson that Jerry Neher be appofntedto the Chanhassen Sign Committee. Motion unanimously approved. . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: A motion was made by Roman Roos and seconded by Jerry Neher that Dick Matthews be appointed the Chanhassen Planning Commission's representative to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion unanimously approved. ALTERNATE TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS:, A motion .was made by Hud Hollenback and seconded by Walter Thompson ,that Jerry Neher be the alternate Planning Commission representative to the1;3aord of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion unanimously approved. ECOLOGICAL COMMITTEE: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Roman Roos that Mal MacAlpine be the Chanhassen Planning Commission representative on the Ecological Committee. Motion uhanimously approved. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Walter Thompson that Hud Hollenback be the Chanhassen Planning Commission liaison to the Park and Recreation Commission. ~ Motion unanimously approved. Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1978 -2- COMMUNITY FACILITIESINTER;I:M; STUDY CO~;rTTEE: A motion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded by Walter Thompson that Les Bridger be the Chanhassen Planning. Commission representative on the Community ~ Facilities Interim Study Committee. Motion unanimously approved. ~ Roman Roos chaired the remainder of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ELIZABETH SWEIGER SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at 7.:45 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Elizabeth Sweiger, Minnetonka Robert M. Sweiger, Jr., Minneapolis Jane Partridge, Chanhassen Russell Larson,. Chanhassen 'I. iCi Marvel Eggum, Burnsville Bill Brezinsky, Sqhoell and Madson The Assistant C~tyPlanner read the official notice as published in the Carver County-Herald. Mrs. SweigerprQppsesto replatLot D, Bardwell Acres into three residential buildIng lots. These proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum square footage and frontage requirements. Because this subdivision is a rearrangement of an existing platted lot, the Planner recommended that the Planning Commission waive the requirement for topographic data inoluding contours at vertical intervals of not ,~~ more than two feet.. Mrs. Sweiger has established a minimum floor elevation of 1016 feet as- requested by staff at a previous meeting. The City Attorney encouraged Mrs. Sweiger to seek approval from the other owner in Lot D to join in this plat. No comments were made by persons present. Jerry Neher moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Walter ThQmpson. and unanimously approved. Hearing- closed at 7:55 p.m. ELIZABETH SWE~GER SUBDIVISION: Les Bridger moved to recommend Mrs. Sweigerproceed"tIi1aal~;JJ>lat. - and further recommends waiving the requirement for t<!>pographic data. A minimum floor elevation ,c;>f 1016 feet has been established. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and . unanimously approved. COUNC~L MINUTES: The Planning Commission discussed the ~ecemb~r 19 Council minutes. e ~ Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1978 -3- PUBLIC HEARING MARVEL EGGUMSUBDIVISION 4It The public hearing was called to order at 8:l5 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Shirley and Ken Waldrip, 6410 Galpin Blvd. Steve McCormick, 2085 Buford Ave., St. Paul J. A. Gallagher, 7541 Ridgeway Road, Golden ~alley Jane and George Jackson, 6480 Murray Hill Road Jane Partridge, 6280 Hummingbird Road Marguerite Gallagher, 6271 Hummingbird Road Robert Blackwood, 2091 Melody Hill Bev and Roger Hedtke, 23115 Summit Bill Brezinsky, Schoell and Madson Marvel Eggum, Burnsville The Assistant City Planner read the official 'notice as published in the Carver County Herald. e~ The applicant is proposing to replat Lots 17 and 18, Murray Hill into five residential building lots. Staff recommended that since this is a rearrangement of existing lots, it is 'not necessary for the developer to provide complete topographic data because he will not be installing any municipal roads or utilities. All proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for theR~1 District. The Planner recommended approval of'the subdivision. The applicant should posta $300 escrow deposit with the city prior to council consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation. it The meeting' was opened for comments from persons present. Beverly Hedtke - I am'opposed to the small-lots. Roger'Hedtke-'Iam also opposed. Bob Blackwood - I am opposed as well. I think most of us are opposed because most other lots in the area are considerably larger in size than those proposed and we would like to keep the area the character that has now been established. ' George Jackson - I own five acres in the area. I have the property across #117undercontract and 'I will be doing some developing in the area. I do oppose this because I think the lots are to small. The averaging is being done on houses that are way below the average cost in the area. I think it will promote substandard housing.' , Mrs. Jackson - I suggest a ditto. Jane Partridge - We are building a new house on'Hummingbird Road of an acre and 3/4 and I oppose for all of the reasons that have been given plus most of those that Mr. Waldrip , will give . . ' John Gallagher. ~ I.am:'executor for.'my'father' s estate and I oppose the subdivision. Steve McCormick -I own the property directly across the street to the south of the, proposed development. My objections are that it completely alters the character of the neighborhood. It really changes the value that I would see in building the~e. I think that to use an averaging technique to build the absolute minimum lot sizes is something that is hard for me to imagine anybody doing with a straight face to a Planning Commission Meeting January ll, 1978 Ken Waldrip - -4- neighborhood that has this character. I am very much opposed to the waiving of the topographic study or any of the provisions placed in the ordinance for ... the protection of the community's interests in ~ development property. There is already property on the other side of Galpin Road which is zoned for 84 apartment units. I guess it is something that ought to be taken into account in any averaging that is done there. The smallest lot size there now is 42,700 square feet according to the drawing I have. You are proposing lots that are a quarter that size and increasing by a factor of 6 the density of residents and therefore traffic, etc. I think it is a very substantial impact on the Hill and I am very much opposed to it. I have a number of things to go through. First of all let me reference your ordinance 47, paragraph 7.05, subparagraph 6 in which it says the minimum lot width will be 90 feet. In your Ordinance 33, paragraph 8.06, subparagraph c, we speak of corner lots. Corner lots will be l5 feet wider than regular lots, so we come up with 105 feet. Your Ordinance 47, the definitions on page 4 under lot width; the front lot line shall be the boundary mm a lot which is along the existing dedicated public street. Corner, lot where interior lots of record exist, and if this plat was approved we would have interior lots of record, on both the intersecting streets shall provide for a front yard on both front streets. The minimum dimension on a corner lot then must be lOS feet.For that reason alone this plat is in violation of your own ordinances. I have here a petition signed by virtually every resident of Murray Hill. Every resident that surrounds this property and those away from Murray Hill opposing this replatting for a number of reasons. (l) On the minimum size. (2) On the change of the character of the neighborhood. This is availab~ef:foryour perusal and it will,go to Mr. Don Ashworth. Reference your Ordinance 33, paragraph 8.01 states that any replatting shall be in the public interest. Certainly with this kind of outcry againstiit this type of replatting would not be in the public interest. (3) I have two small children. There are other small children in the neighborhood. My children ride their bicycles on these streets. They play in the area. They cross the streets. The addition of four more houses in this small area would bring additional craffic and danger to my children. (4) The city is willing to pay to put the additional services in for these lots. Why should I and the other taxp~yers here pay for additional services when we all paid our own assessments? Your paragraph 8.06 in your Ordinance 33 says, a platting shall take into account existing historical sites and trees. I find no such compliance with that. This area was once known as Hilltop Farm. There are some historic sites there. 1 see no platting that takes into account those historic sites. Ordinance 33, paragraphs 9.ll and lO.04 in terms of subwater and drainage requirements have not been complied with. I would see no reason why those e e . . - Planning Commission Meeting January II, 1978 -5- should be Wa~ved. Shirley Waldrip - I am opposed also for all the reasons that have been stated. Marvel Eggum - I don't really believe that Mr. Jackson can say that it's going to be substandard housing when he doesn't know in fact that housing is even going in there. I am paying an additional assessment fee from what was levied before to the tune of about $24,000. I feel I meet the requirements of the city and I think the plat should be granted. Bruce Pankonin - This property was assessed by the city for five lots. All the lots in the area have deferred assessments. George Jackson - Town five a.cres~there'and if I did-some averaging I could get some pretty small lots. I also own a house that I consider minimal for the Hill. I think this is one of the problems we are facing here is that Murray Hill has some pretty substantial homes. The two homes that you are avera.ging with are pretty minimal homes and you are putting in some very minimal lots if you would accept this plat. I don't think anybody would be' here tonight if the~e were one less lot there. At least I would not be. Roman Roos - Would that be true if there was one less lot? John Gallagher - I am looking at Lot J and I am saying that if it's approved here obviously it will be approved for us. I am not saying we are going to do. I would not want that to happen. Les' Bridger moved to close the public ,hearing. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:40p.m. MARVEL EGGUM SUBDIVISION: Jerry Neher moved to table action until February 8, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING EAST 'LOTUS LAKE PARK Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:55 p.m. The following interested persons were present: John Totino, 6631 Horseshoe curve Mr. and Mrs. Gordon' Junius,' 330 Pleasant View'.Road Walter Coudron, 7411 Frontier Trail Robert Sathre, 365 Pleasant View Jim Philion, 736l tong View Circle ' Gary Boyle, 7226 Frontier Trail Orval Larson, 7218 Frontier Trail Robert Grodahl, 7220 Frontier Trail Lori Paxton, 7303 Frontier Trail Robert Scholer, 7212 Frontier Trail' Darlene Huseth, 7332 Frontier Trail Don Huseth, 7332 Frontier Trail '" Wayne Mader, 400 Highland Drive L. J. Anderson, 400 Cimarron"Circle Lauren Hillquist, 501'Del Rio Drive Ladd Conrad, 6625 Horseshoe Curve Fred Wolter, 7016 Dakota Ci~cle Planning Commission Meeting January ll, 1978 -6- Frank Krejca, 7404 Frontier Trail A. M. Christman, '7008 Cheyenne Trail Pat Boyle, 502 Del Rio Drive Phyllis Pope, 7055 Carver Beach Road Jack Spalding, 7336 FrontierrTrail Alan Fox,7300 Lar~do Drive' Mrs. Ted Kelly, l06 Sandy Hook Road Chuck Hirt, 7007 Cheyenne Bill Huskins, l02Sandy Hook Road Elwood McCary, l08 Sandy Hook Road Russell Larson, Chanhassen - The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. This publis hearing was held to obtain public imput for the preparation of a conditional use permit for the East Lotus Lake Park to be located on the northeast end'of Lotus Lake. Bruce Pankonin - In the spring of 1976, the Council asked staff, Planning Commission, ,Ecological Committee, and the Park and Recreation Commission to recommend a suitable access point onto Lotus Lake. In addition, the Council requested that an implementation program necessary for this acquisition, construction, and development of a suitable access be provided. The Minnesota DNR has determined that the'existing access (Carver Beach) is inadequate and the DNR will not provide any sanitation programs,rfish management, etc. Staff and commissions analyzed many properties for a suitable location.and found this property to be the most suitable location for a public!tIt access. TheCounciI"-'applied for a LAWCON grant in the amount of $100,000 to acquire sufficient acreage to develop a boat access and park. Chanhassen has been funded for this land acquisition. The DNR has been looking for a suitable access to Lotus Lake. The location they have found is just north of Colonial Grove and south of Purgatory Creek. The hearing was opened for comments from the floor. Margaret Jumius - Because we got three sewer assessments we are being forced into building on our property and we want to build $100,000 houses and nobody is going to buy those across from a park. Jim Philion - Is this grant some sort of a matching funds grant? Will the State continue to maintain it or do we have to pump money into this thing every year to keep up everything? Bruce pankonin - The LAWCON Funding is a 75% grant 25% match, one shot deal. This money is for acquisition only. Development of this park would probably come out of the park dedication fee all new houses pay when they are built in the City. Mrs. Ted Kelly - It looks like you are inviting restrictions on the lake that are going to be sooner or later placed on your own boating. ,Us lakeshore owners who bought those lake shore lots and paid a high price to h~ve ,~ our boats are going to eventually get cut off. It ,., really isn't fair. Dick Matthews - What kind of time frame do we have? Bruce pankonin - The property has sewer to it and is assessed. It's not going to be too much longer before development Planning Commission Meeting January ll, 1978 -7- e proposals are put forth to use the sewer. The time frame for development,I would say, between eight and ten years be.fore it is' develop'ed. 'If the land isn't acquired at the onset it will ,be gone. The time frame for acquisition would be immediately upon receipt of the grant. . Dick Matthews - with respect to the acquisition Df 'the property, when is the boat landing going to be-put 'in? Bruce Pankonin - The boat landing would be developed by the DNR at their time frame. Lauren Hillquist - My question is whether or not the park2ng facilities and the access you have ,proposed: are suitable to meet the DNR requirements? ' Bruce Pankonin - We have talked to DNR representatives and sa~td; "Would a public access with trailer parking for approximately ten boats satisfy your criteria?''', They felt it would. Roman Roos - In order to get the benefits of the DNR we have to have public access. If we have to have public access one of the things we are trying to do is put it as much under city control as we' can.- This is'what we are trying to do. Lauren Hillquist - I think 'you will find that the DNR has very definite guidelines as to number of parking places and the surface that must be provided down to the lake for the launch itself. e Jim Philion - Does that mean they are going to'close the Carver Beach 'access? Bruce Pankonin - The' access -in Carver Beach is a',platted street that end's in the lake. The Couilcilbelieves that the access: in Carver Beach is 'totally ,inadequate. There is no off-street parking. 'Theyare not looking at Carver Beach being an access. Larry Anderson - If they cleaned up Carver Beach which was satisfactory to the DNR for years, we have essentially limited the traffic on the lake by parking already at that location, it was previously satisfactory with ,theDNR, do we know that thatitwouldn'tbesa.tisfactory to them right now? We could regain fish management immediately with 'four or 'five'loads of gravel there and we are back in business. 'I am not against acquiring future park land but 'it ,looks to me like setting a park up at the intersection of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka away from central Chanhassen just'doesn't make sense. Bruce pankonin - We anticipate that there will be about 2600 people living within one-half mile walk from this park in the not to: distant future.:There'cann6tbe a sUibableaccess built'in'Carver'Beach because there isn't suitable land available to put a parking area and still stay back away from the lake 50 feet that it has to be.' It Ladd:Conrad.- I am wondering how this fits into ,the total long range plans ofChanhassen for parks. I know we took a survey not too long ago wondering what ,the 'people of the city wanted as' far .as the type of parks, the size of parks, the trails. I assume ,from that somebody would have ~' Planning Commission Meeting January ll, 1978 -8- Roman Roos - developed some 'kind of long range plan and I am wondering if this fits into the results of that. ~ The Park and Recreation Commission which formulated that ~ survey,it was the general consensus that this is the ideal location for a park and this is how this park came into being. They took that survey and looked at all the different comments and weighed the general points on it along with the guidelines they had set up and this is where they pinpointed. Bill Huskins - It seems to me we have got several things. One is the question of the funds and the support we can get through the DNR toward funding this. Another one is the problem of' what goes on'on the lakeo and a third one becomes the funds necessary to develop all the things that are' associated with a park. It seems to me that they have got to be treated each one just that way. I think that we need to have a specific understanding with DNR that this or a facet of this park can and will be'developed which will satisfy their needs. I think you need to have an understanding of how large that road will be that you are going to build down there to, satisfy DNR's needs. If the understanding is that it's not going to take 50 foot long house boats with 100 HP because you are not going to dredge the lake then I. think that needs to be specified and told to them. I think it needs to be an understanding and that will satisfy some of the community's concern about what tit will be brought into the lake via that means. The third thing is to put the park development aspect into a park development aspect program. I dontt think that all of those things are treated each one in its own element, each one with itssown funding, each one with its own impact 'on the community and I suggest that that be tried. Margaret Juihius - If the ide:a is to encourage this for public access to the lake and for fishermen and this sort of thing, what is the need for the softball and all the cars that will be parked in there? Why is it necessary to have that kind of park? Dick Matthews - As that community grows up there, there will be a need for a park. The park isn't going to go in until there is a need~ Hud Hollenback moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:35 p.m. REPLAT LOTS 9 AND lO, BLOCK I, ST. HUBERTUS: Bob Scholer was present seeking approval to replat Lots 9 and lO, Block 1 into two lots and rezoning from R-I toR-lB.: 'sanitary sewer and water are available A to the property. Lot lO has been assessed one sewer and water unit ~ and Lot 9 one sewer unit. An area variance would be required as the proposed lot has 8,520 square feet. The City Planner recommended the Planning Commission deny this request on the grounds that the required zoning is a spot zone, it would permit additional housing on a lot of Planning Commission Meeting January ll, 1978 -9- substandard area and that individual properties should not egress onto a collector street. ~ The property is owned by Willard Pauly. The exis~ing home will be on ' one of the proposed lots. Mr. Scholer proposes to bui18 a home on the vacant lot that will meet all setback requirements. Members commented on the proposal. Jerry Neher - I have lived in the neighborhood for 16 years and as Bob has pointed out there has been three more houses built on 60 foot lots right in the neighborhood. I think this would lend itself, a much better looking situation than what we have got just one block from there where you don't know where one man's lot ends and another one begins. I would rather see this any day. Another thing I have noticed is that every house on the other side of the road is facing Frontier Trail. This is nothing more than what they have done with the house in the same block on Lots 1 and 2. They have cut those two lots in two and run the houses the same way that he is proposing. Dick Matthews - I agree with you. I think the lot needs to be ~illed in with a home. Roman Roos - I agree with Jerry's comments. Dick Matthews moved to hold a public hearing February 8, 1978, at 8:15 p.m. to consider the subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 and rezoning from R-l to R-lB. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. 4It Mal MacAlpine left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. CHANHASSEN LAKES NORTH: Rod Hardy and Stelios Aslanidis were present. The property is located on the east side of Powers Blvd. and south of Carver Beach Road. For development purposes it has been divided into three parcels; Parcel A contains 49.08 acres and is proposed to be developed at 2.08 units per acre, Parcel B contains 75.25 acres at three units per acre and Parcel C contains 32.l4 acres at 4.42 units per acre. They plan to develop Parcel A at this time. It will contain 100 single family lots. MSAS 101 will follow the southern edge of Parcel A. Two existing ponding areas will be retainedtohdld water runoff. Members generally liked the proposal and encouraged Dunn and Curry to proceed with preliminary development plans. ANNUAL REPORT: Members were given the annual report and will study it for the next meeting. COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION IN PLANNING: Les Bridger suggested the Planning Commission invite Mr. Douglas Frisbee, Director of Community Crime Prevention, Crime Control Planning Board to discuss how a Planning Commission can look at crime prevention and control from the very start of building procedures. . Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at ll:OO p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager