Loading...
1978 06 28 e e e :REGUL2!\R PIANNlliG CC'MMISSION MEETlliG JUNE 28, 1978 Ranan Roes called the IOOeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the fOllowing rrerrbers present: Walter Thanpson, Jerry Neher, Mal MacAlpine, les Bridger, and Dick. MatthewS. Hud Hollenback. was absent. Bill Brezinsky and Craig ~rtz were present. MINUTES: Jerry Neher moved to approve the June 14, 1978, Planning Ccmmission. minutes. MJtion seconded by Walter Thanpson. The follcMi.ng voted in favor: Roman Roos, Walter 'I'harp;on, Jerry Neher, Mal MacAlpine, and Les Bridger. nick Matthews abstained. M:>tion carried. KELLYNNE SUBDIVISION - JAMES ~ CLEARY: The Council has requested the Planning carmission to clarify the issue of lot width IOOaSUJ::'eCl"ents on a cul-de-sac for setback. purposes and the issue of lot depth. being greater th.antwo ti:.mes the width and to make variance recattrenda.tions pertaining to these issues. The issue of lot dePth being greater than two t~ the width applies. to cases of subdivision in the unsewered areas of the City and/or the occasion of transferance of land by rretes and bolmds description. The Assistant City Plarmer has researched the issue of lot width ooasurements on a cul-de-sac and found no rrethcd of rreasuremant in Ordinances 33 or 47. Ordinance 47 states a cul-de-sac building setback line would be an arch 30 feet beyond the radius of the cul-de-sac. The real issue is whether or not utilities and off street Parking can be brought into the property. Although a fonnula governing the ratio of the radiating lot line to the arch of the cul-de-sac could be devised, it could prove cumbersare for zoning enforceIOOnt purposes. This question could reasonably be answered to a mi.nimum street frontage requirement that would create needed ratio to the mi..ni.mum frontage requirement of 90 feet at the building setback. line. This could assure the City that ~tial problems of provision of rmmicipal services, installation of driveways, off street parking, and creation of unusable remnants of property that are resultant fran inadeq:uate frontages on the roadway of a cul-de-sac. The only nethcxl by which the frontage requirements for the lots on the cul-de-sac can be Il'et, would be the elimination of one of said lots. In light of the fact that Mr. McCleary had originally designed his plat to exceed the Shore land Management requirements of 20,000 square feet per lot, the Planner feels to eliminate one lot would be unreasonable. Bill Brezinsky - A cul-de-sac, that's a different situation. No:r:mally there is quite a bit of leaway given with frontage. Municipalities usually want to stick to the sideyard setbacks and have a min:i.mum frontage on the paved surface for driveway entrance, parking and then the setbacks where the house is, not give. any variances on those to insure the separation between the houses. I tried to find sane way to easily define where that setback should be ooasured or how it should be defined in several city ordinances and I couldn't find anything. I feel that 40 feet should be the minimum. The reasoning for that is so that you could get a reasonable driveway entrance, 15 foot wide driveway entrance, to a garage that's setback ten feet fran the side yard. and avoid that driveway with the sewer and water, at the sarna time provide parking for one car in front. M3nbers camented on the proposed subdivision and variances. Ranan Roes - This is a very unique piece of property. I have no real problems with it myself. Dick Matthews - I don't have any problems with it. Mal MacAlpine - It doesn't create any problems. Jerry Neher - I don't have any problems with it. Les Bridger - I have no hang up with it. Walter Thanpson - I have no hang up with this particular plan. Planning Ccmni.ssion M:!eting Jl.ll1e 28, 1978 -2- Ies Bridger ItOVed recamrend the Council approve the frontage variances for lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and lot 3, Block 1 and corner lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block I. M:>tion seconded by Jerry Neher and unani.Ioously approved. e CXXJNCIL MINtYI'ES: Members discussed the May 22, April 17, and June 12, 1978, COuncil minutes. JULIUS SUBDIVISION REQUEST: Mr. and, Mrs. Gordon Julius were present requesting approval to subdivide their property at 330 Pleasant View Road into three residential lots. Sewer and water are available to the property. Bob Waibel - The applicant should be advised that before the public hearing, a prelim:i.nary develO};Jt'Blt plan should be submitted showing the land uses and structures that are contiguous to the property within 100 feet. Said plans should include areas of questionable soils in order to avoid land locking any buildable parcels to the west and to the north. Parcel A oontains approximately 33,330 square feet, parcel B contains approximately 31,900 square feet, and parcel C contains approximately 87 , 280 square feet. Section 8.06 of Ordinance 33 states that in occasion of subdivision "no lot shall be larger than twice the average size of lots in said plat." The applicant should be advised to provide information for the record as to the conditions necessitating parcel C to exceed more than twice: the size of those. parcels A and. B. Parcel A is deficient in frontage on a public street. It has 25 feet. That could be solved either by shifting the property lines further to the south or else the purchase fran an abutting 1andcMner. An escrow deposit in the aIroUnt of $200 should be made for purposes of defraying staff costs in processing this subdivision request. Jerry Neher ItOVed to hold a public hearing on July 26, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. to conside. the Julius Subdivision. M:>tion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unan.i.mously approved. ZONING ORDINANCE ~, R-l YARD STORAGE SHEDS: Craig M3rtz - The ordinance says that the follCMing uses may be allCMed only upon securing of a conditional use pennit and I Skip dCMl1 to the 7th item and it says, greenhouses, tool houses, and other similar structures. Dick Matthews - Is the word tool house being misconstrued as to a Sears storage shed? Craig ~z - I think that's exactly what it was ainvad at was these little outbuildings that people put their lawnm:Mers and rakes and hoses in. Dick. Matthews - Do you know why it \'JaS aimed at that? Craig Martz - Hy guess is that there was probably feeling that they are an eyesore. Ranan Roos - When is a man's property his property? les Bridger - I think a man has a right t.o put up a little shed to put his lawnI'llCM6r away and hang up his rake. I don't think a man should have to seek a conditional use permit. Craig ~rtz - Right now each one would be examined on a case by case basis. What it was a.imad at is abuse situations like sc:::arebody would buy the back half of a panel truck and stick it in their backyard. JerJ::Y Neher - You are telling sanabody they can't have personal property. Craig M3rtz - In the Zoning ordinance we can prohibit or control the use of many itans of personal property. Ranan Roes - Size limitation really doesn't cover it either. You can have a 2 x 2 shack or a 20 x 20 shack. Dick Matthews - Maybe what we should consider is finding out what the largest Sears or Montgarery ward or whatever d:i.m:msion of sui table material, wood tit or steel. Mal MacAlpine - I don't see why this ordinance is so bad, to be quite frank with you, other than the administrative work. Craig M3rtz - Right now it is enforced on a catplaint basis. e e e Plarming CCmnission Meeting June 28, 1978 -3- Mal MacAlpine - I don't think the ordinance is that bad. You can't just put everything into an ordinance and make it so restrictive. The way it reads is that as a conditional use pennit greenhouses, tool houses and similar structures accessory to a private residential use. Noo if that's a conditional use and saneone wants to put up one of these or buy one of these I can see where it might be a problem if the person CMnS lake property and they are putting it up 20 feet fran the lake and they are obs,tructing the view fran sanebodys house:::adjacent to it so they can't see the lake, what is wrong with sarebody ca:ni.ng up here for a conditional use pennit. Jerry Neher - They probably won't do it. Mal MacAlpine - If that is a fact then why don't we treat these on an accessory basis? Why do we have to put everything into an ordinance and have ourselves legislated to death. Jerry Neher - I'll tell you what you are, going to be doing if you start to enforce that ordinance you will be stepping on the toes of about 35% to 50% of the :people in the City of Chanhassen. Craig Mertz - One way to handle matters of this nature that are rather routine is sanething along the lines what Bloanington has done. They have made a list of rather routine zoning matters, what CCIOOS to mind i..rnm:rliately is the matter of these side yard setbacks for garages, and they have authorized their zoning administrator if the request for a variance is for no more than say 7 feet that that zoning officer can administratively issue the necessary pe:nni.t to put the garage on. If the zoning administrator turns it do.vn then it goes to the Planning Carmission as sort of an appeal. Mal MacAlpine - I think you need S<::lOO ordinance to protect yourself for extrema violations. I think a property CMner has sane rights too. I think Irost property CMners want to get along with their neighbors. I think if we were to enforce every ordinance that we have it would probably take up to a year. Ranan Roes - Your carmant about Bloanington is apropos. I don't know how effective that's been. That would cut down the work load and still give us the ordinance for an enforcing tool. Craig Mertz - Bloanington, judging frcm what their city attorney says, is working quite well. Ranan Roos - $35.00 doesn't seem out of proportion for that purpose. It's a one time charge. Jerry Neher - It seems to m3 it's personal property. Ranan Roes - I think we, as camti.ssioners, have to look at the overall problem. Mal MacAlpine - I frankly have no problems ~.vi.th the ordinance as it is written. There are a lot of people who put up those sheds do not apply for a conditidnal use peoo.t. A lot of other ones pay the $35.00 because they are aware of it. You have those PeOple who will try to circumvent buying a dog license. Jerry Neher - ROR many people have applied for pennits in the city and you go down the street and count how many there are. res Bridger - How about the guy that is brought before this group because of a cauplaint raised by neighbors because it I S not a Sears building, he put it up hilnself out of used lumber, for the same purposes if he is brought in to this body and we say no way, and he is going to turn around and say how about It'\Y neighbor dc:Mn the street. The guy over here that's got the nice clean Sears buil-ding, it's the same thing, why aren't you people' doing sanething about him? Why are you singling Ire out? Actually they would be as much in violation as the other. Craig Mertz - What I ask that person is do you want to file a carq;>laint against that person. If that's the case I will take it to court. Mal MacAlpine - This isn't a whole lot different than the mother-in-law aPart::m:mt. That died a ignaninious death. It's very difficult to make any Plarming Catmission M3eting June 28, 1978 -4- ordinance lOO% fair for every situation. Jerry Neher - If it's an ordinance, it's law. What's law for one person should be law for everybody. Dick. Matthews - That's all well and good but it doesn't, it won't, and can't work e that way. There has got to be exceptions. They have to be taken on an individual basis. You are never going to make a perfect law because you are never going to make a perfect individual. Jerry Neher - You give ne a citation for mine. All I have to do is point to two or three others in 11\Y block. Dick Matthews - You have to sign a canplaint. Jerry Neher - I don't have to do that. The City is supposed to do that. Ronan Roes - The City would attenv;:>t to prosecute you. At that point in t.i.roo you would have to make your case. Jerry Neher - Then you are discriminating by not giving 11\Y neighbor one or one down the block. one. You are discriminating against 00. I.es Bridger - I see this kind of like our, heM do you define estate. devel~ts. What are we trying to define. We are trying to define what is a storage building and we can't single that out frou the rest of the ordinance. As long as we can't do that I guess I would just as soon see the ordinance stay the way it is and if scmathing. is brought to the attention of the City then the City is going to have to resPOnd to that as they ccma up. If we begin to tJ:y and change ordinances to IOOet with each little thing that canes up that's all we are going to be doing here. I feel that if we made a c~gn and it becarre knCMn that this was a real problem and people better care forth or under threat of being issued a citation., yes I think staff would be overloaded. Then I think the Bloani.ngton concept of having saooone available that can decide these things on a local basis is a good idea. I don't see _ that problem cauing forth right ncM because we are not out there . publicizing that everybody in violation care on dCMn and pay $35.00 and see staff. If it cama to that there would be a problem in the extra work load and it would have to cane before this ccmnission. Dick Matthews - I don't have any hang ups with the way the ordinance is written. I look at the ordinance as being a tool to handle problem situations that may develop because of gross negligence or whatever. I thi.nk that while people have a right to have these types of things they also have a responsibility to maintain them and keep them in good general repair and. not disarray. With respect to the $35.00 for the filing fee, I find that ll\Vself to be rather excessive and I think a reasonable fee of $5.00 or $lO. 00 might be more in line with getting the job done and deferring Sate staff costs. I would say I find the Bloan:i.ngton nethodology of handling situations like this to be an acceptable one. Guidelines will have to be given to the City Administrator in order to do this. I am certainly not in any way in favor of making sare kind of blanket approach to this and putting everybody on notice that they are in violation of this. Walter Tharpson - I think the ordinance is adequate to oover what we are looking for. I am with Dick. on the assessment situation. I think a $5.00 registration fee rrerely in order to keep us info:t:med or staff info:oned as to what is going in, sanathing to identify what they are doing. I can't see $35.00. Mal MacAlpine - As I read number #7, greenhouses, tool houses, similar structures accessory to a private residential use, ncM I think saooone might argue that an additional storage type structure of that nature does e not implied by this particular ordinance. 'Ihat' s how I feel about it. Dick ~1atthews - What you define as a tool house I wouldn't call it a tool house. It's a storage shed. A tool to 00 implies sacething that I am involved in with It'!Y trade. e e -- Planning Canmission M=eting June 28, 1978 -5- Craig Mertz - The Attorney who was working for the city at that tim3 tells :rre that a tool house m3ant Sears steel building. Dick Matthews - That may be but it's not defined that way. Reman Roes - I have no hang ups with it at all. I like the situation where we can ease the burden 00th on the Ccm:nission as well as on staff. I have no feelings about the $35.00. I don't think. that is out of proportion at all for a one ti:rre charge. The status quo is the way I feel. Jerry Neher - I disagree with you on the $35.00. On sana people it may be a hardship. Maybe he doesn't have a garage. Maybe he can't afford to put up a garage. He has got to have a place to put his lawmncMer and this is the cheapest way out. . Mal MacAlpine - If he puts up a Sears shed in It'!Y judgem:nt he doesn't have to get a permit the way I interpret this. DAVIS . SUBDIVISION AND BUX.MBERG PUD - S:KEl'CHPLANS: Robert Davis. and Herb Bloanberg were present. The two properties are located directly north of the Chanhassen Meadows Apart:Iren.ts. The property CMned by Mr. Davis is zoned R-l and the property CMt'led by Mr. Bloanberg is zoned R-lA. Sanitar.ysewer and water are available to the properties. Bob Waibel - For purposes of review, it should be pointed out at this time that the property owned by Mr. Davis is that property contiguous to and along the eastern 808 feet of the Bloanberg property. Mr. Davis is proposing to gain access to U>ts 1, 2, and 3 of his proposed subdivision through a proposed road traversing the B10Cll1berg property fran Erie Avenue. It is for this reason that these two proposals be simultaneously considered. Mr. Davis is proposing to subdivide approx.imately 2.53 acres into five single family residential lots. Mr. Bloomberg is proposing a planned residential deve1o};:mant along the western and northern portion of his property containing 24 single family residential building sites. In 1974, the area proposed to be developed by Mr. Bloanberg, was under plan review for a townhouse devel~t proposal which was subsequently discontinued. One issue of pertinence that arose fran this previous review and is appropriately applicable to the sketch plan review of the current proposal, is the issue of access onto Highway 101. In a September 25, 1974, letter fran R. A. Elasky, District 5 Layout-Research and Developrent Eng.in.eer, to the then acting City Manager of Chanhassen, he recamended that entrances to the property be aligned with those on the east side of Highway lOl Le. the Chanhassen Apa.rt:ment entrances. This was proposed to accanplish the following: a. It \\OUld el.iminate jog intersections which tend to create problems for left turning vehicles to the developnent. b. It would maintain the current number of intersections on Highway 101 at two intersections. c. It would tend to keep pedestrian crossings on Highway 101 at two locations. In consideration of the 1974 cannents of Mr. Elasky, I would reccmrend that the cul-de-sac along Mr. Davis' property be continued southward to a point 'Where it 'WOuld intersect Highway 101 directly across frcm the eastern It'Ost Chanhassen Meadows entrance. This will necessarily result in Mr. Davis having to add onto IDts 3, 4, and 5 so that they may front on the newly proposed public street. In conjunction with this lateration, the present access off of HighwaylOl kn<Mn as Hill Street, should be vacated and rerouted across Mr. Davis' property to the newly proposed entrance to Highway 101. The western limb of Hill Street may be totally vacated and retumed to its natural state whereas the eastern limb of Hill Street. should be maintained and cul-de-saced at its eastern It'Ost point. It is my belief, that this will eliminate an already dangerous entrance onto Highway lOI. Planning Ccmni.ssion Meeting June 28, 1978 -6- The western Irost egress fran the develq:ment proposed by Mr. Bloc:rnberg will distribute the traffic between Erie Avenue and West 77th street. When OUtlot A is developed, the second access onto Highway 10l directly fran the developnant should be oonsidered. e The adopted Shoreline ManageIl'lEmt Ordinance requires IS, 000 square foot lots for sew6red areas on lotus Lake to which all the lots in this proposal ca.nply. Herb Bloanberg - We obviously have adjoining properties and in order to accc:mrOO.ate each other we will agree on what we feel is a good layout for the land. Our main canoem in the future is the use of OUtlot A. we were talking about a green space hotel or saoothing of that nature. This is very much still alive. I thought at the public hearing we would bring this up. At this stage we don't ask for a strong carmit::m;mt on OUtlot A except in concent. Obviously it will be better improved in circulation and I am sure the fire depa.r1::n'ent would prefer to have this road. loop carq;>leted. MY developnent of OUtlot A will entrail the extension of this cul-de-sac. We will kill the cul-de-sac and continue the road. As far as access on Highway 10l is concemed we are very open on that. We will divide the lakeshore lots up a little more evenly and make the end lot a little bit smaller. Robert Davis - I have the ownership of 2~ acres, 55 feet of frontage of IDtus Lake and wedge shape up to Highway lOI. My feeling is that the acreage there is far in excess of what can be used for one residence, which is the case nCM. on lot 3 there is a single family residence existing and sewer and water have been connected. With this division to five parcels there is still approximately in the range of l/3 to l/2 acre. A I am open to the direction of dividing this so that the street system ,., and utilities will work most efficiently. I just this evening saw the sketch of continuing this proposed road and dead ending Hill Street and I really haven't had a chance to react to that. I am open to any idea that accarm:xlates the access on Highway 101 which is perhaps a safety hazard. Bill Brezinsky - When Bob and I were looking at this, we felt that maybe something could be worked out with Mr. Bloomberg to get additional frontage for Lot 1 in Mr. Davis' subdivision. Roman Roos - I think for the purposes of the meeting tonight,what we ought to do is make these comments known both to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Davis, have the two of them get together and try to work out some reasonable solution. The reference to Highway 101, the frontage road on your lots Mr. Davis as we go down toward Highway 101 and the relationship to Hill Street going across ,and vacate an existing portion of Hill Street. Roman Roos - I have got one point of concern about West 77th Street. It doesn't show on his plat. The one plat that I did see at one time showed West 77th Street going straight out to Highway 101. We are a residential area and we would not want to see that road going straight out to Highway l~ It shows a dead end right now. When the bars let out it would be a race track through there to get to Highway 101. It would be the short cut to the Sunrise Hills area. I think that is. something we will have to review when Outlot A comes 1n front of us. Jerry Neher - Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1978 -7- e I think the Commission would generally encourage you to proceed with your development plans,again working out a compromise on those situations that we have talked about. Herb Bloomberg - What we are trying to do here is to not disturb the natural beauty of what exists. Not complicate any traffic. My feeling is that that access which is there is, we live with, it is there. This outlet that Bob has suggested which is obviously workable, I would be very strongly opposed from the standpoint that it comes through the best view of the entire property. You turn off that highway that is the most beautiful view. The park should buy it for a public access or something. As far as for development I think it would be a great waste of a beautiful view to put a road down the middle there and then we would be channeling all the people from way over the other side of the west would take short cuts through there and come out on Highway 101" This is not good. Bill Brezinsky - I have got a couple comments, one of them regarding comments maybe someone else should participate in the cost of the Hill Street connection across Mr. Davis' property, if there is one made, into the Bloomberg property, I think that probably the Hill Street people should participate in the cost of that. That would be a definite benefit to them to eliminate those two dangerous entrances. If they don't want to participate in it maybe the thing won't go ahead. We are showing what we figure is probably the best overall plan. The other thing regarding Mr. Davis' property and the sketch plan which shows two lots being created that would have access to Hill Street, we would be violently opposed to creating two more lots on Hill Street. We would recommend not approving lots on Hill Street. e e Robert Davis - Could I get an op~n~on of the Commission of, right now my property is one family, one residence with a driveway on Highway 101, to div:Ldeoffone lot with that driveway remaining, access to the lift station remaining, and deal with the rest of the property along with the PUD the other way. I am not dealing with Hill Street. I am not changing the access to the lift station or the driveway that exists. In other words, is Lot 5 acceptable? If in fact, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 had access from the proposed new road and 5 remained as an access from Highway 101 with the driveway and Hill Street was not touched. Walter Thompson - I think I would object to it. Dick Matthews - If he had a semi-circle as a driveway then that may be an acceptable way to get onto Highway 101. Roman Roos - I would like to have staff work with him and have him come back with another sketch plan that gives us an idea. I think there are some real problems there. I think the two of them are going to have to work with staff to come up with some reasonable sketch plan that we can take a look at. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1978 -8- FRONTIER DODGE: The petition before the Planning Commission is to reconsider the preliminary development plans of Frontier Dodge and make a recommendation for action to the Council. The property is Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development Park and is zoned 1-1. The e Planning Commission held a public hearing for the rezoning and conditional use permit for Frontier Dodge on ~1ay 26, 1976, and recommended the Council approve the rezoning from 1-1 to C-3 and recommended approval of a conditional use permit. The Council at its June 7, 1976, meeting voted to approve the rezoning, the conditional use of the activity, and the site plan, however, since this approval, no action has been taken on behalf of the applicant to sign an agreement to the development contract and the conditional use permit. The Council at its September 6, 1977, meeting moved to table any further action in executing the zoning change until the development contract is signed by the applicant. Bob Waibel - A public hearing would not have to be held since the Council had not approved a conditional use permit and it had not been executed on behalf of the participants. Craig Mertz - On conditional use permits what the Council does'with the request for approval after your recommendation shows up on the Council Agenda,if they vote to approve the conditional use permit then our office goes ahead and drafts the document, it is submitted to the applicants for signature, it takes two varties to sign it, the city and the applicant, then it s tendered back to the Council and they vote whether or not it's going to be signed. The position that I am taking is that the 90 day time limit has not expired, in fact it has ~ not even started to run yet because the written permit ~ has never been presented back to the Council. Bob Waibel - The changes between the new site plan and the previous site plan dated June 1, 1976, are as follows: a) the new site plan has a building situated 210 feet west of the east property line as opposed to the previous 185 feet; b) the site plan indicates the building to be situated 55 feet from the south property line and 155 feet from the north property line as opposed to the previous 130 feet from the south property line and 115 feet from the north property line. It appears that no change in the building itself has been adopted. c) The entrance to the proposed facility is to be furnished along the northern edge of the cul-de-sac on West 79th Street directly onto the property as opposed to the previous entrance off the southern portion of the cul-de-sac; d) the paved surface area of the new site plan indicates approximately 57,000 square feet of hard surfaced area as opposed to the previous 67,000 square feet of hard surface. e) a slight alteration in the grading plan around the holding pond in the south-central portion of the property has been made, additionally, changes in the berm have been included so as to retain the berm on the south side of the proposed entry way. At its regular May 15, 1978, meeting the Council moved to approve ordinance 47K approving a building moratorium for~e tax increment district which includes this property. This moratorium is to expire December 31, 1978, after which date the applicant will not be required to seek a variance to said ordinance. e e e Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1978 -9- Craig Mertz - There are three decisions the commission has to make. They are: rezoning, conditional use permit, and the HRA moratorium. Two years you previously voted to rezone the property from 1-1 to C-3. The Council also voted to rezone but they have to vote on it twice and they tabled the matter in between the first and second vote so that rezoning was never completed. The first item iS,do you wish to con~irmorrescind your previous recommendation to rezone the property? The second item is the conditional use permit which is necessary for outside storage of retail sale of merchandise. You previously voted to grant such a permit. The Council .voted to grant such a permit but the actual permit was never signed and submitted to the Council for final approval so you should vote to either confirm or rescind your previous action recommending the issuance of that conditional use permit. Finally, you should make a recommendation one way or another on whether or not the moratorium on building in the HRA District should be lifted for this particular application, in other words a variance be granted for this property. Dave Rothbern, Harold Eiss, and Chuck Towle were present. Dave Rothbern - I think so far as the moving back of the building, it was the recommendation of the Engineer at that time, to move it this way because the other way there was a lot of peat in there. We moved the building back a little bit and designated a Lot 1 and 2 and we have no specific thing in mind except that there are six acres of property there and even when the dealership grows to what we feel is as much as we will need we are looking at the most three acres, in use. After the first of the year if we don't have that building done or started at least 30 days prior to the first of the year we will be penali?edlj2 of a percent on $400,000. We hope to break ground in August or September. Members commented on the issue of putting a car dealership in this area. Roman Roos - We all know Chanhassen would like Frontier Dodge in there. I would personally. I think that's a good location. It's off Highway 5. It's got good visibility. The building itself will have as you well know, the western motif. It has got everything going for it.in terms of what Chanhassen really wants. It's a tax base. Walter Thompson - I am in favor of continuing the recommendation made in 1976. Jerry Neher - I feel it lends itself to that particular area. Mal MacAlpine - I am in favor of the rezoning to C-3 and the issuance of a conditional use permit and that a variance be granted prior to the end of the moratorium. Les Bridger - I feel the same way. I feel that #5, the HRA in setting this out had specific ideas in what they would like in what areas but I think if this were a new issue coming be.fore us for the ,first time we would probably address ourselves differently. I think it would be a good land use. I would be in favor of placing it in the proposed zone 5 area. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1978 -10- Dick Matthews - I wouldn't have any trouble with it. The main consideration here as far as I am concerned was brought out by Les that it was up prior to this proposal. I ~ would have liked to seen this just go before the HRA . as a matter. of record with our comments what we are intending .to do. Dick Matthews moved to recommend to the HRAthat they amend their concept plan to provide for automobile dealerships on Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development Park. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to recommend to the City Council that this subject property (Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development ~ark) be rezoned from 1-1 to C-3 without further public hearing. Mot~on seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved that the outside sales lot be approved conditioned on: 1. The satisfactory lighting plan be worked out with the City Engineer and Planning Commission. 2. That cars will not be parked in the seeded area. They will be parked on the paved area as shown. If additional storage is needed an amendment to the permit would be considered by the Commission. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council approve a variance to Ordinance 47K to allow Frontier Dodge t~ construct a automobile dealership. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved._ Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council approve Exhibit A dated June 28, 1978. In addition the applicant post an escrow as required by staff and the Engineer's concerns about drainage be sub~itted as acceptable to the Engineer. Delete the lot lines indicating this is a subdivision. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. CRITERIA, INC. Mal MacAlpine moved to table this item until such time as the applicant is prepared to discuss it. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. Walter Thompson chaired this portion of the meeting. Roes PROFESSIONAL BUILDING: Gary Eastburn was present. Roman Roos stepped.down from the Planning Commission. Councilman Geving and Don Ashworth, City Manager,were present. Mr. Roos has met with members of the HRA and have suggested to Mr. Roos that he move these buildings into the tax increment district. The property is located generally across lJest 78th Street from the bank. The same two buildings as proposed on the MTS property are proposed for this location. The property is zoned R-1A. Members generally preferred this location over the previous MTS location. A portion of the property he is interested in purchasing is owned by the City. Mr. Roos will negotiate with the city to purchase it. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on July to consider rezoning to C-1 and subdivision. Motion Bridger and unanimously approved. e 26, 1978, at 8:15 p.m. seconded by Les e - e Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1978 -11- METZIG SUBDIVIS~ON: Mr. Metzig is proposing to subdivide his property at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Chanhassen Road into three residential lots. The public hearing is scheduled for July 12, 1978. GEORGE WAY SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE RE UEST: Mr. Way is proposing to su ~v~ e s property ~nto two otso y metes and bounds. Staff recommended the present easement be dedicated at the time of subdivision to standards for a public street. Members asked for previous minutes pertaining to this issue. Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on July 26, 1978, at 8:45 p.m. to consider the proposed subdivision. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager