Loading...
1979 08 08 e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Walter Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Pat Swenson, Gordon Freeburg, Clark Horn and Tom Droegemueller. Roman Roos was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clark Horn moved to table the July 15, 1979,Planning Commission minutes, pending Gordon Freeburg providing additional comments he made at that meeting, and that they be approved at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and approved. Abstain: Walter Thompson. Clark Horn moved to accept the July 11, 1979, Planning Commission minutes as written. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and approved. Abstain: Gordon Freeburg. Clark Horn moved to accept the July 25, 1979, Planning Commission minutes as written. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller and approved. Abstain: Pat Swenson and Gordon Freeburg. Gordon Freeburg moved to note the July 17, 1979, Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, EILEEN FORD, PUBLIC HEARING . Walter Thompson called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. with the following interested persons present: John Shardlow, 1072 Hague Ave., st. Paul Roger Derrick, 18216 Woolman Drive, Minnetonka M. Happe, 495 Lakota Lane, Chaska Eileen Ford, 535 Lakota Lane, Chaska The Assistant City Manager/Planner made a presentation of the basics of the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to locate a tool house or storage shed on the bluff line approximately 50 feet from the westerly property line. It was his recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to approve a conditional use permit as requested with the exception that the applicant maintain a 5 foot setpack from the bluff line. The Planning Commission asked various questions about why the 5 foot setback from the bluff line, is the bluff line a permanent line that can always be referred to, and whether it is an existing structure now. The Planning Commission said they had no objections. Clark Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. .e Pat Swenson moved to recommend that the City Council approve a conditional use permit as requested, with the building to maintain a 5 ft. setback from the bluff line, and 50 ft. from the westerly lot line. Motion seconded by Clark Horn e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 2 Mr. Happe asked how long the permit was good for, which the Assistant City Manager/ Planner answered saying the permit is good as long as the structure is there. Any alterations to the structure, or changes of placement, would require an amendment. Mr. Happe asked that if this is plotted, does that make any difference from land that is not plotted in the same area? The land across the road and north, is zoned agricultural-residential district. The permitted use in that area would be single :family dwellings and any enclosures and farm buildings that would go along with that would be permitted. Each zoning classification and district classification has different criteria. Unanimously approved. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, SUNRISE BEACH The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated that the Derrick Land Corporation is proposing to subdivide approximately 35.2 acre parcel into approximately 49 single family residential sites and one recreational outlot/drainage and trail easement. In doing so, the applicant must receive rezoning, subdivision, planned residential development, and conditional use permit consideration from the Planning Commission for preliminary development plan review. Prior planning review of this proposal had brought out several issues for consideration, and the.1 are as follows: e 1. The Park and Recreation Committee voted to recommend that the plans provide a conservation easement along the Lotus Lake shore in Carver Beach north to the eastern boundary of the Derrick Land property in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan, and that an easement for pedestrian corridor be provided from the northern extent of the conservation easement to Pleasant View Rd. along the east boundary of the Derrick Property. 2. The large area of poorly drained depressional soils and beach, were to be reviewed by the City Engineers in order to ascertain their suitability for residential building, hard surface public trailway, and the proposed usages for the common open space area. 3. Staff had recommended that no road connections be made to the Devils Slide basin area in Carver Beach directly south of the southeasterly cul-de-sac of the proposed development. The City Engineer had recommended that an emergency access be provided south of said cul-de-sac into the Devils Slide basin area by means of a 7-ton roadway with collapsible barricades. It was thought that the emergency access access could be sodded over for aesthetic purposes, and that side markders be provided for visible identity under any possible weather and terrain conditions. - The proposed development plan shows an east/west road in the southwest quarter of the property which terminates at the west property line. This road had been suggested by staff because of the cul-de-sac nature of the whole development one entry point and no secondary access. In the interim until the adjacent properties to the west develop, it is recommended that a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround be provided at the western property line of the Derrick property. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 3 e The Assistant City Planner/Manager recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to be held on August 22, 1979, to gather neighborhood sentiment to the proposal. He also recommended that the applicants do submit a petition to the city to request that a publiC improvement project be considered for the extension of this road at this time. Various questions were asked by the Planning Commission regarding the street, whether there was any way any of those streets could be connected with any of the existing streets in Carver Beach, whether the report had been received from the watershed on Purgatory Creek, about the 18 ft. slope up to Pleasant View Road, and how it would be graded. Mr. John Schardlow answered various questions, explaining how the road would be sloped. He stated what they are proposing from the grading plan that they have prepared on a preliminary basis, there are no sections of the street which slope more than 10%. That is only for a very short stretch. He said what they propose to do is have a single access point and then we recognized the need to have another access point to the site. He spoke about the drainage and the soil, and erosion problems. He said the development which they are proposing is considerably less dense than the minimum requirements established by the zoning ordinance. He said we are talking about large lots, custom building type of a situation. e Pat Swenson asked questions about the water table, and it was stated that if you take a look at the soil borings and the depth of the ground water, you will find that a couple of them show up back here, indicating that the water is higher than some of those which are right down on the lakeshore, and therefore they still dont have a ~eal good picture of what the groundwater situation is. It is possible to do some filling and some alteration of that situation to get a feasible building site. Mr. Roger Derrick spoke about the "perched" water table, and how to determine that these are "pockets" of water rather than flowing veins. The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated he felt it was very appropriate at this time for the Planning Commission to stress the importance of this, and it will serve as a strong reminder that this is done at the final development plan stage. Walter Thompson wanted to know, on the study of Near Mountain the excess from Lake Lucy came out, where was that proposal in relation to this property? Bob Waibel stated that proposal came around near mountain down onto Pleasant View Road right to the point here, and came through the tree portion of this property, and it was not certain at which point it wou3.1d exit going to the west. Mr. Thompson wanted to know if it is proposed that we have another access up to Plainview Road from along the edge of this property or was that just part of the other? Mr. Waibel stated we should have one ~rom this development going out to Pleasant View Road. Mr. Thompson asked how many sewer and water assessments do we have on this property, how does it compare to the number of lots that they have plotted. Mr. Waibel said we are going through that study right now. They have been based on the 15,000 sq. ft. of developable land, and units were assessed on that basis. However they took into account swamp areas, high slope areas, etc. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 4 e Clark Horn asked the question, the green area you show along the eastern part of the development, was that done because of the recommendation or was it not feasible to have it as lakeshore lots? It was stated that it is a conservation and trail easement which completes a length of trails around that portion of the city, so it is proposed to be both a conservation easement and a trail corridor. Clark Horn moved to hold a Public Hearing on August 22, 1979, at a time set by staff. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller and unanimously approved. Pat Swenson stated she would like to see the report from the Watershed and the information on the water/sewer system before that time. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, PAT CUNNINGHAM, LOT 2 VINELAND ADDITION Mr. Cunningham is requesting to construct a single family residential structure on the property, which is located approximately 1,500 ft. east of the inter- section of Pleasant View Road and Powers Blvd. on the south side of Pleasant View Road. The property is presently zoned R-lA, agricultural residence district. Sanitary sewer and municipal water are available to the subject property. The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to be held on August 22, 1979, in order to gather neighborhood sentiment towards the subject proposal. e The City Attorney said it is the recommendation of his office that this lot division be platted as a regular plat, because it is required under the Subdivision Ordinance and it makes for better land description. Mr. Pat Cunningham and his son-in-law were present, and answered various questions asked by the Planning Commission. More information is needed regarding the number of assessments, the driveways and the platting before the public hearing. Pat Swenson moved to recommend that a Public Hearing be held on August 22, 1979, at a time set by staff. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller and unanimously approved. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES The applicant, Rumar, Inc., is requesting to construct 40 single family units and 5 duplex units on the areas indicated as Phase I and Phase II on the development plan. The following is a list of planning issues for consideration during the preliminary development plan review process: e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 5 e 1. Phases III and IV being indicated as R-3 and R-4 building status should not be considered anYthing other than outlot at this time. It will be recommended that the entire holdings be platted and that the Phase III and IV portion be platted as outlot. 2. The applicant will need to negotiate with the American Legion as to the means of constructing the road from TH 101 to West 80th Street. It is recommended that road construction be terminated at this intersection until it is determined that the remainder of this frontage road is needed to be completed. An ease- ment for the future road connection from West 80th Street to the vicinity of the southeast corner of outlot A should be included on the plat of the property. 3. The applicant should contact the building department for the proper theme and alphabetization for the names of the proposed streets. 