Loading...
1978 10 11 e e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1978 Prior to the meeting members interviewed Pat Swenson, Wally Coudron, and Lu Ann t'l7allentine to replace Hud Hollenback on the Planning Commission. Members recommended the Council appoint Pat Swenson. Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dick Matthews, Mal MacAlpine, Tim Stone, Jerry Neher, and Walter Thompson. MINUTES: Dick Matthews moved to approve the September 13, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Dick Matthews, Jerry Neher, and Tim Stone. Walter Thompson and Mal MacAlpine abstained. Motion carried. Walter Thompson moved to approve the September 27, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to note the Septemper 11, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to note the September 18, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Walter Thompson moved to note the October 2, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. RESIGNATION: Dick Matthews moved to accept Hud Hollenback's resignation from the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTIffiNT TO COMMUNITY. FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE: Jerry Neher moved to appoint Tim Stone as Planning Commission representative to the Community Facilities Study Committee. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. JOINT MEETING WITH ECOLOGICAL COMMITTEE: No members of the Ecological Committee were present. Planning Commission members would like to review the charge of the Ecological Committee at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST, DR. JAMES MEYER Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. Dr. Meyer was present. The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Dr. Meyer is requesting approval to subdivide his property at 6225 Ridge Road into two lots and requesting a variance to record the lots in a metes and bounds description and subdivide without access onto a public street. The Assistant City Planner recommended that the applicant prepare a plan showing the proposed building sites outlined by elevations, agreements suitable to the City Attorney that assure that the lots created would have access rights to Ridge Road and documentation which will outline the ground floor elevations of proposed structures. Jerry Neher moved to close the public' hearing. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:21 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -2,- SUBDIVISION RE UEST, DR. JAMES MEYER: Tim Stone moved to recommend t e ounc~ approve t e su ~v~s~on and variances for Dr. Meyer and that the applicant work with staff to enter the conditions into the sale contract (road easement, proper elevation of new home to avoid drainag~ problems). Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAPPY CHEF AND ERICKSON PETROLElTh1 CORPORATION Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:40 p.m. with the following interested persons present:L. Zamor, J. Zamor, D. Zamor, Charles Towle, Robert Frederick, Richard Rice, John, Lee, Bill Brezinsky, and Craig Mertz. The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated October 11, 1978. Bob Waibel - Due to the existence of the building moratorium ordinance 47-K and being that this proposal was the first to prove to be a possible impediment to the downtbwn concept plan, there has developed several problems which have made the review of the proposal significantly more difficult than usual. It was my opinion that the development be looked at solely in the context of general land use and the intentions of the HRA keeping the green space as shown in the downtown concept plan. As you well know, site plan considerations had entered into the discussion necessarily for the HRA to decide upon the extent of their green area. After reviewing the most recent plan .. presented to the HRA and the Planning Commission, I ... have serious reservations about my recommendation of September 11, 1978, concerning the entire development. Further study of the site ~lan has revealed some glaring deficits of the plan in it s relationship to the spirit and intent of the adopted city ordinances. First of all the proposed dual uses to be placed on what was originally created to be a single purpose property presents various problems such as four curb cuts in a relatively short distance along West 79th Street, the curb cut nearest to the intersection of Highway 101 would allow for less than adequate stacking distance for cars which could create confusion among motorists, and that the plan proposes less than the setback as prescribed by ordinance for the parking area abutting the right-of-way of Highway 101. I believe that there is a strong liklihood that there will be significant pedestrian traffic between the two facilities, and since no trash container area for Holiday is indicated, this would be the likely spot for the containers which in the end would detract from both developments. My notes made on the subject proposal further substantiat~ it as being over developed for the parcel in question, however, based on the content of this report, I would have to recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to acquire more land or reduce the magnitude Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -3- -- of their proposal