1978 06 14
REGULAR PLANNING CO~1ISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1978
e
Walter Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the
following members present: Les Bridger, Mal MacAlpine, and Jerry Neher.
Roman Roos came at 8:30. Hud Hollenback and Dick Matthews were absent.
MINUTES: Jerry Neher moved to approve the May 24, 1978, Planning
Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously
approved.
It was noted that Dick Matthews comment on page 4 of the May 24, 1978
Planning Commission minutes referred to the lack of sanitary sewer for
the proposed Hesse Farm and that the City will not be installing sewer
to the development.
Les Bridger moved to note the Council minutes of June 5, 1978. Motion
seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
JACOBSON REPLAT, IVY ROAD AND NEZ PERCE
CARVER BEACH
e
Walter Thompson called the public hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. Russell
Larson and Bill Brezinsky were present. No one from the public was
present. Members waived the reading of the official notice.
Mr. Jacobson is proposing to subdivide Lots 1622-1626, 1632-1637, west
10' of 1638, east 10' of 1638, 1639-1643, 1627-1631, and 1644-1648,
Carver Beach into fOUJ7 single family residential lots. The property
has been assessed four lateral and trunk water and sewer units.
The City Engineer and Assistant City Planner have studied the property
and decided that no grading plan will have to be submitted. Hawthorne
Road should be vacated to a point perpendicular to the eastern lot line
of Lot 1648. The Assistant City Planner suggested the Planning Commission
include in its motion that Mr. Jacobson furnish an application for the
vacation of the street. This he has done. Provide a plat for the area,
after Council approval, that would indicate the plat as requested plus
the inclusion of the vacated Hawthorne Road and also furnish the City
a $300 escrow to assure the City that the plat will be filed. He further
recommended the Planning Commission include in its motion a recommendation
on lot area and frontage variances for these four lots.
Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
e
JACOBSON REPLAT, IVY ROAD AND NEZ PERCE: Mal MacAlpine moved to
recommend the City Council approve the replat for Cliff Jacobson with
the stipulation that the vacation of Hawthorne Road be petitioned and
that a plat of the area be submitted (after Council approval) to the
Assistant C;t,ty Planner and that a $300 escrow be placed as required
by the Assistant City Planner and recommended. The Planning Commission
further recommends a corner frontage variance for Lot 1 and lot area
variances for Lots 1, 2, and 3 be granted. The Planning Commission
notes that this replat does-conform to the Carver Beach Guide Plan.
Motion seconded by jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
,"
HIGHWAY 5 FR.ONTAGE ReADS: The City Engineer presented a study of the
frontage roads along Highway 5. The south frontage road is proposed
to be 28 feet wide and would like up with a future extension to the
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
)..2-
I
west of Dakota. The first stage would be extended east t~ the edge
of the proposed MTS property. When MTS expands the road would be
extended to l84th Street. Dakota would be widened to four lanes north
of the frontage road. The Highway Department will install semaphores
which are scheduled for October 1978. The City would participate in
the cost in the amount of 7%,%. I
Two alignments are shown for the western end of the propo~ed frontage
road on the north side of Highway 5. One would be along the railroad
tracks and the other would be an extension of the existin$ frontage
road.
-
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47
;NURSERIES IN R-lA ZONING DISTRICT
Walter Thompson called the public hearing to order at
Larson, Bill Brezinsky, and David Luse were present,
City Planner read the official notice as published in
Herald.
8:l~ p.m. Russell
The I Assistant
the I Carver County
I
I
I
!
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider amendin$ Ordinance
47 to allow nurseries as a conditional use in the R-lA District. '
. I
Bob Waibel - Before"'any specific discussion on this consi~eration takes
place I believe it is appropriate at this ti$e to restate
that the iundimental purpose of zoning regul,tions are
for the promotion of health, safety, order, tonvenience, ~
and general welfare of the residents of the ~ommunity ~
through the regulation of land use and planntng principles.
The instrument of conditional use as a zonint tool was
designed in order to allow for certain uses"11;enerally
not suitable in a particular zoning district I but which
may under some circumstances be acceptable". I The above
explanation quite effectively points out that conditional
use permission is of a very specific nature. I One does
not have to look very hard to find excellent I arguments
to allow nurseries in an R-IA district in chtnhassen.
However, it must be acknowledged that there s an obligation
to make certain that health, safety, and genfral welfare
issues remain paramount. Two major elementslof planning
upon which favorable cases for the existance on 'nurseries
in the R-IA districts of Chanhassen are: Th~ local
physiography and the concept of rural prese~ation. In the
publication Soils of the Twin.. City Metropoli~an Area, the
Chanhassen area has been singled out as being very
conducive to establishing and maintaining la~dscape
materials, This attribute of the Chanhassenlarea can
be correlated to its concern for channeling *rban growth
and simultaneously preserving a rural enviro$ment. I
submit that the allowance of nurseries as a ~onditional
use in the R-lA district may lead to a highet and better
agricultural.economic use of the land as opp~sed to the
more prevalent food production agriculture, !General ~
guidelines must be drawn up to assure that t~e granting ..,
of a conditional use for a nursery in an R-lA district
w~ll have duly considered specific is~ues oflhealth, safety,
and welfare, This guideline I propose is thlt the
conditional use permit only apply to nursery sites
involved in wholesale or production activiti s. The
I
I
,
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
-3-
second guideline would require that each request for
conditional use permit must be weighed on its own merits
for design and how it relates to the best interests of the
city with respect to land use, transportation and utilities.
I recommend that the Planning Commission move to recommend
that the City Council establish the conditional use of
nurseries for wholesale and growing purposes in the R-1A
District.
Russell Larson - I think one thing you need to consider is whether you
are going to allow, as a conditional use, the erection
of any structures to facilitate or to compliment to
this nursery use. If you allow this as a conditional
use are you going to permit the erection of structures
of the warehouse type or display type which can, as
you know, become unsightly and which can very easily
lead to a permanent type of use. You might consider
restricting the use of structures to structures already
existant on the land.
e
Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing, Motion seconded by
Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved.
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47, NURSERIES IN R-IA DISTRICT:
at 8:30 p.m.
Les Bridger -
Roman Roos came
I think we ought to consider very carefully the Planner's
comments under the reason for having a zoning ordinance
in the first place. I think we had better look at that
very carefully.in looking in regards to the promotion of
health, safety, order, convenience, and general welfare.
These things are paramount I thinK and as a Planning
Commission we have got to be careful if we are going to
sta~t in any way infringing upon these areas of zoning.
I think we are going to have to lOOK carefully about
t~affic patterns, at probable hazards, at existing structures,
at the possibility of new structures being erected and
maybe old structures not being maintained. I think these
are all valid points that we are going to have to consider.
Russell Larson- T have always viewed and I thinK you must view a zoning
ordinance as being a viable" tool in planning aspects of
the community in that it has to be so structured to be
adaptable to changing needs presented to the community.
In that light you would have to decide whether or not
a commercial nursery or greenhouse is a changing or new
use adaptable to this particular community. With
respect tro ~our concern that you may be placing a future
commission or council in a difficult situation by
recommending a change in the ordinance now, I think
quite possibly that could exist if you were prone to
g~ant or recommend a great number of zoning amendments.
Idontt see that to be the history of any Planning
Commission that~I have worked with. Those commissions
and councils have been very, very careful in amending
the zoning ordinance to accommodate changing uses.
If you follow that philosophy generated over the last
ten years I think you will find you are going to weigh
this proposed change or any proposed change very
carefully.
Mal MacAlpine - I am not for amending the present ordinance as far as
how it reads. I am somewhat in favor of considering a
e
e
Planning Co~ission Meeting June 14, 1978
-4-
conditional use permit in this particularl instance
(Natural Green) with some reservations, with the ~
understanding that a conditional use perm~t would be ~
one that would be renewed on an annual baSis. Secondly
I would want the conditional use permit to be very
specific so that would indicate that new buildings
would not be built. I would want the petitioner to
understand that these would be limitations, if we
agree as a Planning Commission, and if th~t would work
any hardships on him then obviously he would have to
consider relocating at a later date. I don't see any
major problem in having that type of an operation
(Natural Green) at the present time where I it's located.
Down the road, it could. become a problem.
Russell Larson - Under R-lA this type of use is not allowable either
as a permitted use, as an accessory use or as a
conditional use. The only possible plac~ where you
could structure that ,'limiting it to a t~me period,
would be under 23.01 which says "Conditipnal use
permits may be issued for any of the fol~owing"and
it enumerates five. The last one, "To p~rmit the
location in any district of temporary uses which will
not continue for a period of more than ope year.
For good cause shown the Village Council, may renew
such temporary permit." What we had in mind there
when we drew this was that there might be an occasion
where in a particular zoning district so~e temporary
use related to an improvement that was going in there It
stock piling of gravel, the:erection of a temporary
facility to enable construction to go onto the site,
a portable ready mix plant for mixing, a' construction
office, a model home or series of model homes. That's
what we had in mind when we allowed these temporary
conditional uses, I think the concept of this ordinance
as it relates to this use limits it to a! C-3 District
as a conditional use and that~s the only! place you
can have this. The use that is contemplated by Natural
Green.
Jerry Neher - You are telling us that would be without an!:amendment
to the ordinance. An amendment to the ordihance would
have to come first before we can consider Natural Green.
