1979 06 13
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
e
Walter Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members
present: Pat Swenson, Jerry Neher, Clark Horn and Walter Thompson. Roman Roos,
Gordon Freeburg and Mal MacAlpine were absent.
MINUTES: Jerry Neher moved to accept the May 23, 1979, Planning Commission minutes
as witten. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved.
Clark Horn moved to note the May 14, 1979 and May 21, 1979 Council minutes.
Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
MOLNAU SUBDIVISION REQUEST
PUBLIC HEARING
Walter Thompson called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. with the following
interested persons present:
Ralph G. Molnau, 116 W. 1st, Waconia, Minn.
Al Klingelhutz, Chanhassen, Minnesota
Jerry Neher moved to postpone the Molnau Public Hearing until such time as
Robert Waibel returns. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved.
OPEN DISCUSSION
e
Clark Horn brought up the subject of visible effects from the stacks on the
new Press building on Highway 5. It was stated that this is something that
the building inspector would probably look into.
Jerry Neher desires that the noise situation of the Ready Mix plant at the
intersection of Highways 101 and 5 be checked b~inning at 6:30 am.
These two subjects will be returned to at the open discussion period later.
Jerry Neher moved to resume the agenda, starting with Item 2. Motion seconded
by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved.
MOLNAU SUBDIVISION REQUEST
PUBLIC HEARING
-
The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated that the notice for public hearing was
published in the Carver'County Herald, to the affect that subdivision is being
requested for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Frontier Development Park. At the Planning
Commission Meeting of May 23, 1919, it was brought out that pboblems might arise
in considering the subdivision without a specific development plan for the property.
It was his recommendation that the subdivision request be denied for Lots 1 and 2
of Block loi"iFrontier Develo];lll.ent Park until a development plan has been submitted
for the parcel to be subdivided.
Mr. Ralph Molnau, a partner in the ownership of the building stated that unless
they know whether they can divide that property, it is very hard for them to
submit it for sale to a prospective buyer. The original thinking was to buy
enough property to fully develop their building and then whatever was left over,
the intention was to sell it. That is what is being proposed now. They did have
a prospective buyer, but they are not really sure whether he will follow through
or not.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page 2
e
Mr. Al Klingelhutz stated that when you put a piece of property up for sale and
you haven't got a subdivided lot, it is almost impossible to sell unless you know
where the boundary lines are. The buyer is buying that lot to put up a building
that will fit that lot. As far as the sq. footage of the building and the parking
that is necessary, it is still 22,800 sq. ft., a little over a half acre of land.
Buildings have been proposed for a lot smaller lots in Chanhassen, and they have
been approved. There really, as far as he can see, can't be?~any harm to the
City of Chanhassen if this lot is subdivided at this time.
Walter Thompson - Bob, if this lot is divided as proposed, wouldn't anyone coming
in to build there have to proceed through the normal channels as far
as parking and set backs, etc. are concerned?
Bob Waibel _ They would have to go through a site plan review. With the CBD
concept though there is the probability of (joint and shared parking,
variable set backs, zero lot line set backs, etc. Once the subdivision
occurs, the city is not insured that we are going to maximize the
property downtown by planning out the parking"needs for either one
structure or both of them combined. I belleve that would be the spirit
and intent of that CBD ordinance, to have a plan submitted that would
work together with the surrounding land uses.
Walter Thompson _ Gouldn't that still be obtained by having a 22,000 sq. ft. lot in
that area?
e
Bob Waibel - It can be, yes, but we have no guaranty that it would.
Pat Swenson _ Is it possible to make a recommendation, lets say that this sub-
division would be recommended with the condition that all the areas
are consistent and acceptable with the established criteria. Would
that satisfy the problem that you are having with the lack of guaranty?
Bob waibel _ There is so much flexibility with the CBD ordinance that we actually
have no provisions for set backs.
Walter Thompson - How does this get into the CBD at this point?
Jerry Neher _ It was rezoned when Molnau came in, four or five years ago.
