Loading...
1979 05 23 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 e Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, Jerry Neher, Clark Horn and Gordon Freeburg. Mal MacAlpine was absent. MINUTES: Gordon Freeburg moved to approve the April 18, 1979 minutes of the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to approve the April 25, 1979, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Walter Thompson moved to approve the May 2, 1979, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Walter Thompson moved to note the April 16, 1979, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. Gordon Freeburg moved to note the May 7, 1979, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, FRANK McGINN PUBLIC HEARING - 1800 Koehnen Circle Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Frank McGinn was the only person present for the public hearing. e The Official Notice as published in the Carver County Herald on May 9, 1979, was read by the Assistant Manager/Planner. Mr. McGinn is requesting to subdivide an approximate 13,500 square foot parcel into one residential building site. The Assistant Manager/Planner recommended that the planning commission require the applicant to acquire property from the adjoining property to the west sufficiently enough to make the new parcel 15,000 square feet in size, and that this acquisition be recorded in a rep~at establishing a newly created parcel. Roman Roos - For the record, Mr. McGinn, I would like to go back to April 2, because initially you made a presentation at that point in time it was 15,290 square feet? Mr. McGinn - That was approximately - I had not gone into any expense as far as a surveyor or anything else. Roman Roos - Bob, what are you asking for, just a subdivision? Bob Waibel - It would be a variance to the 15,000 sq. ft. requirement. Craig Mertz - The ordinance says "minimum lot area and dimension shall be as specified in the respective zoning district of the village zoning ordinance". This is R-1 property Bob? So it is 15,000 feet. e Bob Waibel - Right. It also implies a conditional hook up to city sewer and water, and also an assessment. I think there is only one assessment on it. Mr. McGinn - There is one now to my knowledge. Walter Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Clark Horn, and unanimously approved. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 2 e A discussion of the previous public hearing then took place. Pat Swenson - I have no objections. vJal ter Thompson - I don't knm'l that I have any great problems with it. Apparently the area there is large lots. This is obviously a lot smaller than the other lots would be, but if he needs 15,000 and he is approaching that, I don't believe I have any resistance to this. Jerry Neher - My feeling is that I can see nothing wrong with this. Clark Horn - I have the same feeling as Jerry. I really feel we should enforce the 15,000 sq. ft. limit. Looking at what has been done in the past, I guess I can't see why we would draw the line on this property. Gordon Freeburg - I have the same view. Roman Roos - I have mixed emotions - we have come across this issue how many times, 15,000 sq. ft. We get into an area like Carver Beach we tend to be a little more lenient because of existing lots in that area. Is every lot on this side right now 15,000? Mr. McGinn - Not in the area - on the block. The lots down across the street are not 15,000. e Roman Roos - The lots that we have different conditions. possibly acquire that route. given variances to have been one of the three I guess I would first like to see if you could piece of land, I would like to see you go that Gordon Freeburg - One other point too, if there was any opposition in the area, there would have been someone in attendance tonight, and apparently there is no opposition from any of the neighbors. Pat Swenson moved to approve the subdivision granting a variance to the minimum block size requirement of Section 806 of ordinance 33, to Mr. Frank McGinn. ~-1:otion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, Jerry Neher and Gordon Freeburg. Clark Horn and Roman Roos voted no. Motion carried. Jerry Neher moved that the applicant get a formal plat. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson, and unanimously approved. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, ROBERT HENDRICKSON PUBLIC HEARING - 1370 Pioneer Trail e Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. No one was in attendance for the public hearing. Mr. Hendrickson is proposing to subdivide an approximate 5 acre parcel in order to create one single family residential building site. The Assistant Manager/ Planner recommended the planning commission recommend tht city council approve the subject request with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant dedicate th e ravine area for public open space; 2. That the applicant place the access on the eastern boundary of the property; REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 3 e 3. That the applicant's building plans show all setbacks conforming to Ordinance 45, and do not encroach upon the flood