Russell Larson - You have to amend R-lA to allow this typ~ of use as
a conditional use before you can enterta~n the Natural
Green proposal. In my view it does not ~it under 23.01
(5).
Les Bridger - Right now we are not considering a specificlbusiness. I
think looking at the entire concept of do w~ want to
provide a conditional use permit for this k~nd of land use
anywhere in the city, that could mean R-1A ~omeone has
several acres they could grow trees or what~ver they want
to right next door to a man that has a swi~ing pool.
There are a lot of things we have to look a~. Personally
I think it belongs in the C-3 and I would npt be in favor ~
of amending it. If an amendment were made [ would be ..,
in favor of a growing situation rather than! a growing and
wholesale situation. With that you produce! in many
instances a lot of other problems that are ~ssociated with
it like traffic problems, dust problems, a pumber of
-
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
..5-
problems that do arise,
Bob Waibel - The whole concept behind'the conditional use to at least
allow the growing,which I affinot sure we have anything
that prohibits the growing in itself, but say growing
was a conditioned use the logic behind that would we would
not want to put a growing range or establish a growing
range as a conditioned use on a piece'of R-lA land right
next to western Hills where it may be expanded in the near
future, Being a conditioned use, we could look at it by
its design, its location, Lyman Blvd. would;, probably be a
safe'bet to locate growing ranges because there is no
forseen urbanization down there., for quite some time.
Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council not amend Ordinance 47 to
include nurseries as a conditional use in the R-IA use district. Motion
seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved.--
NATURAL GREEN: Roman Roos chaired this portion of the meeting. The
Planning Commisston held a public hearing on 'l1ay 10, 1978, to consider
a condit tonal use permit for Natural Green.
Les Bridger - If I had lOO acres and I was zoned agricultu1:e and I wanted
to grow trees, I could grow trees like corn and I can
harvest them in the same manner. I cannot conduct the
business of selling those trees individually so if I
want to dispose of them I would have to dig them out,
ball them up and ship them away.
Russell Larson - A commercial or wholesale nursery will buy the nursery
stock and- they may, come in and harvest it themselves
off your land. They will then remove the trees.
Leg Brtdger ~That would be permissableunder the R-IA district.
Russell Larson' - I would-think so. He is bringing in a supply of
merchandise that he warehouses or stock piles on his
property for use in his contracting business some place
-else, whether it's lumber, trees, potted plants or
automobiles. That's the way'! have to look at it
under our zoning.
Les Bridger - In respect to our previous decision we do not wish a
change of the current zoning, 'now, 'as a commission, is
,it possible for us to; again we: are talking about conditional
use permtt, is that out of the question now in light
'of our other recommendation_or, are we still in a position
to make recommendation to allow: a conditional use permit
for this 'business to continue'.
Russell Larson - I think by your previous action you have foreclosed
any entertainment of a conditional use,.
David Luse, qNatural Green -' I think that-the commission 'is wise in
deciding not to allow nurseries into the R-IA district.
As soon as you allow nurseries by definition you allow
selltng, We do not sell retail or wholesale. Natural
Green is, not'a nursery so.-how can. you not look at Natural
Green ts~ request... . We 'are a"contractou; that brings in
nursery stock in the spring, takes dirt in pots and pots
them up and allows them to grow until it becomes installed.
It is a temporary thing. It is seasonal in spring and fall.
By the time November comes around all the materials are
sold and it's closed up for five, six months.
Roman RODS - I think we are looking for a way to relieve your situation.
I am not sure how we can do that.
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
r"6r"
I
I
Mal MacAlpine - I thought we could pursue granting a cond~tional use
permit, renewing it on an annuaL basis with the
understanding that there be no buildings puilt ~
or whatever. It would be strictly what it is right ~
now. As Russ pointed out and as I read the ordinances
again it would be in violation of the ord~nance as
it exists. The other bit of confusion I have Bob, is
your recommended action seems to indicate I that there
may be a way to resolve this without theit having to
close up shop.
Bob Waibel ~ I would think that the Planning Commission if you had
taken a course of action that would have left the door
at least somewhat open for Natural Green goipg in, we
could possibly through some drastic redesignlwork possibly
, ~ r make this workable. . .
Russell Larson - Is your concern that by your denial of tpis particular
use that you put them out of business to~orrow?
Mal MacAlpine - That is one of my concerns. :
'Russell Larson .,. You can recommend to the Council that thj:y be allowed
to operate until the fall with no expans~on of the
operation but at the end of the fall theiuse is
terminated.
Walter Thompson.,. It just seems to me there ought to be alway to
permit this. This business is not detr~mental
'to the area. I think it is a positive influence,
It seems to me there ought to be a way that this
gentleman can continue this business. I
Russell. . Larson -. 'Under the ordinance. a.. s st.ructured, it's only under C-3,.