Mr. Molnau _ We are really concerned for that thing to be harmonious, whatever
neighbor we have there, to blend well with what we presently have too.
We probably wont sell that lot until we know exactly what the building
is that is going to go in there.
Walter Thompson _ What kind of business would you expect to go into that area, in
general?
e
Mr. Molnau _ We had one prospective buyer that was thinking of a rental type of
service, tools and small equipment, not trailers. We had another
prospect that was a printing company.
Jerry Neher _ What are you looking for Bob, in other words you want to show what
is on that lot before we subdivide :1 t, or what?
Bob Waibel _ That's correct - if you set a precedent in that it ~ould be subdivided
into lots such as that, you could probably triple the number of lots
down there, thus also without development plans tripling the number of
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page 3
e
possible curb cuts such as that. It should probably be done in light of
and in reference to possible lighting plans. Right now we have gotten
two new requests that have been approved, actually three, and it gets
to the point where we are going into a street lighting plan for the
area that would also somewhat determine the acess points on how that
whole area is developed.
Mr. Molnau - In making the division line we started at a point in the center of our
curb cut so we could equally share that curb cut.
Clark Horn - Bob, aren't you talking about the expansion of other development beyond
this that you are concerned with?
Bob Waibel - Setting a precedent or subdividing without any development plans
throughout any area of the city.
Mr. Klingelhutz - What you are saying Bob, then, is that there should be a plan for
the whole area before some individual can sell a piece of property?
Bob Waibel - We are already locked into a plan if you are subdividing right down
the center line of your curb '(JUt. That more or less locks us into a
decision on how we are going to face the next~plan.
e
Mr. Molnau - The land adjacent to us on the West is different zoning. It is still
zoned industrial, so we would be on the end of that CBD zoning.
Bob Waibel - It is zoned industrial, however that zoning is just as moot as any type
of zoning in that area because the BRA building moratorium and the HRA
proposed redevelopment concept plan. The HRA would look at least until
the end of this month at every proposal that does come in.
Jerry Neher - I would like to point out here in the minutes someplace in the council
minutes, in one of the deals they acted on the Happy Chef and the
Erickson that they recommended more or less that the Planning
Commission consider rezoning the whole thing to CBD.
Mr. Klingelhutz - If' the lot is subdivided and someone buys the lot and comes in
for a building permit, it will have to be approved by the central
business district, it will have to be approved by the HRA, by the
planning commission, and it will have to be approved by the city
council. I can't see where there will be a very big problem on getting
the type of construction, parking, and everything that is necessary
with all the different departments it has to go through.
e
Bob Waibel - Back to the original point that we have no guaranty that we can go
back to Mr. Molnau and use his parking as part of the parking, or
what we feel as being reasonable parking requirements for the second
building and actually being able to go on to his property.
Clark Horn - I didn't understand that Bob, why is that a problem, we will have to
approve the new plan for the property?
--........
"'~
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page 4
e
Bob Waibel - I think with the CBD concept you will want to reduce the number of
parking, or the amount of land you are dedicating to parking of cars
as much as possible, The uses throughout a CBD area do rotate by the
time of day, and you would not necessarily need as you do in a C-3
district where each business has its own parking. Happy Chef has its
own parking requirements because it is classified as a restaurant.
Holiday-Erickson has their own parking requirements as a retail gas
station. In CBD there are a number of areas where there is overflow
parking, and people may someday in the future, cross the tracks or
something to do shopping in other parts of the CBD area.
Pat Swenson - YQu are saying then that if we recommend that the subdivision go
through, that you are afraid that the two parts will not coordinate
their parking?
Bob Waibel - There is no gu a-anty of that.
Pat Swenson - How can we see that there is a guaranty? Is there any way that we can
handle this thing so that your questions can be resolved so that -
I can understand this gentleman's problem. I wouldn't want to buy a
piece of property until I found out that it could in fact be subdivided.
e
Bob Waibel- We usually find that out in the first phase, the site plan review. If
it is a reasonable plan it gets favorable consideration.
Pat Swenson - Dr. Molnau, at this particular time do you in fact have a prospective
buyer?
Mr. Molnau - We do have one, but we don't really know whether he is going to
follow through or not.
Mr. Klingelhutz - He does have earnest money on the property. At the present time
we encouraged him to come in with his plan at the same time as Dr.
Molnau came in with the subdivision, and he is dragging his feet.
Walter Thompson - I take it the view of the planner is that we don't have enough
safeguards on this 22,000 sq. ft. to keep it within the bounds of our
other items there.
Bob Waibel - The possibility exists the 22,000 sq. ft. is sufficient, but we do
not know what is being proposed or what will be proposed.
Clark Horn - If this were delayed, would it jeopardize your sale in any way, or
do you think at a later date your prospective buyer might be
willing to come in with his plan?
Mr. Molnau - We still have hopes that our prospective buyer will come forward with
his plan. When they begin to draw plans they have to know the boundary
situation.
e
Clark Horn - Can't he come in with a proposed division, with his development plan?
Mr. Molnau - Of course we don't know whether you will accept the proposed line
or not. It makes it more difficult for him to be definite about
his plans.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page S
e
Jerry Neher - That's the whole problem I have with this thing here. You are saying
you don't know whether he will accept it. We don't know whether he is
going to come up with something that we can accept either, and without
seeing a plan on it, why we have the control now and we donf, t have it
the other way. I am in agreement with Bob.
Pat Swenson - I am not ::sure how we can approve a subdivision if we don't know what
we are talking about, as far as the property lines are concerned. I
can understand your position and I am sure all of us are quite willing
to do whatever we can, but I have a little problem with this.
Jerry Neher moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson
and unanimously approved.
Walter Thompson - We have a parcel of ground that is usable, but on one point
we have some people who don't want to approve it until they know
what is going in there, and on the other hand the developer doesn't
know what is going in there until he can sell the property.
Clark Horn - I would like to know if we could request preliminary approval based
on the acceptance of the development plan when it comes in.
e
Bob Waibel - I think that would be placing the site plan review in tandem with
subdivision which is essentially my recommendation if I understand
you correctly.
Walter Thompson - Do you actually have more parking area than is required for the
situation? In other words if we accede to Dr. Molnau's desires here
and let him subdivide it, he can then change the parking character-
istics of that area as I understand it now, but he would still be
within his rights for doing that.
Mr. Klingelhutz - That's right.
Pat Swenson - I have no comments.
Jerry Neher - I wouldn't be in favor of subdividing without a development plan.
Clark Horn - I can understand why we want to protect ourselves, but on the other
hand I guess I don't know what kind of trouble we would get into. I
th:imk that is where the boundary would go ultimately.
Jerry Neher - I am not concerned what Dr. Molnau does with his property, but once
he sells the other piece of property I am concerned, as far as parking
and everything else is concerned. I don't like a joint driveway
situation.
Mr. Klingelhutz - I think this is part of the CBD plan, to have joint driveways.
e
Bob Waibel - Right, we have to have some sort of restrictions, some kind of a
contract that would assure the access right to both properties.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page 6
e
Walter Thompson - It seems to me the next step in this development someplace
amongst the four bodies reviewing these things would certainly review
the proposed building with the intent of the area.
Jerry Neher moved to recommend denial of the subdivision request due to lack
of information. Motion seconded by Clark Horn. Approved: Jerry Neher, Clark Horn.
Opposed: Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson. Motion not approved.
Pat Swenson moved that we recommend granting the request for the subdivision upon
submittal of a sketch plan of the area to be subdivided, and if possible exerpts
from the Purchase Agreement concerning the area involved, a tentative use, and
some agreement about the parking. Motion was seconded by Clark Horn. Voting in
favor were Clark Horn, Pat Swenson and Walter Thompson. Opposed: Jerry Neher.
Motion approved.
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
NORTH CHAN~SSEN EAST/WEST TRANSPORTATION STUDY
e
The following interested persons were present:
Bill Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Road
John Edwards, 6270 Ridge Road
Dean E. Wetzal, 6260 Ridge Road, Chanhassen
Philip W. Getts, 800 Midland Bank Bldg., Mpls.
Thomas McCary, 6010 Ridge Road
Mary McCary, 6010 Ridge Road
Marilyn Beddier, 910 Pleasant View Road
Daryl Fortier, 4530 58th Ave. No.
Dennis & Cecil Mathisen, 850 Pleasant View Road
Michael Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road
Herb Baldwin, Consultant to P.Flannwell Partnership
Todd Heglund, Consultant
Peter P. Flan
Tom Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road
Harry Robideau, 540 Pleasant View Road
Mrs. A.S. Reynolds, Powers Boulevard
Mrs. H. R. Graer Jr., 905 Pleasant View Road
Nancy H. Larson, 6140 Ridge Road
Larry Buchhert, 3840 Lone Cedar Circle
Linda Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road
Jim Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road
Pat Cunningham, 825 Pleasant View Road
J. Smith, 550 Pleasant View Road
Gerry W, Naber, 1410 Greenwood Dr.
George T. Everett, 6245 Powers BI~d.
M/M Howard Viken, 6225 Pleasant View Road
Jan and John Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road
Pat Kundert, 915 Pleasant View
Joyce Bennett, 915 Pleasant View
Frances M. O'Brien, 450 Pleasant View Road
e
......
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1919
Page 7
e
Dale Palmer, 521 Iroquois
Ella Kask, 115 Pleasant View Road, Excelsior
Herb Kask, 115 Pleasant View Road, Excelsior
Linda & Al Kramer, 531 Iroquois
Mark Parker, 790 Pleasant View Road
Margaret H. Parker, 190 Pleasant View Road
Carl F. McNutt, 18$ Pleasant View Road
Robert J. Nelson, 135 Pleasant View Road
Margaret A. Nelson, 135 Pleasant View Road
Mr. Ray Jackson of Schoell.& Madson went through a brief review of the study
that was presented several weeks ago.
,-
The Assistant City Manager/Planner presented some slides showing Gleason Road
in Edina, a 36 ft. wide collector street, pointing out the design differences
between this particular street and the one proposed in the transportation study.
Mr. Philip Getts, an attorney from Minneapolis, representing the Flannwell
Development partnership, developers of the Near Mountain property, and numerous
residents living in and around Christmas,Lake, Silver Lake and Lotus Lake,
presented Flannwell's land plan and stated they would like to review some of the
various aspects of the proposed road. He discussed the legal implications of the
environmental damage which this road threatens and some of the legal problems
which have been skipped over. He urged that the planning commission recommend
to the city council that this area not be designated for a new collector street
and that Pleasant View Road be maintained in its present status.
Mr. Todd Heglund, a senior associate with the firm of Barton -Ashland Associates,
a nation wide firm doing land use planning, engineering, and traffic engineering,
reviewed a report that he prepared for Flannwell who had asked his fmrm to
review the needs for a road through this area.
Mr. Herb Baldwin, professor of landscape architecture at the University of
Minnesota, who has been retained by Flannwell Development Partnership to
prepare a land use plan for the Near Mountain Properties, presented a number
of exhibits which he showed and explained. He stated that the road through
their project area is of major concern to them and they have spent considerable
time and effort to try to evaluate and maintain the ideas and thoughts that they
have generated to date relattve to the consideration of the road.
Mr. Peter Flan, a general partner of Flannwell Development Partnership, went
into same of the specific impact of this proposed road in this development and
other developments like it. He also stated the reasons why he is opposed to
this road.
The Assistant City Manager/Planner gave his reply to the comments and reports
made by the previous gentlemen.
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1979
Page 8
e
Inasmuch as a quorum was not present at this point, no recommendations to(;city
council will be made at this meeting.
Pat Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Clark Horn moved to table the
item until the June 27 meeting, at which time the discussion will be continued.
Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
.
e