to place it more in line with the spirit and intent of the city ordinances, the downtown concept plan, and proper site planning practices. The Assistant City Planner read the' HRA/minutes of September 28, 1978. , Chuck Towle - I am the fee owner of the property and much of the property to the west of this. I entered into a contract to sell this property to Mr. Zamor who in tur~, after discussing it has dealt with Happy Chef and Holiday Erickson people. He went through various procedures and then took a plan to the HRA and spent up to two hours at a meeting with them in going through the plan and coming through with virtually trying to meet every suggestion' and recommendation that they had relative to green area, berm changes, parking changes, many aspects of a plan that would be acceptable to them. The developers have agreed in every instance to their . suggestions and in fact they approved the plan provided they complied with everything that they had recommended. This was done and I believe it came back to your body and then was recommended back to the HRA for a second review. This meeting was held and a new plan was presented relative .to parking changes, the green area, and the variances that might be required, and relative to just how the property would be developed. As I understand it the plan was approved a second time by the HRA. - Some. of the concerns that have been expressed in the memorandum as was prepared for this meeting were total surprises to the developers of the project. It was the feeling that they had complied with everything. Roman Roos - I think we, at our last meeting, were concerned with the width of the green way and the over use of the land. You people have done. an excellent job in trying to rework the green area. e Al Klingelhutz - How far is the first curb cut from Highway 101? Bob Waibel - The curb cut is actually about 30 feet back from the right-of-way of Highway 101. Al Klingelhutz - What is the total square footage of the property? Answer - 77,000 square feet. Brad Steinman, Holiday - As far as, you mentioned about trash, if you recall at the last meeting that same question came up, where are you going to put your trash and I told this group that this building is so constructed that there is an inside trash room. We don't stack trash outside. 'That's one error that. you have in your report. As far as snow removal is concerned, we have private property there that we can put snow on and in cases where necessary and it's to our advantage certainly and to the Happy Chef, if you have to haul snow out you get a place to haul it because you can't operate off of a piece of property that's full of snow. As far as snow removal is. concerned or stacking, if we don't have enough room here we certainly will haul ours Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 '-4- , away and they have to have room to park cars, etc. so I am sure they would be doing the same thing. Another remark was made in there about this being kept ~ green. If we put this in and we say it's going to ~ be kept green, that's what it's going to be. We are going to sod it and plant it, etc. we are going to keep it green and if you think somebody is going to walk across there why I personally think that if people are going to go over here and park to eat they are not going to park here and eat but if they do we will put up a barrier. Roman Roos - Those are all relavent issues but I think the critical issue that we on the Planning Commission have to answer tonight is the use of that land, is it over used. Brad Steinman - I could make one other remark and that's in regards to whether you are over using the property or not and I aSsume the way to judge that is whether or not we are both meeting the requirements as far as parking. If we meet the codes for parking I assume that we are therefore and there is enough space for both of us. Richard Rice, Happy Chef - I guess our points of view at this particular point are; this is a much bigger site than we normally require for our restaurant and we have more than enough parking here according to our standards that we found successful with our restaurants. We still have the green belt space here. In all these discussions in regard to Holiday and ourselves, we have cut back on ... the parking areas. We have moved back to try to create ... the green space that you wanted. We have what we feel in both places in a happy mix of the adequate parking plus giving you the desired green space. We did explore with Holiday the concept that was advanced here the other night with regard to combining this entrance and possibly moving this further away from the corner. It is both of our considered opinions that the internal traffic would be a disaster to do this. This way, having it separated with curbs, green spots, etc. they funnel their traffic in and out, our traffic separately and we don't have any cris-crossing right here. We would have to put up a yield sign and a yellow light and things like that in order to make it work. We collectively have agreed that we cannot live with a single entrance which would function for both places. We think we have worked with the city on this quite sympathetically. We think we have developed a landscaping plan that would be attractive and provide a good approach to the city. Tim Stone moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:09 p.m. HAPPY CHEF AND ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION: Dick Matthews - I am not in favor of subdividing that piece of properte and putting two businesses on there that require the amount of land use that they do. Jerry Neher - I haven't changed my feelings one bit. It is still too crowded as far as I am concerned, two businesses on one piece originally laid out as one business corner. e e - Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -5... Dick Matthews - I would like to concur with them that they have worked diligently and they have tried desperately to satisfy themselves by trying to keep two businesses on that piece of land but they haven't in my opinion worked to solve the problem which is that we do not approve in the subdivision of that land. I would like to have more green way because the majority of that is provided through right-of-way. I would like a little more green way in there but I can't see how you can do that and put two buildings on there. It's the two buildings on that piece of property that bother me. Jerry Neher - I liked the green way as it was laid out originally. The Planning Commission went on record as approving the concept. I have trouble with the green way. I have trouble with subdividing the property. It's too much for one small piece of property. Chuck Towle - Lot 1 which we are dealing with is 77,000 square feet. Roman Roos - The amount of land, true it's 77,000 square feet, but I think what Dick is leading to is there is to intensified on that 77,000 square feet for that corner piece of land. The green way, I have no problems with the green way as it is right now. How do we get that site from being so intensified? We have no problem with either the restaurant there or the gas station but the two of them together presents too much intensification. Chuck Towle - The restaurant is 4,000 square feet. The gas station is 3,900 square. feet. We are dealing with 8,000 square feet. We are dealing with 77,000 square feet. You are dealing with less than 10% coverage of the land. This is not an intense development,compared to what you normally see in commercial development. Brad Steinman - We have used areas for stations of this size under 25,000 square feet, 22,500 is what we shoot for as a minimum. Roman Roos - We have heard a lot of comment, I want to know what you feel about the overall proposal. Mal MacAlpine - This is the first time I have sat in on this portion of it. I think that's commercial property obviously. I think the two uses it is being put to is basically compatible with the area. I think any of us would like a larger green area but when you are talking about proper land usage and the cost of land today I think they have done a fairly good job with the green area and they also agreed to eliminate those parking stalls. The truth of the matter is, when you look at that and you try to envision 10,000 square feet being built on in an area of over 70,000 square feet, that doesn't seem to me an overintensification. Roman Roos - Is the placement of the buildings a problem? Tim Stone - I think that's my concern. In our last discussion I really reinforce what you just said Mal, I have no difficulty with the intensity of the land but the actual physical planning is what's distressing me and I think Bob's report touches on some of the difficulties that I find myself having to deal with. My problem really has Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -6~ to do with the site planning itself not the land use or the subdivision of the parcel. Walter Thompson - I agree with the points that Mal has taken. The ... first two points particularly as to the intensity. ... I also look at that corner and I see this green on this side and nothing but commercial on the other I don't know whether we are trying to penalize something here, concentrate it or what but I have no objection to the green way as shown. Roman Roos - Is there any problems with the layout of the buildings on the site? Walter Thompson - No. Tim Stone - I think Bob does a very nice job of touching on what I think is significant. I don't see that they have been addressed. I heard some verbal conversations about curb cuts and why they wouldn't relocate them. I don't feel comfortable with what I heard. Mal MacAlpine - If they were to eliminate one curb cut for the gas station and the restaurant and the gas station were to share one I think that could create a more hazardous situation possibly than the curb cut closer to the corner which is not an ideal situation. Is this a 24-hour restaurant? Richard Rice - Yes. Tim Stone - My concerns really are not with two buildings on one site but the way the buildings are arranged, the actual site planning of the two buildings.. I feel uncomfortable I see duplication of facilities, parking, potential difficulties with pedestrian circulation, trash removal, curb cuts, ... there are others. The question that Mal was asking is, ... are they resolvable within the current site plan and my answer is I don't see that they are. That's a value judgment. That's my value judgment. Mal MacAlpine - Have you ever gone into the auto shop and the barber shop, in that area? There is one curb cut in there. That's a