Bob Wa:tbel ... S'C!)ffie of my' remarks in the last report I was trying to ,.,
make a point that I think the City of Chanha~sen may be
or should possibly encourage at least growinf; ranges
for nursery type products due to our local ppysiography
and the local attributes of the area that ar~ very, very
conducive to these type of agricultural actiyities. I
think it~s a good way to preserve our rural ~nvironment.
Then we come down to the fine line are we stjrictly
going to allow growing ranges or the other mbre
intens:tfied uses. '
Roman Roos - I think the commission as a whole is lookingl for a way
of permitting this. I wonder if it would bel in order
at this point, if we would table this until ~he next
meeting to give staff. and commission a chanc~ to look
at some alternatives, if there are any
Mal MacAlpine moved to table action at this time for further
consideration. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher 'and unanimbusly approved.
Jerry Neher -
I
I' think his proj ect out there is a big plus!. I would
like to see some way he could continue to o\Jerate it.
If there is. some;~,~aYt;thatl:an be worked outfs<?1Dhat .
he can ;(kontJ1.nul:Lh~s'operat~Qn; I~woula. ,to see ~t happen.
e
e
e
It
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
.,..7.,..
PUBLIC HEARlNG
MOBIL SERVICE STATION
CONDlTlONAL USE PERMIT
Roman- Roos called the hearing to order at 9:18 p.m. John Havlik,
Russell Larson, and Bill Brezinsky were present. The Assistant City
Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County
Herald.
Mr. Havlik is proposing to construct a self-service gasoline dispensing
island at his Mobil Service Station on the intersection of West 78th
Street and Laredo Drive.
The Assistant City Planner gave his report. The applicant has requested
to locate this facility l7 feet from the right-of-way of West 78th Street.
He is limited to this location for the new facility because of the
following reasons: '
a. Minnesota State Law requires that any self-service island
be in full view of the station attendant.
b. Any relocation of the self-service island further away from
the right-of-way of West 78th Street would negate in and out
circulation of traffic between the existing pump island and
the proposed island. .
Section 10.04-l (c) of Ordinance 47, requires that fuel pump islands
be set back not less than 25 feet from any'property line. The Board
of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to review this
variance request and recommend 'a five foot variance be granted.
Mal MacA.lpine moved to cl<!>se the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:25 p.m.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,' MOBIL SERVICE STATTON: Walter Thompson moved
to recommend the Council approve a conditional use permit and five foot
variance for John Havlik to install a self-service gasoline dispensing
island at the Mobil Service Station. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher
and unanimousl~ approved,
PUBLIC HEAR.ING
LYMAN LUMBER, PLAN AMENDMENT
Roman Roos called the public hearing to order, at 9:30 p.m. The following
persons were present:
Henry Atwood, 8007 Dakota
Peter J. Throdahl, Lyman Lumber
William Ziemer, Lyman Lumber'
David Ohde, BR.W
Russell Larson
Bill Brezinsky
The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in
the Carver County Herald.
The City Planner gave his report. As requested at the May 24, 1978,
Planning Commission meet;t!1g~ 'the applicant has submitted a western
approach site rendering and a statement of findings on plan changes
as recommended. The applicant has stated that the plan changes
suggested by staff would create substantial problems in terms of
material flow, due mainly to the needed change in location of the
Plann~ng CQmmiss:Lon :Meettng June l4, 1978
..8..
railroad spur. The feasibility study for east ~ighway 5 shows a
proposed 28 foot frontage road with concrete curb and gutrter to extend
along the southern boundary of the Lyman Lumber property.: Sanitary ~
sewer and water is proposed to be extended from the exist~ng line ~
west to the property along the proposed frontage road rigJ1t-of-way.
In his planning report of May 19, 1978, the Planner commented on how
the previous plans approved by the Planning Commission fo~ Lyman Lumber
were based on the proposed phasing and how the plan and the plan phasing
demonstrated ":it "s assured ability to screen the distribut~on yard
buildings and activities, and also how the newly proposed: phase I is
not architecturally consistent with the other development~ in place
or proposed in this part of the community. Because of th~ uncertainty
of the effect that the proposed phasing presents in refer~nce to the
interim appearance eminating from the operation, and the ~ncertainty
of the ultimate development of the property, the Planner recommended
that the Planning Commission move to recommend that the C~ty Council
disapprove the preliminary development plan of Lyman Lumb~r Company
dated April 18, 1978.
,
I
Peter Throdahl - There is no way we can say in all certaipty that we
are going to build pha$e 2. We feel thart in the first
phase that we are going to adequately sc~een it so
that during the interim period there shojUld be no
problem. I think one of the other concerrns that I
have heard is that if we didn't build ph~se 2 we
would encroach into this area with .the open storage
and what not in the future. We feel in !signing
the development agreement that we could ~in those
points down without too much trouble. Tpe city
can have control over where we do have ojUr open
storage. The phase 2 development includ~s the
millwork plant. Our millwork plant pres~ntly is in
Eden Prairie. It is on a fiv~ year leas~ that
expires in April 1981 and we feel we wouild start
building here in 1980,approximately a ye~r ahead of
time, so that the time period between phase 1 and
phase 2 is going to be a year,or two yea~s at the
most, There is no way that any of us ca~ predict
the future to say what business is going! to be like
to say what's going to happep. Our intept is and our
best efforts will be to build that buildling according
to the phase development that we are proposing. We
would certainly specify that in a development contract
with the city. I
Roman Roos - I think the city has to gamble on the futurel. They have
to gamble on those developers and businesses: that we want
into the city. The question is can we contrbl that gamble
down to a minimum'~ I
Russell Larson - This is a tough one because on the back lend of that
property you are looking at these three isided sheds
and open storage. We all feel that this! can be
not the most sightly use and if the proplerty in front
is sold off, what's going to go in therei. Is it
going to be a similar type of use or a ~ice office
building or a nice light industrial buil:ding in there.
Jerr,Y Neher .. Can ~t we control that when that time comes :UP of what's
going in there. !
Russell Larson - Definitely you can but you have to find !a willing
buyer to come in there and put that in.
e
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
-9-
Roman Roos - In the worst case that piece of land could sit there
forever, undeveloped.
Peter Throdahl - The original plan was to go in with the millwork building
first simply because we were outgrowing what we had in
Excelsior. Then the distribution yard. Then the
component plant and then an office building in the future.
That was out original proposal to the city. The use we
are using in the back is permitted under the zoning.
Mal MacAlpine moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Walter
Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:50 p.m.
LYMAN LUMBER PLAN AMENDMENT:
Mal MacAlpine - I have no problem with the plan as proposed. I think there
is always a risk that you are going to run into in any
phasing. I think they are conscious of what we are trying
to do from a standpoint of concealment from the main road.
It is a permitted use in that area. I think Lyman is a
reputable company. I have no problems with it.
Les Bridger - As far as phase 2, if it were to pass that they were to come
and want to build some more shed type structures like they
will have, it would still have to come before this body.
We have control in that respect and the worst thing that
could happen would be it would grow up in weeds. We have
already seen what it would look like without phase 2 in
there. With that in mind I have got no problems with it
at all. I think it is a good use of the land.
Jerry Neher - I have no problems. I can't see that we could
on the future. It is good for the city. It's
Tax base. It's the thing we are looking for.
say what the future is going to be a few years
line. I am in favor of it.
Walter Thompson - Very much in favor of it.
Roman Roos - I also am excited to have them
needs it and I think Lyman has
not gamble
employment.
You can't
down the
I have no objections.
in here. I think the city
got an excellent location.
Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council approve the plan amendment
for Lyman Lumber Company. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and
unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
JACOBSON REPLAT - FOREST ROAD AND ELM ROAD
Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 9:55 p.m. The following persons
were present:
Michael Howdyshell, 7610 Penn Ave. So., Richfield
Henry Atwood, 8007 Dakota
Gilbert Schwartz, Young America
Bill Brezinsky
Russell Larson
The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the
Carver County Herald.
Mr. Jacobson is proposing to subdivide Lots 2569, south 81.19' of Lot 2670
and south 82.82' of Lot 2571, Lots 2578-2582, Lots 2572-2577 and north
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
-10...
21' of Lots 2570 and 2571 into two single family lots. T~e Planning
Commission recommended that a 20 foot remnent in the west central portion
of the property be shifted to the northern proposed lot. The applicant ...
has done this. ~
Mr. Schwartz, owner of property across Mandan, asked if h~s property
(80' x 100'}is suitable for a home? Mr. Schwartz was toldithat his
question had no bearing on the public hearing and he should see city
staff regarding his property.
Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry
Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m.
JACOBSON REPLAT, FOREST ROAD AND ELM ROAD,CARVER BEACH: Mal MacAlpine
moved to recommend the Council approve the replat of the ~ubject parcel
into two building sites as identified on Exhibit A dated ~une 14, 1978,
with the understanding that a new survey will be taken as Irequired.
The Planning Commission further recommends the Council approve lot area
variances for both lots and frontage variance on the northern lot
abutting on Forest Road. Motion seconded by Les Bridger qnd unanimously
approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 10:15 p.m. The following persons
were present:
Mark Swedlund, Route #3, Box 501, Mound e
Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson Assoc.