zone and open space area. The Assistant City Attorney recommended denial on the following grounds: 1. There is not sufficient information to review this proposal; 2. The planning commission has in the past indicated that it is their policy to discourage the division of unsewered properties, and that being the case, it was suggested that all of the applicable ordinances should be strictly construed to hold such divisions to an absolute minimum. Pat Swenson moved to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Motion seconded by Clark Horn, and unanimously approved. A discussion of the previous public hearing then took place. Roman Roos - Based on what Craig mentioned and also what staff's recommendation was, it is true that we do not have sufficient information, no where do I see exactly how many square feet or what is the size of the parcel. I guess I would like to buy a little ,time on this one. Clark Horn moved to table the matter until further information is supplied by the applicant. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson, and unanimously approved. e FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, LAKE SUSAN HILLS BUSINESS PARK Mr. Ed Dunn made a presentation, the specific subject was the Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Old 17, pointing out the changes from the old plan, and showing how they appear on the new plan. The recommendations of the Assistant Manager/ Planner were as follows: In recognition of the severe soil conditions discovered in the vicinity of lots 4-10 of Block 1, and in recognition of the preservation of accessibility on Audubon as paramount, it is his recommendation that the city engineer expeditiously prepare a map for the planning department that would show the areas of poor soils so that an access plan for lots 8, 9 and 10 can be incorpor- ated into a final plat at this time, and if this cannot be accomplished, he recommended that the recommendation to require the final plat to indicate lots 4 through 10 as outlots until the access situation can be studied further be included intthe planning commission's decision. On the access to Highway 5, he recommended that the left turn access be provided for temporarily as shown in revision 5-17-79 and that said access be reduced to a right-in-/right-out access as approved by MnDOT and the engineer at the time WhlR2 County State Aid Highway 17 is open for travel. A letter was presented from MnDOT dated May 22, 1979 stating two alternatives which they feel are acceptable for access to TH 5. e Alternative 1 is a proposal for leaving the entrance opposite the Lake Ann entrance. However, because of their concern about left turns to this entrance, they recommend only right turns on and right turns off at this location. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 4 e Alternative 2 is a proposed new location approximately 525 feet + east of Alter- nate 1. Here they propose a tee intersection which woul~ also line up with any future access north of TH 5. They feel that the tee intersection with proper turn and by-pass lanes is acceptable at this location. Mr. Dunn stated there are so many questions that are just not answerable today, there isn't any way they can project as far as statistics etc., so their request is simply that the left turn access be provided, and that it can be reconsidered later by MnDOT and the engineers as conditions warrant. Roman Roos - Do you have any comments on either topic, first being this access. Jerry Neher - I don't quite understand - temporary access you are looking for now. I travel it quite often. I don't know what bearing Lots 4, 5, and 6 have on it personally as long as they have taken that cuI de sac out of there. I have no problem with it. Roman Roos - If that were made a permanent frontage road, a tee frontage road. Would you have a problem with that, you are looking at 4 acre parcels. I don't know how 17 could be used that heavily. That is the reason I caution the word "temporary", that we have some control on it. Walter Thompson - I don't have any problems with the establishment of a frontage road there really. e Pat Swenson - Would it be a major project to run a true frontage road across those three lots and down? Mr. Dunn - I wonder if we are not having a problem with definition of size. This is 100 acre parcel of ground, and this is a half a mile. It would impact this lot, because you take away whatever that is, 40 or 50 feet of its area, plus the fact that the grade is such that this comes up here. I am not sure about the soils in this area. I think we would be creating a very long service road and I think it would be difficult to move traffic, and it would be next to impossible to maintain, and it would be a very strenuous solution for such a simple problem. Animal Fair is on their own, and I presume they will have their own egress onto 17. Pat Swenson - I am just visualizing three accesses in a "half mile" onto 17. I guess this concerns me a little, if the traffic ever really gets moving on 17. Do we have any kind of projection as to what the anticipated usage of that road is? Roman Roos - 17 will be alleviated - traffic on old 17 by new 17 going across. Gordon Freeburg - That tee that you are projecting in there, would that function as a city street? Would it be maintained by the city? e Craig Mertz - I guess ideally we would like to uell the developer that the city would own the land, but we wouldn't do the maintenance work. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 5 e Gordon Freeburg - If it is a city street then it is going to have to be a cul-de-sac so a snow plow can turn around, we are going to have to maintain it, so it is going to take a considerable hunk of land out of there. Pat Swenson - If that 17 is only going to be just a virtually unused street, what is the objection with having the entrances onto the street? Roman Roos - There is a time frame. Bob Waibel - I think 17 is already in pretty good use right now, it seems like a major spine going through our open area right now, and out of habit people just use it, it is a major route to Chaska. Pat Swenson - This is why I am confused, because I can't, you say all this traffic is going to be delegated to the other 17. Bob Waibel - No, I think there will probably be a 50-50 split. It is still going to be one of those collector status streets. It is about a mile from the new 17. e Roman Roos - I think there are several ways to look at this, because of the soil that would mean they would have to modify the road on the plat. That would mean that those three would have to be outlets for now, or possibly some kind of a road aceess into them. We wouldn't want three road accesses onto 17 at this point in time along with Park Avenue, along with Animal Fair. If we can still give the developer the option of selling those lots withGan access on 17 with a tee frontage road, then we sol'lie his problem, yet we got in under control in terms of contract. Pat Swenson - What you are saYing is that while 17 is as busy as it is, you are eliminating two accesses. So we are still going to wind up with 3 within a half a mile. This disturbs me almost as much as 5, and I think we are ~aving a great deal of conversation and I can't see that this is going to eliminate that much of the problem. Julius Smith - I don't think 3 accesses on a collector street in a city that are essentially 2 blocks apart, 3 blocks apart, is excessive access. Mr. Dunn - I think you are talking about standard and traffic counts and that sort of thing, and it may well happen that conceivably although it is hard to say When, that 17 would be upgraded to something that is basically a 2 lane local road. It is currently a county road and is functioning as such. I should point out that new 17 is a 4 lane divided limited access road. This, with a controlled intersection here or possibly tees and maybe some day actually with an overpass, but it is a major road and that is the future road that goes south into the county. That it why they designed it and are building it that way. It will carry, and most people will choose to take that route north and south, when it is available. This then gets relegated to some secondary use. e Walter Thompson _ Remember, that when 212 if it ever goes in, then the access onto 212 is going to be from the new 17, not the old one. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 6 e Mr. Dunn - That's why it is 4 lane divided, it will carry heavy traffic. Bob Waibel - I would like to research the possibility of including 8, 9, 10 and lIon that one access at that point. Pat Swenson - Do you have, can you project at all the number of people who might be using that road? How many people are employed at Animal Fair? Mr. Dunn - 150 is the number that I hear. Pat Swenson - I guess I am complicating my own question because as we are talking here I suddenly see all these people egressing on one road, descending on it at one time, and I am seeing people anxious to get home and a back up of traffic which may be a greater hazzard than having the accesses so people can get out more readily. Pat Swenson moved to make recommendation for a tee access road on Lot 9, serving Lots 8 and 10. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. Gordon Freeburg - I would like to see in the motion or somewhere that it would be legally defined what is going to be a city street or private property. e Craig Mertz - We could say that X number of west feet of Lots 8, 9 and 10 be dedicated for public right of way purposes. What that X number would be I am not prepared to ,say. I think you would need a recommendation from the engineer how far back in the property you would go. I would assume that the city council would say that even though that west number of feet was dedicated, that that would be private maintenance responsibility, and that could be covered in the contract. Roman Roos - I think the only other comment I have is that if staff can work out with Animal Fair and join with you people the common access off of either your lot to Animal Fair or vice versa, something that would be of this connotation, I would like to see this motion go to the council. If that is agreeable. Unanimously approved. COVENANTS The Assistant City Attorney