4. The applicant should submit for preliminary development plan review, the square footages of the proposed lots. 5. The city engineer should report as to the buildable soils and slope conditions in the vicinity of lots 20, 40, 30, and 41-45. e 6. The planning staff along with the city engineer, will determine any necessary measures needed to be taken before final plat so as to assure that the area indicated at phase IV cannot become land locked with single access indicated as Valley View Drive. The plan has been submitted to the fire department for their consideration and the fire marshal's comments will be available before public hearing. 7. These plans will be submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission for comments on August 14, 1979. The items of discussion for that Commission will be to consider: whether or not a conservation easement is needed somewhere in the vicinity of the sewer line which ends at the City park located at the south end of Chanhassen Estates, and whether or not a conservation drainage or trail easement should be considered along the creek traversing the property from the northwest to the southeast. The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing conditioned upon the applicant submitting an abstractor's certificate with the names and addresses of property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, and that the applicant post an escrow deposit with the city treasurer's office in the amount of $1,500 to defer staff costs in processing this application. Gordon Freeburg - What would be the objection, or is it feasible to run Dakota Lane through? e Bob Waibel - I see where the creek crosses here, it would involve a lot of money. It is a rather deep, storm drainage area. Riley Creek goes just across the southwestern corner of the property. This is the creek that flows out of Lake Susan into Riley. It is handled by a bridge at 101. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 6 Gordon Freeburg - If you are worried spout Valley View Drive, this would be one alternative. It would also relieve some of the traffic generated. It should be investigated, because it is going to give a much better access to the lower part of Chanhassen Estates. Clark Horn moved to recommend that a Public Hearing be held conditioned on the items listed by the Assistant City Manager/Planner, at a date and time set by staff. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW, REPLY SYSTEMS, INC. Mr. Bob Linder is proposing to construct a 15,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building addition on the north side of the Press, Inc. facility, located on Highway 5. The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to be held August 22, 1979. The Planning Commission should additionally advise the applicant to post an escrow in the amount of $500.00 with the City Treasurer's office, to defray Staff costs in processing this application. e Mr. Daryl P. Fortier of Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. answered Pat Swenson's question as wo whether the construction material would be the same as The Press buildings. He stated it would. Gordon Freeburg asked about the smoke coming from the Press building, which Bob Waibel answered. The PCA is investigating the matter. Mr. Fortier gave a report on the addition itself, and what type of business would be done by Reply Systems, Inc. The parking situation was discussed. Mr. Warren Beck owns the entire building, The Press and Reply Systems, Inc. are tenants. Gordon Freeburg moved that a Public Hearing be held on August 22, 1979 according to the requirements set by the Assistant City Manager/Planner, at a time set by staff. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. e PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT 1 BLOCK 1, JULIUS ADDITION (APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROPOSAL) Mr. Diem is proposing to construct an approximately 1500 sq. ft. church on the subject property. According to Zoning Ordinance 47, churches are permitted in a single family residential district only upon securing a conditional use permit. The property is located at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Chanhassen Road, on the west side of Pleasant View Road. It is presently zoned R-l Single Family Residential District. The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated that the only item in question is the number of parking spaces to be allocated, otherwise the plan conforms to all the provisions of Zoning Ordinance 47 with the exception that the length of the parking stalls are indicated as 19 feet wherein ordinance requires 20 feet exclusive of clear aisle widths. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 7 He said the applicant should prepare a landscape schedule indicating the species of the proposed plantings, and that the City Engineer should review the property and comment as to possible site grading problems and soil suitability. It was his recommendation that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to be held August 22, 1979, to gather neighborhood sentiment to the proposal. Additionally, the Planning Commission should require the applicant to post an escrow deposit with the City Treasurer's office in the amount of $500,00 to defray staff costs in processing this application. Gordon Freeburg asked where the proposed park will be in relation to this property. Bob Waibel stated it would be right across the street, and he also discussed where .8.. proposed road might go through that park. Walter Thompson asked if they presently owned the property. A representative of the Apostolic Church stated they have a purchase agreement with Mr. Julius who owns this lot. It will be consummated upon their obtaining the conditional use permit, as they don't want to buy the land if they are not permitted to build a church on it. Mr. Thompson felt that the parking facilities might not be adequate in looking at the size of the structure. It was stated that the church is designed to hold about 60 people, and the parking facilities are set up for 1 car for 3 people. The congregation currently is 30 members. e Gordon Freeburg moved that a Public Hearing be held on August 22, 1979, according to the requirements set by the Assistant City Manager/Planner, at a time set by staff. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, WESTERN HILLS III, HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. The applicants are requesting to plot a planned residential district consisting of 57 single family lots, and 20 zero lot line lots on the parcels recorded as CTF 6643, 7723 and Book of Deeds 122 page 286 located directly west of northern terminous of Frontier Trail. The following is a list of planning considerations needed to be reviewed before final development plan approval: 1. The City engineer, and the planning staff will review the proposed connection to Carver Beach Road in the northeast corner of the property. The purpose of this road is to mitigate the non-conforming situation of the properties on the southern reaches of Carver Beach Road. These parcels are non-conforming in the fact that they have one entry access which is from the north on Carver Beach Road. 2. Consideration should be given as to the appropriateness of barricading the existing Frontier Trail until public improvement construction is completed in the Western Hills III addition. e 3. The applicant delineate to the Planning Commission and staff the method in which services will be gotten to the lots adjoining the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Frontier Trail. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 8 4. The applicant should contact the building department as to the appropriate theme and alphabetization of names of streets in the proposed plat. 5. The subject plan is to be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on August 14, 1979, whereat the major points of consideration will concern the comprehensive plan indication of a semi-public/conservation/open area ease- .ment traversing the subject property, and the possibility of a conservation/ drainage easement along Carver Beach Creek basin along the northern edge of the subject property. This is largely in correlation to the area dedicated for those purposes by the New Horizon plat adjoining to the north of the subject property. Additionally, the Park and Recreation Commission will consider the relationship between the proposed plat and the Western Hills pond and park area. o. At the western term1nous of Maria Lane, a temporary cul-de-sac is recommended to be constructed until such time as Maria Lane is continued through to the properties adjacently west. If said temporary cul-de-sac is to be located on portions of lots 1 and 13, then these two lots should be determined as no build area until said street is continued. Additionally, the installation of public utilities should be continued to the end of the cul-de-sac. e 7. At the final development plan stage of the subject property, the applicant shall demonstrate that the plat as proposed will not foreclose on the provision of utility services to the property to the southwest of the proposed plat. 8. Between lots 28 and 29 of the proposed duplex area, there is indicated an approximate 18 foot easement for sewer service to the property to the south. If the service is stubbed in up to the property to the south, then a 20 foot easement will be required. If the service is not stubbed in as part of the public improvements for Western Hills III, then a 50 foot easement will be necessary. 9. It is recommended that the portion of Kerber Drive adjoining the subject property be brought up to urban section standards as part of the overall public improvements installation. 10. The applicant shall prepare an overall drainage plan for the subject property as per the final development plan requirements of Zoning Ordinance 47. 11. The Planning Commission should discuss the overall densities proposed in the development plan and the proposed land use of double lots on approximately 11,000 sq. ft. parcels. With the double lots adjoining developable land to the south, this may be a predetermination that the area to the south will need to develop into duplex at similar density. e 12. The applicant will be required to submit final development plans to the Watershed District for a grading and land alteration permit. The city engineer should comment as to the demonstration of mitigating the potential erosion problems in the Carver Beach area in light of the proposed public improvement project for the Carver Beach Creek. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 9 e The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to be held on August 22, 1979, in order to obtain neighborhood sentiment to the subject proposal. Additionally, the applicant should post an escrow account in the amount of $1,500 with the City Treasurer to defray costs in the processing of this application. Mr. Jim Hawks, representing Hansen and Klingelhutz, made comments about the items listed by Bob Waibel, and stated they would accommodate all of the data that is missing. Pat Swenson - We went from the original plan that we saw of 62 lots to 77 lots, I Counted 42 lots that were under 15,000 sq. ft. I thought we had a 15,000 ft. ordinance. We allowed them to go under that on the basis of the quantity being built, but to the extent that it is 42 lots out of 777 Mr. Hawks- But you see, out of this we already donated 11 acres to the city for a park, so you have to put that back in there, so that puts us back up to 18 or 19,000 sq. ft. It was beautiful buildable area, or could have been. Pat Swenson - The fact still remains you have more lots out of it. e Mr. Hawks - It was part of the planned unit idea though, to be able to donate a piece of land and use the square footage to get other density. That was the idea of the planned unit developnent. It follows the plan of 1969, this is the last development of the plan of 1969. Bob Waibel - It was proposed and it was not permitted to have any work done on until Kerber Drive portion was finished. Gordon Freeburg - Bob, what is the time frame on this? Is there a time frame against Kerber Drive? Bob Waibel - Kerber Drive, the bids are going out for paving now. Gordon Freeburg - If Kerber Drive is in place at the time they start, then I would say number 2 should be, they should have that barricade, so all construction traffic goes up Kerber Drive. I personally dont have any problem with the zero lot lines. Clark Horn - How many lots were approved back in 1969? We have seen this jump from 62 to 77. Mr. Hawks - The 62, when there were 62 lots, these were counted as I. But there were really 72. So its not any different. e Clark Horn - So its gop.e", from 72 to 77? Mr. Hawks - Right. But we've picked up a lot on the other end by eliminating a cul-de-sac. Clark Horn - So the main body is the same? Mr. Hawks - Yes. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 10 Mr. Hawks - I think the total lots in 69 were 254. Total units in the entire development. Laredo Lane was originally to be a townhouse area of 28 blocks and we made 21 single families in there, all 50 and 60 foot lots. Pat Swenson - I notice that you had 27 lots sewered to the east before, now you have 52. Are these the ones you are counting as doubles? Mr. Hawks - Yes Pat Swenson - So you are rerouting some of this over here? Mr. Hawks - Yes we rerouted some of this. Mr. Hawks discussed the drainage, the grading of the street system and the sanitary sewer. He stated that today, there is a point where we have to be very careful and give a lot of thought in setting lot sizes, because that determines the amount of pipe, concrete, curb, the amount of everYthing, as well as a big reflection on the bank loan and the mortgage. If we are going to try to get back wh ere we can structure a community that people can be in, the smallest lot is 80 ft., they go from 80 to 100 to 110 is the range that we are building in, and that is the range they found the people accept, are willing to buy and like to have, so that is what they propose. e Pat Swenson - My major concern is the fact that we do have an understanding and it may be that you are right and maybe the ordinance should be changed, but the point is at this particular time I think we have to follow what is established. Craig Mertz - I dont think that you should read that 15,000 sq. ft. lot size for your R zones requiring 15,000 for something that you have zoned P. The purpose of the P zones was that you were going to take into account special circumstances and hopefully come up with a total package that was going to have the same weight as something that was actually broken up into 15,000 sq. ft. pieces. As far as what happened in 1969, I dont think there is anything in the record that binds you to this particular configuration of lots nor to this particular size of lots. Clark Horn - I think one of the comments that Bob made about constructing a temporary cul-de-sac, No.6., I tend to disagree with him on that because these things tend to get assumed as being that way and in many cases because the realtor tells someone they are going to be that way, and people coming in to these, if they go into a dead end of nothing, they assume the road will go out some day. But if it comes into a nice finished cul-de-sac, they are very easily misled into believing that that is goIng to be a cul-de-sac. e Mr. Hawks - I think you are right as far as the cul-de-sac, it is misleading. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 11 Ray Jackson - I have seen a lot of things tried, but nothing very successfully. People do have a tendency to accept the cul-de-sac, and if you put a pile of dirt there or something else, you will probably never get rid of it. The snow plowing and all maintenance is a distinct problem, they have to have some fashion of turning around. Bob Waibel - This Frontier Trail portion should probably assume a different name being a 900 turn. The direction is going to be in the Carver Beach neighborhood. Mr. Hawks - OK - You give us the letter that you want the street name to be, and we will talk to Jerry Schlenk about it. Clark Horn - I guess my overall objection is similar to Pat. I hate to see us get into any higher density than is necessary and what a land area can support. As far as moving people into Chanhassen, I guess I am more concerned about preserving the area than I am in moving people in. I don't think that is our primary objective. I agree this type of housing will probably sell faster, I don't doubt that at all, but I think other types of less dense housing will sell also, maybe not as fast, but it will sell also. I don't see anything wrong with having it in that area. e Pat Swenson - What is the average lot size of your other developments, I and II? Mr. Hawks - On Santa Fe Circle, it was comparatively small. Then we went into Western Hills 1st Addition and they got bigger. Then we came into Laredo Lane which are all back in the smaller size again. Then Saratoga were a little bigger again because of the slopes and the hills etc. This is very comparable to what we have. Pat Swenson - So it is not establishing a precedent in any way so that somebody new can come in and say, this H & K can do something, why can't we put 80 10,000 sq. ft. lots up? Mr. Hawks - There is a very good balance and mix. You are going to find at a public hearing you will have a lot of people objecting to connecting that road into Sunrise Hills. Tom The ordinance notwithstanding, I just dont see that single family Droegemuel~dwellings like these guys are talking about are any less palatable than multiple family dwellings that we are talking about south of 5 or at New Horizons. I just dont see that this is an unattractive development proposal at all. I had some question too about those double ownership units, but otherwise I don't think those lot sizes are unreasonable. e Pat Swenson - Somebody comes in here and they have a lot, and one individual wants to build a 13,000 sq. ft. lot, and we wont let him do it. Yet a developer can come in with several acres, several hundred acres, and put up 10,000 sq. ft. lots. It seems there is no justice here. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 12 Pat Swenson - I think to have individuals like this who have maybe $ acres, and he can make it economical feasible to sell this off in 10,000 sq. ft. lots, and we wont let him do it. Bob Waibel - The Carver Beach area has an established development pattelnthat are smaller lots. We recently gave a variance to a guy to add on to his house or improve his property, and he was on a 4,000 sq. ft. parcel. That is an area that we acknowledge has a previous development pattern of a lower type. It is just a pocket. The problem is that those pockets were created before any planning, zoning, utilities or public improvements were ever put it, and now we are mitigating these problems after the fact of the matter. With these coneeots; anything in a group of more than 24 units must be a key district. Pat Swenson - We are rapidly becoming a city of key districts. Gordon Freeburg - That's better than non-planned, Pat. e Pat Swenson - I'm really not arguing, I'm just asking for a little consistency Gordon Freeburg moved to have the list of 12 points listed by the Assistant City Manager/Planner incorporated as an appendix to the recommendation, and that a public hearing beheld on August 22, 1979, at a time set by staff. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller and unanimously approved. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONSIDERATION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION, LOWELL VETTER The Assistant City Manager/Planner gave a report on the Zoning Application of Lowell Vetter. He submitted a letter in which he described the type of operation proposed. It would be a wholesale beef distributor and retail operation inside the Hanson & Klingelhutz office and warehouse building in Burdick Park, which is presently zoned industria1. He indicated that they would have a low retail type of volume trade. The Assistant City Attorney sent an opinion stating he believed the ordinance should be amended, although it is not all conclusive as to the options. The Assistant City Attorney stated his conclusion is that the wholesale business would be allowable, but the retail business would not be allliowable under the present zoning, and he stated if you wish to include the retail in this building some amendment to the zoning would have to be made, either rezone the building to C-3 commercial, or to amend the language in the I section of the zoning ordinance in some fashion to allow this meat business. He suggested possible wording to achieve that. He then went into detail as to the reasoning for the conclusion that this retail was not permissible under the existing zoning. A discussion took place regarding the zoning of this district and why it was zoned that way. e Judy Vetter asked how you decided what the zoning would be. She stated she knows the parking makes a difference, but that in a meat store it is no different than getting something in a parts store and coming right out. There is no great traffic in a meat store when there is no cutting on the premises, and there will be none there. It is not a federally inspected house, so there can't be. EverYthing will REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 8, 1979 Page 13 ,--. have to be prepackaged with a federal stamp of approval on it. It will be in bulk quantities such as 5 lb. boxes. Clark Horn wanted to know what problems might develop if we amend the ordinance as is proposed. Craig Mertz stated he is not endorsing this particular proposal, that that is a planning decision. This was just on e possible way that you could do it. I think it is just the traffic that should be a planning consideration, the traffic that might be generated by changing the zoning, is it consistent with what you want in your industrial zone? Clark Horn - The problem I have is I don't see anything different with what they are proposing and say selling building material. l'1aybe we should do the same as what they did here, have another alternative, just include what they are doing in there as was done with building material. The Assistant City Attorney stated it wouldn't have to be decided tonight. The Vetters can pursue the retail aspect, there is no problem with the wholesale. If you want to pursue the retail I suggest a motion stating that the commission will consider at a public hearing several things in the alternative, one would be to include retail meat sales as a permitted use in the I-I zone, and in the alternative, the commission could also consider rezoning this particular property to C-3. You would then be free to make whatever decision you want to after the hearing. '-.-- Clark Horn - I would personally favor including their use in the I zone. Gordon Freeburg - If it was rezoned commercial, then any type of a retail operation could come in? Or if it stays industrial and the company that has space in there now can sell its products, like H & K if they have their equipment there, then they could also put a retail sales office there. Craig Mertz - No I don't think so because that would)B2ta product that was manufactured or warehoused. Walter Thompson - What about Animal Fair? Craig Mertz - They are there because of Grandfather rights, but that is a good example. Clark Horn - So if we did include their operation, we wouldn't be opening up any other doors, only for meat operations. Craig Mertz - It depends on how broad you want to make that exception. Another variation would be to merely add to this list of permitted uses something very narrow like the retail sales of precut meat products, prepackaged meat products. \~ Pat Swenson - I dont think there is any great objection to it, it is just a question of being able to try to fit it in to the ordinances that exist. Walter Thompson - I am very receptive to the idea, frankly, of a meat shop. I would not care to rezone at this time with what other developments that we have coming in. It would be premature on our part to change it again.