Bob Hackett, 6850 Chanhassen Road
Henry Atwood, 8007 Dakota
Bill Brezinsky
Russell Larson
The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as puolished in the
Carver County Herald.
Bob Waibel - As you recall, at the last Planning Commission meeting there
was concern whether or not the road cut in t~e northwest
corner of the plat,which would egress onto t~e proposed
Lotus Lake Neighborhood Park, should remain ~n the plans or
not. Because of th~ neighborhood status of ~his park, it
is the feeling of this planner, that the proijosed park will
not generate unduly large volumes of traffic!through this
development, but will simply provide safer access from this
development to the park. The Park and Recre~tion Commission
has voted to that Outlot B be set aside for public use,
open space, and lake front preservation, and trail corridor
serving the Lotus Lake Park. The Park and R~creation
Commission recommended that the park dedicat~on fee be
maintained and remitted for each lot at the ~ime of building
permit issuance. I was contacted by Jean Lovetank who
expresse~ concern ab~ut Lots ~-8 of Block 1 ~ith re~pect to~
landscap~ng and grad~ng on sa~d lots becauselof the~r ..,
proximity to Purgatory Creek. Upon consultation with the
City Engineer and my personal review of the ~lans and the
property, I believe that any cut and fill activities on the
e
--
.
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
-11-
subject lots will be of no major significance or degradation
of the immediate environs. All grading in areas such as this
are bound to the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Creek
Watershed District Rules and Regulations.
From the plans submitted to date, I recommend that the Planning
Commission base their recommendation of approval of Ecklund
and Swedlund's Lotus Lake Estates and rezoning upon the
following grounds and reasons:
1. That the applicant state at this time the timing and
phasing of this development and be bound to such.
2. That the open space system be considered part of the
transportation plan and that Ecklund and Swedlund be bound
to park dedication fees as prescribed by ordinance.
3. That all soil tests be approved by the City Engineer.
4. That the DNR grants approval for dredging along the
area indicated as future lagoon.
5. That the southern entrance to the proposed development
be redesigned to include exit and entrance lanes divided by
a median to staff approval.
6. That right of access and easements be granted to the City
to provide for adequate maintenance of any and all holding
areas. That all development activity conform to conservation
practices as prescribed by Soil and Water Conservation
District, Department of Natural Resources, and the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
Rick Sathre - In response to the request about the divided entrance, we
have prepared a drawing that shows two things; the DNR has
not established the line that they are interested in acquiring
up, to. In this drawing we are showing what they had intended
at that time. Now, recently, they have expressed some
interest in moving that line a little farther north. We
have resketched that and pulled the street over a bit and
put in a divided entrance and increased the area adjoining
the Lovetang piece. I suspect that since the other drawing
is the one that was entered for the record that's the one
you would have to act on. It would be our intent to
make that change.
Roman Roos - Does the DNR agree to the. changing of the boundary?
Rick Sathre - That's their suggestion. The road location that you were
discussing, I don't think that where it is would be too
much of a problem. Whichever road location is chosen
we would grade that in phase 2. The only problem that I
can see that we would like to resolve with the commission
and hopefully receive a recommendation that would reverse
the park people. We think it's very important to the
development that the outlot area be credited as far as
park dedication. If you didn't feel it was valid to give
us that credit based on the nature of the use;as proposed
there, I think we would like to maintain private ownership
of it. We all know it's a very valuable piece of land.
Basically, the development is 140 lots proposed in three
phases over the next few years starting as soon as utilities
could be scheduled in.
Bob Hackett - I am representing Jean Lovetang. ,We spoke with the DNR,
they were out last Friday morning. We have been working
Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1978
-12-
with Len Swedlund on obtaining the area alongside her
property because her road now runs right through that.
The DNR came out and proposed to us that they were going e
to purchase to the or~ginal line. Since that time they
have come with a different line, which we proposed to them.
I ~hink moving this line over is an acceptable thing.
This new proposal is much more acceptable to us than the
original.
Mal MacAlpine left the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Jerry Neher moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:35 p.m.
ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND, PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING:
Les Bridger - I like the new plan better. I think it has handled the
Lovetang property in an equitable manner. We have
discussed this for several years now and I think we have
kicked around just about every aspect of the thing plan wise
and any other aspect. I do have the concern about the
outlot problem. We should address that and discuss that
and I think everything else as far as I am concerned looks
good to me. I wish there was someone here from the Park
and Recreation Commission that could address that issue
because I know by giving the Outlot B in dedication
Ecklund and Swedlund are really complying with what we
requested a few years ago, what we had considered a
conservation easement at that time and they have complied ~
with that. It's allowing a green area by a lake. It's ~
dedicated to public in general and allow access to the lake
without destroying aquatic. vegetation as we were concerned
with a few years ago. As park land, I don't know if it
can be considered park land as such. The Park and
Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to us after
their consideration and deliberation, I am sure a lot of
thought has been put into it.As to why this can't be
considered park property as far as the needs of Ecklund
and Swedlund to meet the criteria for park land dedication.
