Loading...
1979 04 04 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 4, 1979 e Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with the following members present: Mal MacAlpine, Jerry Neher, and Pat Swenson. Gordon Freeburg and Walter Thompson were absent. MINUTES: Pat Swenson moved to note the March 19, 1979, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. There will be a special Planning Commission meeting April 12, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. to interview candidates. PUBLIC HEARING CARLSON REZONING FROM R-1A TO P-4 The official notice was published in the Carver County Herald. The purpose of this hearing is to consider rezoning the Victor Schmieg farm from R-1A to p-4. Mike Sorenson and Jerome Carlson were present. The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended approval conditioned upon a final plat being filed prior to issuance of a building permit. Pat Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 7:51 p.m. CARLSON REZONING REQUEST: Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the Council rezone the Victor Schmieg property from R-1A to P-4 with the stipulation that a plat be filed before a building permit is issued. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. e PUBLIC HEARING LYMAN LUMBER PLAN AMENDMENT Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. with the following interested persons present: James Mattson, University of Minnesota Ray Kerber, 18210 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie Bill Ziemer, Lyman Lumber David Ohde, BRW Peter Throdah1, Lyman Lumber The official notice was published in the Carver County Herald. Lyman Lumber is requesting a change in the phasing and a, reconfiguration of the lumber distribution yard. Mal MacAlpine moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. e LYMAN LUMBER PLAN AMENDMENT: Amendments Lyman Lumber is seeking are, the building of the distribution yard is still in Phase I but step up Phase II to be built a year from now and hold off on the component plant. They do not intend to construct all the bu~ldings in the distribution yard right away as they need to do studies on their materials flow in order to correctly place some of the umbrella sheds. Berming will not need to be done as the millwork plant will be constructed in the Spring of 1980. The millwork building will be phased with an initial 80,000 square feet phased to 100,000 square feet at a future date. Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council approve the plan amendment .~ ~ '. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 -2- based on the phasing. The berm and/or building to be completed by September 1980. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously ~ approved. .., ARBORETUM DRIVE STREET VACATION: Dr. DeVos, University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, and James Mattson, University of Minnesota, were present. The existing home along Arboretum Drive belongs to the Arboretum. They want to relocate the picnic area, provide additional parking for the Arboretum, and re-route the road to better fit their plans. Gates will be installed to secure the Arboretum. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend that the Council approve the vacation of Arboretum Drive as suggested in the Assistant City Manager/Planner's letter of April 2, 1979, Planning Case P-605, noting that the Arboretum is willing to leave a key with the fire and/or police departments if they deem it necessary to enter the premises. M9tion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DERRICK LAND COMPANY: Several residents of the area were present. This 35.2 acres is located on the south side of Pleasant View Road and borders on the north side of Lotus Lake. Forty-nine units are proposed with an average lot size of 24,800 square feet. The plan tentatively shows the proposed collector street. The City Engineer recommended that an emergency access be designed to serve the Devi1's Slide basin area in Carver Beach. This access should be designed to have a 7 ton capacity base with co11apsab1e barrier and be sodded over. The Park and Recreation Commission have met and recommended that the Derrick development plans ~ provide a conservation easement along the Lotus L~ke shore from .., Carver Beach north to the eastern boundary of the property, and that a pedestrian easement be provided from the northern extent of the conservation easement to Pleasant View Road along the eastern boundary. John Shard10w was present. He stated that he has discussed the recommended changes with staff and finds no problem with them. Persons present expressed concern about the location of the proposed collector street. It was explained that the Council has ordered a feasibility study and when the study is complete more detailed information will be known and available. Mal MacAlpine moved to direct staff to order the public hearing upon the receipt of the completed preliminary development plans, the EAW and watershed district comments. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW - NEW HORIZON HOMES, OUTLOTS BAND C, CHAPPARAL: As part of the phasing of the development are temporary desiltation ponds located north and west of the major holding pond to be constructed in the southeast corner of the active play area. These siltation ponds will be discontinued after construction progresses and the soils situation becomes stable. The City Engineer gave his report. Runoff from about 157.5 acres ~ in the Chappara1 naturally flow to a creek running eastward to Lotus Lake. Through construction of a proposed 10.22 acre-foot capacity storage pond with a controlled outlet, the maximum flow to the creek . e I- I I ~lanning COJ.ll.mission Meeting April 4, 1979 -3- from Chappa~al w0uld pe reduced from about l13 cfs prior to development to 54 cfs after development. The Engineer is engaged in a study to determine whether this reduction in flow is enough to eliminate the existing erosion problem in the creek. Additional controls within the Chapparal development are not recommended. The storm sewer system has adequate capacity except that a second catch basin should be added in the most southeasterly cul-de-sac. The watermain in Kerber Blvd. should be 18 inch instead of 16 inch. The slopes on the pond should be 3:1 or possibly 4:1 for maintenance and safety reasons. Pat Swenson moved to recommend the Council grant final approval of the plat as proposed with the shifting of the boundary of the second addition to encompass the southern boundary of the road (Exhibit A, Road A) and subject to the conditions of staff. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT - HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ, BURDICK PARK: Tom K1inge1hutz and Doug Hansen were present requesting amendments to items 4 and 5 in their development contract. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the council amend the development contract, item #4 be amended to read licensed vehicle parking, item #5 increase the weight restriction from 7,000 to 9,000 1bs. for overnight parking on the east and south, that outside storage be confined to the west side of the building with no storage of vehicles larger than 8 x 20 feet. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. MC GINN LOT SPLITp LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HARVIR HILL: Mr. McGinn is seeking approval to subdivide Lot 4, Block 1, Harvir Hill into two lots. Pat Swenson moved to hold a public hearing on April 25, 1979, to consider the lot split conditioned upon receipt of an abstractor's certificate by April 9. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. THE BALTIC COMPANY - SITE PLAN: The Baltic Company is requesting rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Minnewashta Park from R-1 to C-1. The property currently is the siteof~~Cermak Sales and Service. Reynold. Roberts, rep~esenting the owners, gave a presentation. They are proposing to remodel the existing building into an office building. The remaining structures and equipment would be removed from the property. Eleven parking spaces would be provided on the east side of the building. The Baltic Company would be the owner/user of the building. The Assistant City Attorney asked for vertification of ownership of the property. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on April 25, 1979, to consider rezoning from R-1 to C-1 subject to proof of ownership. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 -4- PETITION FOR 40,000SQUARE FOOT LOTS: The City has received a petition! signed by approximately 80 persons living along Pleasant View Road; requesting the Planning Commission re-study the zoning regulations for Chanhassen, in general, and in particular, north of Carver Beach, west of Highway 101 and east of County Road 17 to rezone this area for 40,000 square foot lots. Approximately 25 persons were present. They expressed concern about the developments that are proposed for this area; i.e. Near Mountain, Derrick Land Company, and Christmas Acres. The residents present felt these developments are not in character with the current residential status. They asked for consideration of a lower density type of development. The residents are also very much opposed to the proposed collector street through the area. Members commented on the proposal for council consideration. Mal MacAlpine - As developers come in here and they know that the lot size requirement is 15,000 square feet or on a PUD, less, they are abiding by the city ordinances. They are doing exactly what the law says they have to do. The fact remains, how much spot zoning do you do? Can you spot zone for mewh~reI live and say that the acreage around me will all be homes that are $150,000? Roman Roos - You have another issue to answer and that would be all the landowners in the area. Let's say that you did do some spot zoning and let's say that spot zoning encompassed everything on Pleasant View. There is a lot more homeowners involved than just the 25 that were sitting here. Can we force them into a situation where they have to have 40,000 square feet? How do you pick an area and say the boundary is going to be here and here and here and these will be 40,000 square foot areas? Jerry Neher - Let's think about something else too. Everyone of those people that are there presently that are under 40,000 square feet would be non-conforming just like I am in my neighborhood. Every time I wanted to put a window in my house or change a window or anything else they would have