discussed the covenants for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Development.He stated the city may want to incorporate some more specific standards in either this document or the development contract, a requirement of uniformity of exterior materials. Mr. Dunn stated that the covenants are over and above the ordinances. They can't do anything that is not allowed in the ordinance. These covenants were installed to give them a degree of quality control that exceeds what the ordinances might spell out. e Clark Horn moved to approve the development covenants and restrictions as presented with the proviso that a further investigation be made to identify whether or not further design controls and architectural review should be incorporated either into this document or into the development contract. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Pat Swenson, Jerry Neher, Roman Roos, Clark Horn and Gordon Freeburg. Walter Thompson voted no. Motion approved. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 7 e LEFT TURN ACCESS Roman Roos - I have no problem with the right,in-right out as per staff right now, but I do think the developers, upon reconsideration, is a valid point. Gordon Freeburg - I still think that something should be done, or some consideration be given to closing that at the time that new l7 is functional, making that a dead end cul-de-sac or whatever, and not an exit/entrance onto Highway 5 at that time. Clark Horn - Yes, I agree with that. I think that it is a problem right now on Highway 5. I don't think it is a future problem. It is with us now. I support the right in/right out. Jerry Neher - My only hesitation when I seconded Pat's motion was the fact that she had in there as recommended by the MnDOT. Pat Swenson - It is according to Bob's paragraph here, he said as approved by MnDOT. Bob Waibe1- That would mean at a future date. Walter Thompson - e Mr. Dunn - Alternative 2 is the one that is acceptable to us. At this point in time we have no other access from Highway 5 to the property, and restricted to right in/right out at this time is to say we can't get on to the property. Nobody coming from the east can get in. Nobody heading toward the west can get out except to go out through 17 off of 5. That is a very very heavy restriction. At this time anything other than fu11mcess at that point would be not feasible, and the property in effect then, can not be developed. Roman Roos - I have to agree with both Clark and Gordon. I think we have to look at a phasing situation. I think right now it is paramount that we do have accesses there. If we have under control, the city, that at some point in time we can revise or review, or any time the city so determines that that is a hazzard, that it go under review for reconsideration, and that is in the motion, then I would go along with the motion, but if not I couldn't go along with the motion. Pat Swenson moved that we accept or recommend Alternate 2 of MnDOT's letter of May 22, 1979, with the proviso that if at any time it should prove that this is unacceptable to the city and a traffic hazzard, that we will have the right of revocation. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher, and unanimously approved. Clark Horn stated it should be entered in the minutes that we recommend that at such time as new 17 goes through, that the other area be closed. Bob Waibel stated that all of the provisions and conditions of the preliminary plat will be included in the final plat, except as changed as needed, and as would appear in either the plat or the development contract. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23,1979 Page 8 e NORTH CHANHASSEN EAST/WEST COLLECTOR STREET, DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REVIEW Roman Roos stated that the feasibility study that we anticipated having this evening has not been put fully into concept form. It should be available on May 24 or May 25. This same item will be on the agenda on the 13th of June. It will then be on a special meeting of the council on the 25th. Mr. Ray Jackson of Scl'xJ;Jl and Madson gave an informational presentation, with a brief idea of what it is. The discussion will come on June 13th with recommendation to council. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST 79th ST. J MICHAEL SORENSON Mr. Sorenson is proposing to construct a 1,400 square foot off-sale liquor store as per the Baldwin site plan dated 5/9/79. The Assistant Manager/Planner gave details regarding the proposal. It was his recommendation that the planning commission advise the applicant to undergo preliminary plan review with the HRA in consideration of the HRA plans for the downtown area. The planning commission should also advise the applicant that, should the HRA encourage them to proceed wi th any further;;.plans, that these plans should be done in accordance with the conditional use permit chapter of the administrative procedures manual and section 23 of ordinance 47. e Mr. Herb Baldwin made a presentation for Mr. Sorenson, showing how the project fits into what might be coming on later. He stated that they feel this bUilding answers the intent-of the CBD zoning and they feel if the planning commission can approve at least the concept, they would begin to specify some of the things pointed out on the plan tonight. Roman Roos - Any comments on the overall concept? Do you want to give him any feeling as to what your opinions are,and give Herb a consensus of opinion? Pat Swenson - I have no problem with it. I have to ask about the logic of having two liquor stores within a half block of each other, but that would not be my problem. Walter Thompson - In general I think the plans looks pretty fair, but I think the traffic movement looks to me a little bit awkward, they are both coming in at the south entrance, and if those 3 parking spots are occupied, where are they going to go? Herb Baldwin - I think it is possible that we would be able to go to right angle parking by just changing the configuration of the building so that we can narrow it up and maintain our travel lanes between the building and the parking and then get that right angle parking. Walter Thompson - How much unloading space is represented there? e Herb Baldwin - What is represented there is a space which is 12 ft. wide by 30 ft. long, and it was that we did some research in and felt that primarily the deliveries would be with a rigid frame truck and that that would facilitate that. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 9 e Jerry Neher - I have no problems with; it. The traffic has been brought up. I can see where somebody coming in from the south they are going to have to back out. Herb Baldwin - It is two way passing, the only thing is that the guy going north doesn't have a chance to swing into those angle parking. I gather from your conversation that you would favor, a more appropriate scheme might be one to have right angle parking so that you could get into that parking bay from either direction. Clark Horn - I have no specific on this. I guess I would like to see both sites developed as one overall plan. I think that would be more appropriate than just viewing one. Herb Baldwin - Our proposal is, however, separate. Clark Horn - What is the distance between the southern access and the Standard driveway. Herb Baldwin - I think there must be about 35 to 40 ft. to their northerly curb cut, because they do have a bit of ground here on that north side of the property. e Gordon Freeburg - I can find no problem at all other than what Clark says. I think the lots should go together and if they do, I would take a long look at closing that southern exit and making a loop arrangement to alleviate that congestion from Mike's property across the street, the Standard station and now with the Holiday and Happy Chef going in there, that is going to be a pretty busy place down on that corner. Roman Roos _ I guess my first comment would be intensification. When I look at what we want in the downtown area and what we want in that greenways area going into the downtown area, I am excited just to see somebody coming in with a proposal that can meet that requirement. I think there is a tradeoff, and I think the tradeoff is weighed in the positive favor. I would say proceed with it and look at the parking, I think if it can be a joint effort, beautiful, but conceptually I think you've got a green light from the planning-s commission as a whole. Step into the next phase. MOLNAU SUBDIVISION REQUEST e The Assistant Manager/Planner gave a report on this item. He stated that due to the configuration of the proposed subdivision, his office maintained that a rep1at of the subdivision be required in light of the fact that no development plan has been submitted for proposed lot 1, and that there is considerable expense in planning, and there is a strong possibility for duplication of staff involvement in processing any such application, he felt it would be in the best interest of both the city and the developer to consider further review of the subject proposal in tandem with the development plan. He recommended that the planning commission advise the applicant of the probability of additional expenses in considering the commercial subdivision without a development plan, and have the applicant enter into the record at this time his intention on further con- sideration of the proposal. e e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 23, 1979 Page 10 Mr. Al Klingelhutz gave the details of Mr. Molnau' s proposal. Mr. Molnau wants to subdivide this property, make a separate lot out of lot No.1, and keep the other complete portion for his veterinary clinic. He has much more parking than most buildings in Chanhassen. He has agreed that there will be a curb and a 4 ft. screen with shrubbery to divide the two lots. Gordon Freeburg moved to recommend to council that a public hearing be held for the proposed subdivision as presented. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. DISCUSSION, BUILDING PERMIT POLICY - Walter Thompson moved to table Item No. 11. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. Gordon Freeburg moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Don Ashworth Ci ty Manager