As we can see there is no place else for a park there. They
would have to remove several lots to make some kind of a
little park in there.
Bob Waibel - The park dedication fee as it would be appli~d in this
case would be of no actual cost to the developer. It would
be remitted at the time of the building permit. The real
cost is what it does to affect the developers ability
to sell the property.
Roman Roos - Do you recall what Park and Recs feelings were on this.
Bob Walbel - I guess most Of, the members had been involveq with this
plan the last time it had gone through and this is essentially
the same plan, the outlot, the transportation plan, the
comprehensive plan also showed there being a connection
to a future park in that area which is the Lotus Lake Park.
It is part of a trailway. I don't know how far that issue ~
was taken the last time it had gone through. It seems to ..,
be a precedent at least to me it's a precedent.
Jerry Neher - Ecklund and Swedlund were more or less dictated to as far
as that property is concerned, practically in my mind
a taking of the property. It is my feeling that they
e
It
e
Planning conunission Meeting 'JUne 14, 197&
-13-
should be given some credit, maybe notlOO%,but a portion
of it should be credited. -I ,ddn' t believe I could go for
100% of it.
Bob Waibel - I would like to consult the Park and Recreation Conunission,
the City Manager and City Attorney.
Roman Roos - ,I have a real hang up c;s to what in the devil is park and
what is not park.
Jerry Neher - In my opinion that's park.
Roman Roos - Private ownership defeats exactly what we were trying to do
initially so the developer was bound to donate that land
period.
Walter Thompson - In looking at the Park's reconunendation they are very
definitely stating Outlot B. I am wondering if that
property lends itself to a trailway.
Les Bridger - That would'be more than.. a trailway. ,How much land are we
talking about in Outlot B? When does a trailway end and a
park begin? I'see in my mind a trailway as a pathway through
a woods or along a lake.
Jerry Neher -'That's something over 100 feet wide.
Les Bridger- That's not what I consider a trailway system. A little
green path, . yes.
Rick Sathre - The average width must be about 120 feet or so. It's about
1600 feet long.
Les Bridger - I couldn't consider that a trailway.
Roman Roos - If Ecklund and Swedlund had wanted to donate that land it
would be quite a different picture than we requesting
that we get that land. I have a real hang up because you
are looking at dollars that have been given to the city
to acconunodate the city and you are also talking of putting
Ordinance l4A on it. I don't know if I can go along with
both of them. If that had been unusable land and they
were trying to use that land for thepurposeof eliminating
l4A then I would take a whole different perspective.
Les Bridger -This is prime land. We discussed that it would be a
deterrent for the sale of that property. People would
like to own right up to the waters edge and with this
they cannot. Would this Outlot B meet the requirements
of park land dedication if we were to accept it as such
or would additional monies have to be paid? We are not
armed with the reasons why the Park and Rec Conunission
would not consider this as park land. I wish I had something
that would have portrayed their reasons for that decision
because as I look at it I see 'park land. It's right on
the lake. It's very amenable to persons in the city to
go out and explore that area of the lake. I think it would
be excellent' J:>'ark property. I think that's what we had in
mind when we began this whole project that that would be
a park area, Granted there will be another park just to
the n0rthwest but this will be just an extension of that.
Jerry Neher - I would be interested in knowing what percentage of
property can be donated for park. That's my basis upon
saying. a percentage.
Bob Waibel - The problem of definition came up with this Western Hills
park. That's a roadblock we will have to anticipate if
we try to propose the use of this as a part of the acreage
requirement:
Roman ROO$ - We can make a recommendation this evening to Council.
Along with our recommendation'will be the Park and Rec.
recommendation as well as staff. The Council is going to
have to weigh the issues.
Planning commi.ss;i,on Meeti.ng June 14, 1978
...l4...
Les Bridger - If that outlot property were located somewhere else in
the development, is there no reason why that could not
be considered park land as their dedication. Just because...
it happens to be lakeshore property really should not ~
make a difference and I hope that is not a consideration
that is being placed by the Park and Rec. 1, personally,
would like to see consideration by staff at least look
into the possibility of accepting this as park land
and if it doesn't quite meet the criteria as setforth
for park dedication for this development then I would
like" to see the difference made up in funds placed in
escrow for park development.
Les Bridger moved to recommend the Council approve the rezoning and
plan amendment for Ecklund and Swedlund Lotus Lake Estates as proposed
with the six points 'listed in the Planner's recommendation and further
recommend that staff review, perhaps with Park and Recreation Commission,
the Planning Commission member's feelings as presented tonight
concerning the acceptance of Outlot B as park property and the
possibility of additional funds if that doesn't meet the requirement
for park land dedication. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and
unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
MTS PLAN AMENDMENT
ROOS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
The following
It
Walter Thompson called the hearing to order at ll:10 p,m,
interested persons we:re present:
George Butzow, 42l Bushaway Road, Wayzata
Henry Atwood, 8007 Dakota
Gary Eastburn, 1225 Hesse Farm Circle
Bill Brezinsky
Roman Roos abstained from voting on this issue, The Assistant City
Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County
Herald.
The purpose'of thi~ hearing is to consider amending the MTS development
plan to allow for construction of office/professional buildings
to be located in the northwestern corner of the MTS property.
Bob Waibel
.t ',-- ..:). is J_
r ~ ',- ~!'
- Mr. Roos intends to construct two professional buildings
on that 'part of the MTS property severed by the proposed
frontage road. Building no. 1 is proposed for professional
services and building no. 2 is proposal for medical and
dental services; It is difficult to estimate the number
'of parking spaces needed for this proposal. Using the most
stringent ordinance requirement of 1 parking space for
every 300 square feet of gross floor area, it can be
determined that 73 spaces are required. The proposed
plans are 13 spaces deficient from this standard. This
problem may be augmented, however, if the applicant can
'tell us how manY' medical or dental tenants will occupy
building no. 2. Section 9.07 of Ordinance 47 states that _
a - mini'nlUIU of six offstreet parking spaces shall be required.
for each doctor or dentist maintaining professional offices
within the prtncipal structure. A letter dated May 24,
1978, f;rornMr. Butzow,. President of the MTS Systems Corp.,
states that' the applicant will present his plans to an
open meeting of the Chanhassen Estates residents, The
Planning Commission ~eeti,U&' June :1,4/ :1,978
1""15...
-
applicant has done so and has indicated.that no
opposition was placed against the proposal.
Henry Atwood - I am a resident of Chanhassen Estates and currently
the President of the Chanhassen Estates Residents
Association. I think it would important to note that
much in the same way that MTS did earlier, the residents
of Chanhassen Estate's were invited by the developers
to hear their proposal and test our reaction to see if
there were any negative comments. Of those that
attended the meeting, the reaction was favorable.
Les Bridger - In reference to the parking situation, I can see that
there really is no place for additional parking.
Roman Roos ... The buildings initiallywer€ conceived to be one building.
The area that we looked at, the amount of land, and the
location of Chanhassen in terms of medical/dental'would
say there could,be'a~need for one dentist, one medical
type, maybe two medical type. More dentists, no. The
&econd building is a long range plan that has suddenly
developed into a situation that we would like to get
them both up at the same time. I am looking to secure
a piece of property that is presently owned by the state.
Gary Eastburn and myself are putting these two buildings
up. we would like to get the first building ready for
occupancy about the lOth of October, We have tried to
land~cape the property with two purposes in mind. One,
we wa.nted to have some way of breaking up the parking
lot so that ttls very attractive, The second intent
is we wanted to keep some kind of a heavy buffering to
theC-3 property next door.
One of the prime concerns we have right now is the
frontage road and when it's going to go in. We would
like to get permission, the city has an easement going
down to the old sewer plant which runs along the western
edge of that property, we would like to have access during
construction. I don't know what the situation is on that
easement.
--
Sewer and water to this particular piece of property
does not present a problem. The City of Chanhassen really
doesn't have much commercial property that has got sewer
and water and that is ready for development.
"~
Les Bridger - What kind of siding are you talking about?
Roman Roos ... The building will be a cedar sided building along with
brick on the lower portion. There will be bronze solar
type windows to accent the cedar.
Walter Thompson - How firm is the proposed road into this area? Is there
a chance that that road is not going to be as shown?
Bill Brezinsky - No, I don't think there is much chance ofqthat with
the approval of the MTS development. They have to
have access to their property.
4It Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Les Bridger, Jerry Neher,
and Walter Thompson. Roman Roos abstained. Hearing closed at 11:45 p.m.
Planning Commiss~on Meeting June 14, 1978
-16-
MTS PLAN AMENDMENT: Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council
approve a plan amendment for MTS to allow construction of office/
professional buildings as per plans submitted. Motion seconded by ...
Les Bridger. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Les ..,
Bridger, and Jerry Neher. Roma~ Roos abstained. Motion carried.
METZIG SUBDIVISION, PLEASANT VIEW ROAD: Les Bridger moved to hold
a public hearing on 3uly 12, 1978, at 8:l5 p.m. to consider the
proposed subdivision for Prank Metzig. Motion seconded by Jerry
Neher and unanimously approved.
Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and
unanimously approved.' Meeting adjourned at 12:00.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
-
e