come before the Planning Commission because they are no longer conforming. I can't do a thing to my house except repair it without coming to the city first for a variance. Craig Mertz - That would also affect vacant 15,000 square foot lots that are legal now. Roman Roos - If you recall when pankonin was on the staff and the council charged us with finding a place for "estate" type developments, 40,000 and up, there is some area in the north area that would be suitable for that, that has water,maybe not sewer,but the sewer is imminent. I think some place in that north area by the comprehensive plan there has to be an area of large "estate" type homes but where that is I can't answer. craig Mertz - Mal, you are contemplating that you are just going to pick out certain parcels in that quadrant that these people are asking about and rezone those? Mal MacAlpine - No, I am not really in favor of spot zoning. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 -5-- craig Mertz - You don't like the idea of having different lot sizes for different areas in the city? Mal MacAlpine - That's correct. Craig Mertz - You would like to have a city~wide uniform minimum e lot size. Mal MacAlpine - With the exception I feel there should be "estate" type areas but I think when somebody comes in and buys a home and they happen to buyout in the country and it happens to be underdeveloped, you are naive if you think it's never going to be developed. I think you hope it lasts for your lifetime but that isn't reality. Roman Roos - We, on the Planning Commission, without a doubt, feel that an area that is undeveloped and I am not talking about Pleasant View, I am talking about an area that's undeveloped, we could,without having the problem of spot zoning, say that this is going to be that type of unit. Now that's totally within the realm of our overall comprehensive plan. There is a definite need but it's hard for me to relate to the need of those people in that north area. Mal MacAlpine - Speaking to this issue right here, I think it's spot zoning. I am not too sure it's the best land usage. Where it may be good for the people that are presently living there, I think it is limiting the people that may want to move into Chanhassen that can only afford a 15,000 square foot lot. I think that the developers that are coming into Chanhassen are abiding by our ordinance and also it isn't as if anything illegal ~ is being done. On the other side I guess I think .., these people that were here tonight should know exactly how far they can go to at least be heard. If I vote against it or if the Planning Commission votes against it, it obviously has to go to the council, I think they should go to the council because we are obviously not the last word. We can only make a recommendation to the council and I think if I felt the way they felt I would go to the council. I think the Planning Commission should determine how it feels. If we all feel the same way then it's obviously that we submit the petition to the council with our feelings. Roman Roos - Let the council charge the Planning Commission as to what they might want to do in respect to it. Mal MacAlpine - The council could turn it back to us and it will probably come back to us and say let's have a public hearing. Pat Swenson - I can understand their problem so well because it is indeed a unique piece of property in the city as far as the view is concerned. It would appear to me, I don't really understand how we can do anything until we know what the recommendations are going to be on this east/west corridor because if there is any conceivability that this could be changed into 40,000 obviously this ~ eliminates or it would seem to eliminate this .., particular area from any traffic thing. Mal MacAlpine - There is going to be a lot of developments south of that. I think there is still going to be a need e e e .' - Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 -6- for a collector going somewhere. Pat Swenson - The comparison that was brought out about the 40,000 square feet in Shorewood, not that I think we have to follow Shorewood, all these things do weigh on my problem and I guess maybe I am not quite as liberal as you are,Mal. I just feel that sometimes not everybody can afford to live in every neighborhood they want to. If there are areas that are set aside like that and one of the others can't afford to buy it then that's unfortunate, fortunately we are in a country where people can rise as far as they want. Mal MacAlpine - I would agree with that if that area was developed that way. Pat Swenson - I am concerned about the fact that there has been so much work done already with three developments that we have discussed and that these people have tried to conform. I would have to ask the council what their thinking would be on how can we explain to them that we are suddenly backing off or thinking about backing off. Mal MacAlpine - I thing there is a lot of people that live there on lots 40,000 square feet and larger that have lived there a good many years. They can only afford that because they have owned that property a good many years. Bob Waibel - One of the spin-off affects of this is when you are lowering the density aggregately on a ~etropolitan basis and the demand for housing and commercial is Btil1 there, it makes for, a pUl?h against the existing sewerec1 area and it goes into another capital expansion program for the city to supply that demand, yet there still is the policy uncertainty of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission which may restrict any more extensions of these facilities even within the MUSA Line as we have learned from the 208 Study. Roman Roos - Is not the assessments of the north sewer area right now based on what we feel to be real in terms of 15,000 square foot lots and that's an important consideration also. Mal MacAlpine - The people that live on the 40,000 square foot lot now that have been assessed~ are they assessed for three? craig Mertz - They were assessed for one plus a square foot charge based on the area of the lot. If they came in to subdivide it, they got a credit for their area charge but were added units. Mal MacAlpine - Somebody moving in now would not have that same right. Craig Mertz - Right. Jerry Neher - Due to the fact that I have lived in Chanhassen as many years as I have and going through this petition, many of them I know. I do know if they had to purchase 40,000 square feet today, with the assessments that are on it, they would not be able to afford to live in that area. I am very concerned for three particular reasons. Number one is the spot zoning. Number two is,some place along the line those utilities in the ground are going ~ ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 :-7- to have to be paid for. If we put a restriction of 40,000 square feet on those lots you are going to slow down ~he development by eliminating probably 60 to 70% 4It of the market that are buying homes today and probably more to the point where the city is not going to be able to meet the obligation of those bonds and we will be like New York City. I do sympathize with the people that live out there. I once had a big piece of property myself and I hope to get back to it when I retire but it's not going to be this close to the city. You just can't stop progress and by limiting people economically, it's not the way to go in my opinion, and that's what you are in effect doing. Mal MacAlpine - I also think if we were to say we are recommending a 40,000 square foot and somebody that's lived there for 25 years and the assessed valuation of the home quadrupled equal to the new home that just went up, do you think they would accept that? No way. They just wouldn't. You can't have it both ways is what I am saying. Jerry Neher - If at the time that these bond issues come due and there is not enough development in that area to pay up what is due, does that go on the general tax? Craig Mertz - It either has to come out of the general fund or in the alternative, the city council would have to hold a reassessment hearing and divvy up the short fall among all of the people living in the project area at the time of the reassessment. ~ Pat Swenson - At the time that the water and sewer utilities went in, .., the l5,000 square foot minimum was enforce at that time, were the people in this area aware of the fact that the assessments were put in based on that type of criteria? Craig Mertz - Yes. Pat Swenson - Then actually the time to have made this petition would have been at that particular time when all the adjustments from thence on could have been made. Bob Waibel - Right. craig Mertz - We are talking about a standard that's been in effect for ten years. Bob Waibel - The collector street the same way. That's in the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1968. Roman Roos - I would echo your sentiments about spot zoning and of course I would echo Pat's sentiments about Shorewood being 40,000 square foot. Without a doubt I think we need an area of "estate" type, 40,000 square foot lots or greater, but I don't think it should be in an area that is developed such as the Pleasant View area. I would like the council to be quite aware that those that were~here tonight.cwere solely locateda1ongI:'leasant View. That the area that they are talking about is running from County Road 17 to Highway 101. There are a lot of issues that have to be answered before we could take a look at the 40,000 square foot zoning issue but 4It I guess I would have to say at this time I would not go along with that. We would have to stick to the 15,000 square foot that we have at this time. I would like to ~ee the council note these comments ~nd note the petition e . e' L , . . .~ Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1979 -8- and the signers of that petition. I would like the council to weigh that and come back to the Planning Commission with whatever charge they might desire. It's an area that is very, very critical. We have got three major developments coming in. One of them is a larger size development, 24,000 square foot, that being the Thompson property. The council will have to make a determination on the other two projects if they fall in the realm of what they feel to be in that area. I guess I would ask the council to give us some direction. Mal MacAlpine - I would say if they feel the petition has any merit to go beyond that. Mal MacAlpine moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.. Don Ashworth City Manager