nightmare to get out of if there is more than four cars parked there. You can hardly turn your car around. It is more dangerous than there would be if there were actually two outlets for that piece of property. You talk about a small parking area for the amount of traffic they ~enerate and the ease of getting in and out, that s a real traffic hazard. If there is only one curb cut on that property which I recall is directly across, I think that makes this area more protective with the two curb cuts. I think you have got to be a little bit realistic about it. All of us have a different opinion as how you want to design a house or furnish a house or whatever and it's a difficult thing. Tim Stone - I am looking for a compromise solution here. I hear some objections to the intensity of the land development and I am looking for a way of trying to make two buildings on one parcel of land with a great deal of asphalt appear less intensified. Mal MacAlpine - You could say well what if the two businesses were e side by side. That's a possibility.but then you are talking about building on a zero lotline. Dick Matthews - I would like to pick up on a point of the 11% of the actual building area, that's a valid point but I am . e e Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -7-' not just considering the building itself. There is a lot of blacktop out there. That also is part of that visual affect that you are going to get. That is also part of my consideration in the subdivisi4lt of this land. The other thing I would like to state is Bob's comments in going back over Bob's comments what he says is,"after reviewing the most recent plan presented to the HRA and the Planning Commission I have serious reservations about my recommendations of September 11, 1978, concerning the entire development. Further study of the site plan has revealed some glaring defects of the plan and its relationship to the spirit and intent of the adopted city ordinances." Mal MacAlpine - I am not sure that I share that sentiment though. Dick Matthews - I am merely going back. and saying the Planner now has some reservations as to the spirit and intent of the development of these two buildings on that parcel. If it was just an 8,000 square foot building that I don't have a problem. It's the total project. You have to take that whole thing into consideration then your percentages go quite high. Mal MacAlpine - The concern I would have more than the green area would be; what type of a sign would be put up considering the fact that Highway 5 is going by and what sort of lighting is being planned for that particular area from a safety standpoint so there isn't excessive glare. Those things can be worked out. I guess I would have more concern about seeing ... how those were going to be address~d. I have no ... objection to the plan is what I am saying. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend to the Council approval of the subdivision and conditional use permit for Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum Corp. in accordance with the division line indicated on Exhibit A, Planning Commission meeting October 11, 1978. The Council should recognize that the Planning Commission is not completely in agreement with the way the buildings are presently laid out and there should be an alternative plan at least considered. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. After discussion the motion and second were withdrawn. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision and conditional use permit as outlined on Exhibit A dated October 11, 1978, for Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum Corporation.' Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Tim Stone, and Mal MacAlpine. Dick Matthews, Jerry Neher, and Roman Roos voted no. Motion failed. Roman Roos - After looking at the land value and the land size and the area of your two buildings, that's totally within everything I believe is correct but again I see two buildings, two parking lots on that piece of land. If there is some way those buildings could be combined into one unit or possibly, I don't know if there has been e another site plan eyer considered from ground zero, I just don't know. This is what we saw initially and what we are seeing now. I don't know if it's possible to combine the two buildings and get what you are looking for or not but I think it would answer a lot - e e Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -8- of questions. I don't think the land use would be that intensified then. Mal MacAlpine - If you did combine the two buildings but both buildings stayed the same size you are not going to reduce the parking area one bit. ~ Richard Rice - We can answer that question right now. Neither one of ... us is interested in combining our buildings into one. It would involve total redesign and the expense of that. They wish to maintain their own identity and they don't feel that combining the two of them gives them that freedom. Roman Roos - Our recommendation will be forwarded to the Council. T think we have all raised some valid points. There are just some issues that we can't agree on. That's maybe healthy, maybe it's not healthy. Thatts the way the record stands at this point in time. It was requested that this be on the November 20th Council agenda. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING REQUEST BRUCE CAMERON, 6291 BLUE JAY CIRCLE Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 9:50 p.m. with the following interested persons present: . Wendell Gravlun - 6270 Blue Jay Circle Wally Peterson - 2240 Melody Hill Frank Kurvers Mr. and Mrs. Perry Willson - 1641 Koehnen Circle Mr. and Mrs. Willard Johnson - 1660 West 63rd Street ~ Wayne Fransdal - 6291 Cardinal .., Al Klingelhutz Mr. and Mrs. Dean Solum, 1630 West 63rd Street Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Cameron - 6291 Blue Jay Circle Craig Mertz Bill Brezinsky The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission either grant the rezoning request from R-l to R-2 or allow for the conversion of the property to a single family residence along with the deletion of one sewer and water assessment with reimbursement of assessment payments made to date. Wayne Fransdal - I need a definition of the term zoning because when I think of zoning I think of areas rather than individual lots. If it's not an area why is zoning even done. I was under the impression that duplexes were allowed in an R-l District. Bob Waibel - First of all an R-l District only allows for single family residential units. R-2 would allow for single family and multiple two family units. This structure was built before the township merger and more or less were grandfathered in. Wayne Fransdal - They were zoned after the merger after the building was there also. Why were they zoned R-l? ~ Bob Waibel - They were treating it as a general area. ... Wayne Frandsal - That's what zoning is for. e - e Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -9- Bob Waibel - There was a provision allowed in Ordinance 47 to allow for legal non-conforming uses which is exactly what these are. They are allowed to exist for an amortized period. Mrs. Cameron - If they were multi-family when they were built weren't they required to have building permits? Al Klingelhutz - They did have to have building permits and they came in for single family building permits and put in non-legal duplexes. If you would check the building permits in the old township records you would see that they were issued single family building permits, not duplexes. Bob Waibel - The problem here is that the financial institutions do not recognize, they want to be overly cautious about this in the fact that they want the proper zoning. They don't buy that aspect of amortized legal non-conforming use which allows these properties to exist until the years 1987 or 1992 depending upon the type of construction. Wayne Fransdal - Then my other question is if we are going to zone by lots where do we end? We have several existing vacant lots in the area. Bob Waibel - They could not be newly constructed. They would have to be an R-l. Wayne Fransdal - Are you setting a precedent? Roman Roos - I think the question is, you have got two sewer and water units against that property. Wayne Fransdal - That is a box somebody built, yes. Mal MacAlpine - When was this residence built? Mrs. Cameron - 1958. Bruce Cameron - The problem that we ran into when we put the duplex on the market was that it was assessed doubly and it was sold to us.as a legal duplex and if it was assessed for double sewer and water and sold as a legal duplex technically we can't resell it because it's still R-l and the real estate companies say it's an illegal duplex. Gene Gravlun - Where'are you going to stop at? You keep issuing these permits for duplexes. Roman Roos - We are not talking about new construction. Gene Gravlun - I could make mine a duplex. Bob Waibel - That could not happen now the way we have the ordinances written. Mrs. Cameron - What they are trying to say is that they are trying to recognize that this was a duplex but not any future multi-family being built in there. Wayne Fransdal - I am still'not clear relative to zoning versus sewer assessments. Craig Mertz - The term that was thrown out was non-conforming use and a more accurate description of that word would be pre- existing non-conforming use. It refers to the fact that an activity was taking place before the ordinance was adopted. This building was erected during the time that the governing body was the Township of Chanhassen rather than the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Klingelhutz says that he believes that they were issued single family permits and thus were illegal under the township days. There was investigation made of the same properties when sewer was installed in the neighborhood. The City Council came to the opposite decision that they must have been_ legal duplexes under the township hence they were going to get two assessments. Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 '-10-' As for whether a property can he zoned R-2 in the middle of an R-l block, that's a planning consideration. In the past the accepted thing was that you had your ... duplexes in one area and your single family in another ~ that's changing. I don't know what this bodys current policy is on interspersing duplexes along with single family houses. Roman Roos - Is it the general consensus of the audience that they do not want this particular dwelling made R-2 or any future dwellings made R-2. I don't quite follow that point yet. Craig Mertz - Wayne, would you like this house converted back to single family? Wayne Fransdal - Now that I understand more I am really undecided. I am not sure. The others where you have side by 'side duplexes 1 can see that they are duplexes. Here we have an upldown duplex. Mrs. Cameron - It has complete separate upper and lower entrances. It also has separate furnaces, water heaters, and gas meters. Frank Kurvers - Does'he have enough parking area for those particular cars to rent that particular building out? Mrs. Cameron - There is off street parking for two cars for the downstairs and two cars for 'the upstairs. Dick Matthews - There seems to be some misunderstanding as to why you came before us to get this rezoned from R-l to R-2. It is my understanding that the reason you are requesting this rezoning to R-2 is for purposes of selling the property to a'future buyer or prospective 4It buyer because it presently does not meet legal lending institution whatever, is that the reason? Mrs. Cameron -Right. They felt it has been quite damaging to us trying to sell the place as a duplex because it is not on the legal map in an R-2 district so when the other realtors and other brokers~look up on their map and see that'it's zonedR-l their clients and for the protection of their clients,they are afraid to bring ~ them out. Dick Matthews - You rent the other unit out now? Mrs. Cameron - Yes. Dick Matthews - In other words nothing is going to change. There is another family sharing that building with you. We are talking just to get it over to a legal description so that you won't have trouble putting it in the hands of a real estate agency or in the hands of a financial institution for a prospective buyer. Mrs. Cameron - Yes. A petition_signed by,23:n~ighborhood residents was present~d objecting to the proposed rezoning. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:07 p.m. REZONING REQUEST - BRUCE CAMERON: e Dick Matthews - I don't see that we have any choice. I think its got to be rezoned. They have a ligitimate complaint. It doesn't conform therefore you have to zone it to make it conform. e e - Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -11- Mal MacAlpine - Is there any other way out of their situation? Craig Mertz - If I were representing the Camerons I would tell the commission that the duplex was legal under the township and it was a legal non-conforming use when the zoning ordirtance was adopted and the purpose of the request is to increase the marketability of the parcel. There is obviously a factual dispute about whether or not this was a legal use under the township. I don't think you should base your judgment on the sewer assessment. If you feel that R~2 is not appropriate for this zone, let the City Council worry about the financial ramifications. Roman Roos - If this is not a legal duplex and they sell it as a single family residential, that means down the pike a new party that buys that home would probably rent it out anyhow? Craig Mertz - Yes. Roman Roos - Without any problems from the city? Craig Mertz - Well no, if the city wanted to bring an enforcement action to close down this duplex we would also have to be willing to refund the money on the second assessment. Bob Waibel - Additionally I could see that compounded if they were found to be legal non-conforming uses the payment of conversion of these units to singles would also be part of it. Dick Matthews - Is it a single family dwelling then remodeled into two separate units oris it constructed as a double. Bruce Cameron - It was constructed as a double. Mal MacAlpine - I think that seeing the city assessed it twice and it is a duplex we are trying to do something here so that they can legally sell it, I am recommending that we rezone it fromR-l to R-2 and if that's spot zoning for this instance then that's what we are doing. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the Council rezone Lot F, RLS 8 from R-l to R-2. Motion seconded by Tim Stone'and unanimously approved. Roman Roos - The thing is we have got a situation here that was conceived before the township, two sewer assessments, it's been a legal duplex for 20 some years. I don't think we have any choice. Jerry Neher - The city fathers some time in the past, whether it was yesterday or six years ago or sometime other than that, they made it a legal duplex. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST ROBERT SOMMER Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 10:17 p.m. with the following interested persons present: Bill Swearengin, 6250 Chaska Road Frank Reese, 6200 Chaska Road' Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Graupmann, 6330 Murray Hill Road Mr. and Mrs. Wallace Peterson, 2240 Melody Hill Robert Sommer, 6239 Chaska Road Frank Kurvers Gordon Anderson, 6230 Murray Hill Road Marv J. Snyder,'Route #5, Box 87, ChaskaRoad Bill Brezinsky , Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -12-' , The Assistant City Planner read the official'notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Mr. Sommer is requesting to divide tbe western half of Lot 29, Murray e Hill Addition and the sQutheasterly290' of Lot D, Bardwell Acres into three residential lots. He is proposing to sell the proposed lots from Lot 29 and the residents'in his ownership that abuts Melody Hill Road and use the proceeds for the development of Sommer's First Addition. The Planning Commission had asked Mr. Sommer to prepare c;l. concept,plan~for the,remainder of his. property to insure that the west %.of Lot~29 would not be landlocked. This plan was presented at the public hearing. The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission accept the plans in concept only and leave the public record open for written comments and require that the applicant prepare further,plans subject to Planning Commission review that are in compliance with Sections 7 and 8, Ordinance 33. Ed Graupmann - We own Lot 30. I would like to know what Mr. Sommer's ideas are for Lot 30 and how water and sewer is supposed to come through there. He has got one house on the road and he wants to put a house in back and how come that's, coming up first when there is no roadway,t0 it? " Bill Brezinsky - AsI understand'it, Mr. Sommer wants to subdivide first this piece of property and this piece of property and 'sell the existing homes on these two pieces which would leave these two remnants which _ would not have public road access. ,., Roman Roos - We wanted to know the overall development of his total piece of land the last time he was in and this is what this is representing at this point in time so we can see what he was going-to do with that land. Where he proposed a road. What he was going.to do with the land to the north and west. We now can see that. That's what we Wc;mted to hear from him. : Now our comments can be: directed towards,the development of that overall parcel of land again with respect to the two pieces he would like to subdivide off., He came in to subdivide, Lot 29. At that point in time we told him that we wanted an overall plan of the total development and that's what he has presented to us this evening. Robert Sommer - What I am proposing at the moment is I would like to divide this lot. Any development of this piece of property is future, probably some distance in the future. I would like to sell this house. There is a man who would like to buy it. I am talking about Lot 29 at the moment. I would like to put this into an outlot'and before I can do this the Planning Commission has asked me, to give a master plan as to _ how this property could be developed in the future. ... They don't want me to sell any lots on Chaska Road until I showed them where the road might be in the future for future development of the property. That's what this road represents. I purchased the Hutmaker place on the suggestion of the city. The terrain is e . , ~ Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1978 -13- too great to come up, it's 60 feet from Chaska Road up to the top. That's rather a steep hill. Bill Swearengin - Do you ever have plans to cut Melody Hill all the way up to the other road? Bill Brezinsky - There is a house right in between the two roads. It would have to go up through the water tower site. Bill Swearengin - Are there any plans to cut anything through Highway 117 and 417 Bill Brezinsky - There is an intention of putting a future municipal state aid street that would connect across from Galpin Blvd. to Highway 41 south of the school. Bill Swearengin - The reason I mention it is the traffic on Melody Hill Road starting early in the morning and ranging up to 2 and 3 o'clock in the evening with the beer parties that the kids have and everything else. I don't know how many units you are going to put up there but if you add another 15 units you are jus~ goin~ to increase the load on a road that just wasn t meant for it. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:37 p.m. SUBDIVISION RE~UEST - ROBERT SOMMER: Tim Stone moved to approve the concept su ject to staffs imput in terms of controlling the access road and future development as per the Planner's recommendations of October 10, 1978. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously ~ approved. HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT 7419 AND CITY/CARVER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION: The city has been approached with development inquiries for the Near Mountain Properties and the Wilma Thompson property. The five year capital improvement plan for Hennepin County calls for Hennepin County Road 62 to be completed to Townline Road and Highway 101. The Planning Commission should decide whether or not a street should be built through the Near Mountain properties westward and if so, should the county be involved. Pat Murphy, Carver County Director of Public Works, was present and discussed the extension of new County Road 17 from proposed 212 to old 212. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council direct staff to study the northeast area of the city and the possible extension of County Road 17. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DON HANUS: Don Hanus was present. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the Council amend the original conditional use permit as shown on Exhibit A-l dated September 27, 1978. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. e HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, BURDICK PARK: No one was present. Jerry Neher moved to table action. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager