Loading...
1978 05 24 e e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 24, 1978 Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Les Bridger, Mal MacAlpine, Jerry Neher, Walter Thompson, and Dick Matthews. Hud Hollenback was absent. MINUTES: Les Bridger moved to accept the May 10, 1978, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. ,The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Les Bridger, Dick Matthews, Walter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. Mal MacAlpine abstained. Motion carried. Jerry Neher moved to note the May 15, 1978, Council Minutes. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. HESSE FARM PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Pat and Harold Hesse and Herb Baldwin were present requesting approval for Phases 2 and 3 of the Hesse Farm. This 140 acres is located on the west side of Bluff Creek Drive. The developer proposes 28 residential building lots. Sewer and water are not available to the property. The property is zoned P- 1 . Bob Waibel - A proposition such as this is governed by City Ordinances 28, 33, 33A, 45, 47, Council Resolution 911721, and Metropolitan Significance Regulations. Planning Commission, at this time, should restrict their comments to the propiety of the request, rather than to the relative merits of the plans submitted. Section 19.13 of Zoning Ordinance 47 states that plans containing in excess of 25 single family zoning lots or in excess of 24 multiple dwelling units or in excess of 10 acres for proposed commercial/industrial use shall be submitted as proposed planned unit developments and shall be governed by the regulations thereof. Planned unit developments have been devised to promote flexible platting of land for various uses. Section 2.01 of Ordinance 45 states that platting and subdivision of land within areas of the City not served by the City sanitary sewer system shall be prohibited until said sewer system is available to serve each such area proposed to be platted or subdivided. Additionally, City Council resolution 911721 states that 1I1and proposed to be developed as a planned development district not currently served by sanitary sewer and water will not be considered beyond the sketch plan stage as set forth in the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The applicant may prepare a sketch plan with such supplementary documentation set forth under Section 14.05, paragraph 3 (a), as the applicant desires for review and informal discussion by the Planning Commission. When the necessary utilities needed to serve the proposed development are available or are emminent, the appl i cant may then proceed to the prel iminary development pl an as specified in Section 14.05, paragraph 3 of Ordinance 47.11 Section MC. 2(a-8, A and B) of the Metropolitan Significance Regulations required that a Metropolitan Council review by initiated if the issuance of a land use permit in an outlying community for critical development which could reasonably be expected to lead to: a) the premature expansion, construction or extension of use in excess of capacity of a public sewer facility or metropolitan transportation facility or, b) the disruption of commercial agricultural use. The Planning Commission may order a public hearing on this proposal. Craig Mertz - The options are, 1) to' decide that you are not going to entertain this request at all and your authority for that would be existing Ordinance 45 and Council Resolution. The second alternative would be to go ahead and order a public hearing. The third alternative would be to request the City Council to start a Metropolitan Council Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 -2- Significance Review. The State Legislature gave the Metropolitan Council the authority to stop, for one year, any deve~opment that is found to be of metropolitan significance. The Metrop~litan Council can issue that stop order on its own or a citizen gro~p can being 4It the matter to their attention and ask them to issue s~ch an order or the City Council can ask the Metropolitan Council to ~nvestigate and determine whether something has metropolitan sign~ficance. Roman Roos - When I was reading through this and reviewing it, the first question that came to my mind was what really happened at that point in time? How was it phased out? Craig Mertz - The property owners had approximately 333 acres and t~ey submitted a survey showing the whole 333 acres and it was divided: up into three sections (phases 1, 2, and 3). Phase 1 was the part that was east of Bluff Creek Drive. They submitted a plat for onlyione of the three phases and that plat was approved and phases 2 ~nd 3 remained in city files until tonight. : Roman Roos - What was the Council's and Commission's position on th~ sewer, septic situation? This is really the crux of the issue. . Craig Mertz - Ordinance 45 was in effect at that time. Section 2.01 says that the platting of lands in areas not served by sewer shall ~e prohibited until sewer is available. The plat approval that they got for phase 1 flies in the face of that provision so they got a v,riance to that provision. The Metro Council business was not in eff$ct at that time. That did not come into being until December of11977. Roman Roos - I am looking at the overall development in light if the variance was granted which I assume it was, the reasoning for the C~uncil and the Planning Commission in granting a variance on this PUDj I would like to know what the justification was for the variance. l think we have ~ to look at it in total context and I would like to knoW those positions.~ Bob Waibel - I have reviewed the minutes and I really didn't detectiany reason behind it. I could search further for the variance procedure. Roman Roos - On a PUD, if it's a phased project and if one phase isipermitted to go, what is the city's legal standpoint in respect to whase 2 and phase 3. Craig Mertz - In this case the city made no commitment to approve phases 2 and 3. This is not unlike what we did with Hansen and Klingelhutz for Saratoga and the same way for Santa Vera Apartments. I Those were shown in their original development plan for the whol, Western Hills area and when they came in finally with a proposal, you will recall that Saratoga was very much like their original propo~al and Santa Vera was quite different from their original proposallbut in both cases they were required in effect to start over and ~resent it as a brand new preliminary pl an. i Dick Matthews - No legal obligation but in fact there may be some m~ral obligation. Herb Baldwin - I am the landscape architect that was involved in th~ planning of the parcel. I became involved after Mr. and Mrs. He1se had been before the Planning Commission and the Council I belleve or at least one of the groups, requesting to actually parcel offiand sell a portion of their farm. At that time it was the request of t~e City that an overall comprehensive plan be presented to the Planning Commission and to the Council for and at least an idea as to th~ direction that this was taking. We put together a total presentati~n tl1atpertained to the whole parcel. The point I wanted to make in *ddition to the fact that it was the requirement of the city that anloverall plan be presented that it was in light of that overall pl~n that ~ acceptance of the first addition was approved and passed. The second major point I would like to make is that we sufferedla number of inconveniences with regard to the change of people a~ the helm. We e e - Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 -3- found the consistency of accurate reporting and efficient management of our project, particularly in trying to get through the general planning of the whole farm area and the specific acceptance of the first area as being rather laborious. I think we went through three different administrators at that time with interim administrators along the way. So be it. I think that the dilemma as you face right now and we face together is in part due to that tremendous confusion and unfortunately some very unhappy moments with a few of the administrators. It's essential to us to have you bear in mind the comprehensive,> nature of our presentation because if we are for example, disrupting the commercial agricultural use, admittedly that is the use that Harold's father made of the property, he is currently making of the property. Actually the parcels lying to the east which were under the first addition, if there is prime ago ground, that was it. Now we have ground on the west side of Bluff Creek Drive which is not as potentially farmable as was the east~ Mal MacAlpine - I would like to go through the sketch plan what they presently have for developing phases 2 and 3 and then I personally feel we should consider going to the Metro Council for a review. I say that primarily because the first stage was approved and at that particular time we approved it knowing that stages 2 and 3 were going to be forthcoming in the near future. If that's a fact, and they proceeded with the development of phase 1,I think there is a moral obligation to see that phases 2 and 3 would be fairly considered and it obviously would have to go before the Metro. Council for review. Les Bridger - In -fairness theY-have complied with therequ-ests' that were issued. Granted we are not bound legally at this point but I think we have to consider they acted in good faith based upon those deci'sions that were made by City Staff at that time. Jerry Neher - I say I think all the changes that have taken place such as the Metropolitan Council changing, the MUSA line, Metropolitan Sewer Boards various rules and regulations, I think they should all be taken into consideration. Dick Matthews - The point is, thCltifi-one of. those thre~ conditions, they are the criteria to which would go to the Met Council, what we have got to decide is do they fit into anyone of those three categories and if they don't then we don't have to go to the Met Council. The only issue that I can see is that agricultural land? If they turn this over to development do they destroy prime agricultural land. That1s an issue that we have to decide. I don't think they fit in the other two. Roman Roos - The previous commission really has answered that question. Dick Matthews - I don't think we need to involve the Met Council. I think we have got to bite the bullet and face it here. Les Bridger - This is the only piece of property under contention with these conditions anyway and I think any future propositions such as this is going to be looked at as we have in the past. Members were polled in respect to the Metropolitan Council review. Mal MacAlpine - I honestly thought if we were to approve this it had to go to the Metropolitan Council because as I understand it this section MC 2 (a-8, A and B) was not in effect at the time the original variance was issued. That presently reads, the Metro Significance- Regulations requires that Metropolitan Council review be initiated if the : Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 -4~ i issuance of a land use permit in an outlying commun~ty for critical development which could reasonably be expected to l~ad to premature expansion, etc. If we determine that that does notl exist in the development stages 2 and 3 then I think we can ignore the Metro 4It Counci 1. Dick Matthews - I think it should be fully understood that this is hot sewered and it is not going to be and that we are not going to do it. Les Bridger - I would like to address this thing as a completion ofl a total project. I think we ought to disregard that particular part asl far as the Metropolitan Council. I Walter Thompson - My first reaction was that we were going to have to have the Met Council review. In view of the conversation we have had then obviously we don't. On top of that evidenta~ly there was a phase 2 and a phase 3 of some 90rt in the origi~al. I think we should proceed. I Jerry Neher - I am in favor of going ahead with a public hearing. i Roman Roos - I am looking at estate type development or let's call ~t five acre parcels, what the Council has directed the Planning Commission to do. I am looking at also what was previously attempted andl sent through. I don't feel the Met Council should be brought into th~s picture at this particular point in time for this particular development. I do however feel that any future development in this ~rea definitely will have to go through the steps as far as impact on ~ewer and water. I think we have an obligation to these people ~s the term good faith was used, of course that was prior to my time but I assume that was true. I am worried about the overall ~ontext of sewering. If we have such control on it that the sept~c systems are adequate then I would have no hang ups with it at all and I would say we should recommend a public hearing.: .' - ~ Bob Waibel - Due to City Council resolution 911721 the only recourst. we have at this ~ point if the public hearing was to be recommended woulo have to come in the form of a recommendation to the Council to order the public hearing in light of that resolution. I Craig Mertz - In most cases you have the authority yourselves to or~er a public hearing. If you look at the landuage to this resolut_on you can see that you are blocked from holding a public hearin~ on your own motion in this case. Les Bridger moved to recommend to the Council that they rescind Resolution 911721 as to this property and recommend the Council order a public hearin~. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. ; : LYMAN LUMBER PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AMENDMENT REVIEW: Davif! Ohde, Peter Throdahl, and Bill Ziemer were present. Lyman Lumber is requesting that the Planning Commission review a revised development plan. The property is located on the north side of Highway 5 in Hennepin County and is zoned P-3. I A previous plan was approved by the Planning Commission and Council in April 1$75. , David Ohde explained the revisions. They propose to increase the s~ze of the millwork plant from 40,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet. In addition the component plant will be increased from 33,000 square feet to 40,0001 square feet. The area that was previously to be held in reserve for future expan$ion will now be included in the development because of their increased needs. Tfue phasing plan is proposed as follows: Fall 1978 - lumber distribution yard and component plant. e 1980-1981 - millwork plant 1985 approx. - office building Total coverage of the property is 65%. Plantings and berms will be used for screening. It e . Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 -5- All driving surfaces will be bituminous. A railroad spur will serve the millwork plant, lumber distribution yard, and component plant. The frontage road feasibility study will be completed by the City Engineer on June 5, 1978. Sewer and water can be easily made available to the property. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on June 14,1978, at 9:15 p.m. to consider a preliminary development plan amendment for Lyman Lumber. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. QUADY PROPERTY - CARVER BEACH, SKETCH PLAN: Mr. Jim Anderson is requesting approval to replat the East 15 feet of Lot 80, 81 to 95, 103 to 194, 226 to 233, 254 to 270, 238 to 240, 299 to 308 and 200 to 204 in Carver Beach into 15 single fami ly lots. The Assistant City Planner gave his report. This particular plan was delayed from the Planning Commission until the City Engineer and Assistant City Planner reassessed the future of Narcissus Road. Narcissus Road was planned as a minor collector, which, specifically called for a cross section of 80 to 120 feet with four 12 foot wide driving lanes. This proposal was based on the expectation of extending a direct access for Lake Lucy Road traffic to the CBD. It was agreed by the Engineer and Planner that: a. Narcissus Road be classified and designed as a local street from a poi n teas t of S ummi t Road. - b. Narcissus Road should not, at this time, be continued west of Summit Road. c. Summit Road be constructed connecting West 67th Street to Narcissus Road for circulation. d. Maple Road become a pedestrian trail pursuant to the Carver Beach Plan. e. A cul-de-sac be utiHzed for access to the properties west of Summit Road. The primary reason for points a, b, and e of the above is that the Carver Beach Plan preceded the planning for MSAS 101. Mal MacAlpine moved that Mr. Anderson proceed to preliminary development plan. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. CLIFF JACOBSON SUBDIVISION - CARVER BEACH: Mr. Jacobson is proposing to subdivide Lot 2569, south 81. 191 of Lot 2670 and south 82.82' of Lot 2571, Lots 2578 - 2582, Lots 2572 - 2577 and north 21 I of Lots 2570 and 2571 into two single family lots. Two sewer and water units are currently assessed. Lot 1 contains approximately 10,898 square feet and Lot 2 contains approximately 13,956 square feet. Les Bridger moved to hold a public hearing on June 14, 1978, at 9:45 p.m. to consider this replat and that an escrow deposit of $150.00 be made to the city to defray expenses. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Dick Matthews, Les Bridger, and Jerry Neher. Mal MacAlpine and Walter Thompson abstained. Motion carried. ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND, PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES: Len Swedlund and Rick Sathre were present requesting approval of an amended preliminary plat for 77 acres located on the west side of Chanhassen Road and east of Lotus Lake. They propose 140 residential lots. Sanitary sewer and water are available to the property. The Assistant City Planner commented on the proposal. The proposal was subject to prior review by the Planning Commission in the form of Ecklund and Swedlund residential sketch G. Said sketch plan G .was subsequently approved by the Council on Dece~ber 6, 1976. In comparing sketch plan G to the Lotus Lake Estates Preliminary Plat, the major differences are as follows: a. The southern ingress to the proposed site has been shifted Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 6- southward approximately 100 feet. ! b. The southern extent of the buildable area within t~e proposed development, has been limited to approximately 200 feet iouth of the ~ southern most roadway. The southern most cul-de-sac has been extended ~ approximately 500 feet in length, with a directional cha~ge of 180 degrees on a 180 foot radius. Through this change, the developer has proposed building sites in the area previously plann~d as park land. The resulting building sites facing the lake willi be bounded by Outlot B. Outlot B is identical to the previously prbposed use as a pedestrian corridor. ! c. The changes in the northern 1800 feet of the propo~ed development, are the elimination of a ponding area in the middle of t~e development, and changes in the proposed road pattern. This has resu~ted in a street pattern having more sweeping curves and fewer loc~l street intersections with right angles. ; The proposed plat has three cul-de-sacs over 500 feet inl length. The Park and Recreation Commission should comment as to ~he desire- ability of the proposed egress from the subject site, wh~ch would eventually traverse the Lotus Lake Community Park. i Soil boring information for Blocks 3, 6 and 7 should be ~urnished to the City Engineer for verification of development support 1 ing soil qualities. . , The City Engineer gave a report. The two access that arb proposed have been previously approved by the Highway Department.1 The moving of the proposed southern access 100 feet Will. not make all material difference. A ponding area will be included at the same location as was previously approved but will not be dredged. Thel area will be dedicated to the City as a storm water easement. Thel Engineer ~ would like the results of the soil borings from the deve~oper. .., i The southern property along Purgatory Creek is now an exception to the proposal as the DNR is negotiating purchase of that property. Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on June 14, 11978, at 10: 15 p.m. to consider the plan amendment and preliminary Platl of Ecklund and Swedlund Lotus Lake Estates. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimous ly approved. : I AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7.04 (7), ORDINANCE 47, CONDITTONA! USES IN R-l RI T: T e C~ty Manager an Bu~ ~ng Inspector ave irequeste that the Planning Commission consider amending Section 71.04 (7), Ordinance 47, dealing with storage buildings, be an acc~ssory or P7~itted use ~nstead of by conditional use permit. Me4bers discussed l~m~ting the s~ze of the structure. I Dick Matthews moved to hold a public hearing on July 12,1 1978, at 7:45 p.m. to consider amending Ordinance 47, Section 7.~4 (7). Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. : I MC CLEARY SUBDIVISION: Les Bridger moved to recommend dhe Council approve the preliminary plat of Kellynne dated May 24, ~978, Planning Commission Exhibit A, with the stipulation and/or condi~ion that there be no docks constructed on the easement to the la~eshore and . that the access be governed by' covenants which will be orthcoming from the property owners that do not abut the lake. Mo ion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Dick ~atthews, Les "Bridger, Roman Roos, Jerry Neher, and Walter Thompson. IMal MacAlpine abstained. Motion carried. i 1 e e e - Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1978 -7- ADOPTION OF MEETING CURFEW: Members briefly discussed Council Ordinance 67 Establishing Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Business and how it could be amended to be used for Planning Commission meetings. This will be discussed at another meeting. LANDSCAPING, HANUS - WEST 79TH STREET: Members were generally satisfied with the height of the berm. Concern was expressed over the visual affect in the display area from Highway 5 when driving eastbound. Members would like to see the revised landscape plan. Jerry Neher reported that Mr. Hanus has been before the Sign Committee seeking approval to erect a sign along Highway 5 and a directional sign along Highway 101 at 79th Street. The Sign committee recommended approval. The meeting was turned over to Vice Chairman Walter Thompson. CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS: Roman Roos is proposing to develop 1.8 acres in the northwest corner of the MTS property. Two buildings of 11,040 square feet each are proposed. One to be a professional building and the other medical/dental. The City will need a petition for a plan amendment from MTS. This portion of the MTS property will be separated from the remainder of their property by the proposed frontage road and they have no plans for its use. Roman Roos will be meeting with Chanhassen Estates residents next Wednesday, May 31, for their information and input. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on June 14, 1978, at 10:45 p.m. to consider Chanhassen Professional Building contingent upon MTS coming in with a recommendation to amend their plan. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager