Loading...
1979 08 22 e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with the following members present: Gordon Freeburg, Tom Droegemueller, Clark Horn, Walter Thompson and Pat Swenson.'~ Jack Bell was present. Walter Thompson moved to have the Oath of Office for Jack Bell held later in the meeting. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Walter Thompson moved to accept the minutes of the August 1, 1979, Planning Commission Working Session. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller, and approved. Gordon Freeburg abstained from voting. Pat Swenson moved to accept the minutes of the August 8, 1979, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and approved. Roman Roos abstained from voting. Walter Thompson moved to note the August 6, 1979, City Council minutes. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. Walter Thompson moved to amend the agenda back to Item No.1. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. . OATH OF OFFICE: The Assistant City Attorney administered the oath of office to John (Jack) Bell as a member of the Planning Commission. - REPLAT FOR LOTS 6-13, COLONIAL GROVE ADDITION, GORDON GALARNEAU AND HERBERT BLOOMBERG, PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 7:45 P.M. with the following interested persons present: Gordon Galarneau, Jr., 114 Sandy Hook Road Gary C. Nelson, 112 Sandy Hook Road Richard T. Ince, Attorney for G. Galarneau Herb Bloomberg, 7008 Dakota Bill McRostie, Attorney for Bloomberg, 7015 Dakota Theodore B. Kelly, Jr., 106 Sandy Hook Road Bill & Shirley Huckins, 102 Sandy Hook Road Barbara Montgomery, 7017 Dakota Tom & Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Louise Fenger , 7501 Erie As stated in a previous report by the Assistant City Manager/Planner, this is a request to readjust the property lines between existing lots 7 and 6 of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. The idea is to get a saleable parcel. He stated he felt it was a straight forward proposal, and his office has no problem with it with the exception that some consideration might be made to soften the proposed property line split between existing lots 7 and 8. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the replat of lots 6-13 Colonial Grove Addition. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 2 Mr. William McRostie, attorney for Mr. Bloomberg, stated that the property line between old lot 7 and 8 and the proposed lots 2 and 3 is the south line of a built up lot. The driveways and landscaping are in, relative to the location of that line. It would be quite an imposition on Mr. Galarneau to have to move that lot line. Mr. Galarneau stated his whole horseShoe driveway would have to come out if that line were to be moved. Mr. McRostie stated that the abutting property owners are happy with the line the way it is, and it seems that as long as the property owners who have to live wi th and contend with the line? are happy with it, then it is probably best that it reflect their wishes and feelings. Walter Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. Roman Roos stated that this is just a shift of the property line to accommodate the owner of property No.2. Gordon Freeburg moved to accept the replat as reflected on Planning Commission Exhibit "A" (8/22/79). Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. - PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES 2nd AND 3rd ADDITION, PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8 P.M. with the following interested persons present: John Wright W. B. Ward Rick Murray Tom & Sue Seifert Louise Fenger Nancy Osgood otto C. Flom Bob Dols Jane Elizabeth Dols Jim Dougharty Jim Callihan Ted Coly Sharon Graef Michael Thompson A staff report was given by the Assistant City Manager/Land Use Coordinator. He stated he had three concerns in addition to the city engineer's comments regarding the subject proposal: - 1. That the applicant demonstrate how the surrounding properties will be served by sanitary sewer and municipal water and if necessary provide easements to the proposed plat for the provision of said services; REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 3 e 2. That the proposal at hand will preclude that the otto C. Flom and John Levin, Jr. properties will need to access onto MTH 101 and Pleasant View Road, respectively. This is due to the north/south lot layout along the entire northern boundary of B.T. Land Company holdings; 3. That the Planning Commission consider whether or not a 25 foot emergency access way will be sufficient in place of a dedicated public street, and whether or not the location should be further to the north than as indicated on the plans in order to be more adept to the proposed east/ west road through the Lotus Lake Community Park adjacent to the west. He stated they had not received any comments from the Park & Recreation Commission, and asked that the ~lanning Commission make their comments to the Park & Recreation issue such as Outlot B by the lake. These comments will be submitted to the Park and Rec. Commission and hethopes to get an action in the form of a motion from them regarding the policy for outlot B. He stated he is also requesting that the engineers determine the suitability of outlot B to accommodate a pedestrian trail and open space as shown in the comprehensive plan. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed preliminary development plan with the conditions that the applicant demonstrate satisfaction of the concerns of this report, the city engineer's report of August 15, 1979, and the Park and Recreation Commission findings. . The Assistant City Attorney stated Outlot A is the little parcel at the entrance to the first addition, between the Lovetang house and the traffic island. Outlot B is the entire lake shore area. Outlot C is everYthing north of the first addi tion. Roman Roos asked about the emergency access. Bob Waibel stated it would be a permanent emergency access. Roman Roos stated the most relevant point then is if there is going to be an access onto the lake, if Park & Rec make recommendation to go that route, I think that has a very heavy factor in terms of what we might do. It might be very difficult not knowing what their input is going to be. Mr. Waibel stated the access may not be a fully developed public street, it may be more in the form of a service road. We don't have the design of the park yet, but it seems more likely that a road would be available at that corner of the property. The road on Sketch Plan C comes out at that corner. Mr. Ray Jackson of Schoell & Madson, Inc., gave the engineering report on this proposal, stating there is a proposed grade that is a little over 9% and a short vertical curve, and the grade coming out of the cul-de-sac is in excess of 8%. They felt it would be better to lower the road, possibly a foot or more. He commented on the single access into the entire plat, 90 lots with one access, he feels is an undesirable situation. He spoke about the emergency access, the proposed sanitary sewer plan, the proposed drainage plan, erosion control, and they recommended that the grading of the streets and the site grading be accomplished by the developer before installation of the improvements. - e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 4 Mr. Rick Murray commented on the various issues pointed out by Mr. Waibel and Mr. Jackson. Mr. Tom Seifert stated his concern that the emergency access will be causing a problem as far as Pleasant View Road is concerned, using it as a thoroughfare street. We have been trYing to avoid any problems that may arise on Pleasant View Road thereby not needing a connector street. Roman Roos - What you are saying Tom, potentially there is that problem. Jim Callahan - When you talked about this, didn't you say the other access was not acceptable to the DNR? Roman Roos - No - the primary access. One of the conditions on Lotus Lake in order to have the services of DNR is to have an accepted point of entry into the lake. Initially we were looking at that access as being that primary access. What Park & Rec. has accomplished from that point, I am really not in the know as to what the final determination was, but initially we were looking at that as an access to satisfy the DNR requirement. Jim Callahan - What is wrong with the access over on e Roman Roos - We are not debating that this evening. It could be an acceptable access to Lotus Lake for the DNR, and that is what we were trYing to shoot for way back when we were looking at the park situation. I am not saying it is the only access, it is one that would be suitable to DNR. Jim Callahan - I am wondering why we need two accesses to a lake. Roman Roos - That again is another issue that can be covered under that initial park proposal. You might want to dig into some of that background material on why we selected that park and some of the background data. Jim Callahan - I have, it is very interesting, but it doesn't make sense. That's why I'm asking. It didn't answer my questions at alL What was wrong with the access you had, why are they building this access that is much easier to get at? e Roman Roos - Again, I would like to make comment on it, but what I would recommend is that if you would see Bob Waibel on the city staff and present these questions to him so that you can get the correct answers, right now we really can't get into that issue, except that this is a tentative access forthe DNR to Lotus Lake. My comment was in relationship to the road going down to that access as a possible tie to this development to eliminate the need for a secondary access into that development. That is the only comment that I made. Jim Callahan - I have talked to Mr. Waibel previously, and I don't get answers to these questions, I just get more questions. Roman Roos - I guess I am going to insure that you will get an answer if you would at least make that case known to Bob so he can come up with some answers to your questions. Ie REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 5 Pat Swenson - Park & Rec does have some concern about the adjacent property along the lake. Roman Roos - It is really difficult to make any recommendations with respect to that area without knowing what Park & Rec has in mind. Mr. Murray stated that the land that was pointed out is no longer owned by them, it has been dedicated to the homeowners association. As far as the connecting trailway, we granted the City a 4 ft. easement through outlot B to connect it. At that time we felt that is what the city was requesting of us. We have done what the DNR wanted and the Watershed District. At some point in time the guide- lines have got to be set. Craig Mertz - What was done a year ago, you said that all of the future develop- ment property was Outlot C, and that is the way they platted it. Roman Roos - If this is true we really don't have a lot of control on the Outlot B. . Craig Mertz - Outlot B was platted, and that portion of the boundary that separates itself from the first addition is certainly fixed because houses were sold through there. As for the second addition, the divfusion line between the second addition and outlot B probably could be moved yet. My understanding was that the outlot had not yet been conveyed to the homeowners association because you could not get the property released from Char LYnn Foundation. Mr. Murray - The transfer has not gone through at this point, however, we transferred lots within and as soon as the final lot is transferred this automatically conveys to the home owners association. Char LYnn Foundation owns it at this time, we are contract for deed owners and we subsequently sold to purchasers. Roman Roos - That's what I wanted to know, if it had been conveyed or not. Gordon Freeburg - Are we in reality subdividing outlot C - the second addition then is actually a replat1 Outlot C is actually then still outlot C, but it is a lot smaller. Mr. Murray - Outlot C is being replatted into Second and Third phases. Mr. Tom Seifert wanted to know what status that lot really has, what kind of uses will it have, a bathing beach for the 140 homes that are going to be built there, or docks, or whatever? Mr. Murray stated that the covenants and by-laws stipulate that any improvement at all be done through a conditional use permit granted by the city. The city then mandates a public hearing so that everyone within 350 ft. from the boundary of our property be notified of the hearing to voice their comments on any improve- ments. Right now it is an open space. The homeowners association can submit a petition and request whatever improvements they desire. - Mr. Seifert stated that is what they are concerned about. Roman Roos stated that you have to remember what a conditiona+ use permit is all about. That is the only legal constraint that we have on st~ff level, planning commission level and council level to control these things. Way back when we e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 6 started this process we elected to go this route, to have it controlled by a conditional use permit. We feel it is a very effective control tool. Mr. Seifert asked if it was possible that 140 docks could be built there~ Mr. Mertz stated there is nothing that city could do to prevent citizens from filing a petition to change the zoning laws. Mr. Roos stated they have to petition with a conditional use permit if it is granted. He said they can make a recommendation based on what they felt in phase I in 1974 when it first came to light. He said the use of Outlot B was controlled in the first phase. It is not an item to be covered in this public hearing for the replat of the Outlot C. That is what this hearing is for. Clark Horn asked if the potential home owners on Outlot C also going to be part of this property owners association? Mr. Murray stated they are. Jack Bell moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. Roman Roos said he didn't think this could be resolved tonight because of the Park and Rec. input. If the data were here, we know the issue, we heard the engineers reports, staff's three concerns, I don't think we can reach a final decision now. e Walter Thompson stated he would be against coming to a decision. I think it has to be tabled for further information. Roman Roos stated they would do everYthing they can to expedite in terms of trying to meet B. T. Land's schedule, but they do want the general recommendations from Park and Rec. on that area. He stated he was curious to see what staff says about No.2, the two properties to the north side of B. T. Land. Gordon Freeburg stated he felt Ray Jackson has a good point in his August 15 report of one access on Highway IOl. I have very serious doubts, and I want a good long look at that. Gordon Freeburg moved to table this item until August 29, 1979. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. e PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REZONING, SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUNRISE BEACH, DERRICK LAND COMPANY, PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:50 P.M. with the following interested persons present: Marie Schroeder, 175 Pleasant View Road Arnold Schroeder, 175 Pleasant View Road Will Blal, Pleasant View Road Roger Derrick, 18216 Woolman Drive John Shardlow, 1072 Hague Ave., st. Paul Ted Coy, 7021 Carver Beach Road e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22,1979 Page 7 e Paul Blais, 1053 Ashland Ave., St. Paul Jim Dougharty, 74217 Frontier Trail, Chan. Jim Callihan, 6613 Horseshoe Curve John Wright, 7208 Frontier Trail Susan Price, 6250 Ridge Road Peter S. Price, 6250 Ridge Road Ted Conrad, 6625 Horse Shoe Curve James Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road Jane Elizabeth Dols, 7407 Frontier Trail Doug Hansen, 17001 Stodola Road, Mtka. Bev Hansen, 17001 Stodola Road, Mtka. Henry Graefs, 905 Pleasant View Road Gordon Whitemans, 825 Pleasant View Road Linda Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road B. J. Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Road W. Pat Cunningham, 825 Pleasant View Road Thomas O. Klingelhutz, 225 W. 77th st., Chan. Jim Hansen, 5800 Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road Sharon Graef, 905 Pleasant View Road Tom & Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road John Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road Michael Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road Phyllis Pope, 7055 Carver Beach Road Dean E. Wetzel, 6260 Ridge Road Bob Dols, 7407 Frontier Trail W. Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Rd. A staff report was given by the Assistant City Manager/ Land Use Coordinator. In it he stated that in a letter from the Watershed Distrmct dated August 16, 1979 they stated that the applicant must submit detailed storm sewer plans and drainage plans before final approval. The applicant should coincide his final development plans with the watershed district aspect of final plat approval. He stated that Derrick Land Company is petitioning for the city to consider a public improvement project which would give westerly and secondary access to the proposed development, as per the discussion of the August 8, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting. Before final plat approval, the city attorney's office should review the proposed declaration of covenants for Hunters Wood to verify whether or not such would be adequate and if any provisions might be added on behalf of the city for the Sunrise Beach proposal. A final draft of the proposed covenants can and should be adopted at the final execution of the development contract. e He stated that as indicated in the applicant's correspondence, there is no certainty as of yet as to how the common open area might be utilized. This being the case, the most the Planning Commission can do is recommend approval only for the area being set aside in the current plans for common open space. Despite what might evolve or develop between now and the final development plan approval, a public hearing would need to be held to consider;;',any proposal that might alter in any way the conditions which currently exist in this common area. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 8 The Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator recommended the Planning Commission approve the preliminary development plan as proposed by Derrick Land Company upon the condition that the applicant satisfy the concerns addressed in this report, and the city engineer's report. Ray Jackson gave the city engineer's report, stating there is only one vehicular access point proposed for this subdivision of 49 lots, that being onto Pleasant View Road. He stated that an emergency access road is proposed to the south which would tie into the Carver Beach area. He did not comment on the drainage or utility plans. This property was previously assessed two lateral sewer and water units, when the sewer and water went in. 69 additional units on the site were contemplated at that time. 49 units are now proposed. He also stated that it is impossible to determine exactly how much of the proposed Common Space dedication is usable land, and soil testing on several of the sites will probably be necessary. Tom Seifert wanted to know if he was talking about two access points in the Carver Beach area, or just one? e Mr. Jackson stated that the developers on their plans, are showing an emergency access road. That is the only other access to the plat other than the main road. That presumably would be limited to emergency vehicles only. It would serve two functions, it would give access to emergency vehicles into this area if the main access were blocked. If the same thing happened on Carver Beach Road, then emergency vehicles could get into that area. Mr. John Shardlow of Howard Dahlgren Associates gave a presentation on behalf of Derrick Land Company. He stated in regard to the open area, they are in the process of undergoing soil tests in this area to determine the feasibility of any type of development in that area. As of this time they are withdrawing any request for approval for any type of manipulation of that common open space area. After the tests are done and they come up with what they feel to be an appropriate use of that land if any, they will come back and request a conditional use permit for it. Mr. Shardlow explained the reason it was best to locate the emergency access where they did was because they wanted to be as sensitive in the development of the hillside as possible. They felt the best access point both from the standpoing of best access to most home sites and less site manipulation would be straight off the main road for the development, and it is a straight shot into Carve r Beach. He explained why this proposal shows only one access. Since the city has decided not to pursue the collector street, they now have to take their primary access off Pleasant View Road. They felt their should be some provision for both a second access into this site and for the City of Chanhassen to have a residential street pattern which allowed the serviceability of the land at which time it develops. Because of the deep ravine and the severity of the slopes, the road was placed where it is shown. It happens to work out well for the layout of the land. Total acreage on the parcel is 35.2 acres, with a total number of lots at 50. Total density would be approximately 1.5 units per acre. The are shown in common open space is approximately 5.1 acres. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 9 e Mr. Waibel stated that the Minnesota Soil Conservation Service recommends that a detailed soil erosion control plan be developed by the applicant due to the topography, and a detailed drainage and utility plan be developed. Gordon Freeburg stated inasmuch as they only have one soil boring, I think this whole thing is very preliminary because I don't think anyone can tell anything until they get a complete soil boring on it. They might end up not building on about half those lots. The trail system was discussed, and the type of soil in that area. Mr. Siefert asked about runoff from all these homes, and Mr. Jackson stated there had been nothing submitted at this point showing how they will handle the drainage. It is still in a concept stage, and those things would have to be developed. Jim Meyer asked about the emergency exit to the south. He wanted to know why that couldn't be part of the system going out. He also stated that he felt the drainage was a very important matter. Roman Roos stated that this is a very conceptual stage in the planning process, to see if there are any potential problems. These are definitely the questions that he will address to find a solution. This is just the very initial stages of this development on this property. e Mr. Dean Wetzel asked to see the elevation chart. He stated that on Pleasant View, where it is planned to connect in, there is about a 30 ft. drop between Pleasant View Road and the lot. He wanted to know how it was going to be handled. Mr. Shardlow stated this would be handled through grading. He stated that every- one of the lots proposed is greater than the City's minimum lot standard, most of them are over twice the size. Mr. Meyer stated he felt the developer could decrease the density by increasing the size of the lots and still obtain some good tax dollars for the community, but still help preserve the area. That is why all the neighbors are here, lower density. Mr. Seifert aSked what the intentions were for access to the lake, and the common open area. Mr. Shardlow again stated they were investigating to see if it could be developed into anything, such as a tennis court. Mr. Michael Thompson asked about dockage. Mr. Shardlow stated there is nothing definite. Mr. Thompson also asked about the corridor for the path, whether it separated the private property from the public property. He also wanted to know if there were any restrictions within Chanhassen as to how many docks, any measure? . Clark Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 10 e REZONING AND REPLAT, WILLIAM PAT CUNNINGHAM, PUBLIC HEARING e Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 9:30 P.M., with the following interested persons present: Robert A. Navarro, Jr., 516 Laredo Lane, Chan. Thomas Klingelhutz, 225 w. 77th st., Chan. Will Blail, Pleasant View Road Bev Hansen, 1700l Stodola Rd. Gordon Whiteman, 825 Pleasant View Road Hank Graef, 905 Pleasant View James & Linda Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road Susan Price, 6250 Ridge Road Peter Price, 6250 Ridge Road Joe Troexdle, 1015 Pleasant View Road Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasantview Road Mike Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road Tom & Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Kerber, Santa Vera Drive Sharon Graef, 905 Pleasant View Road John Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road Dean E. Wetzel, 6260 Ridge Road The staff report was given by the Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator. He stated the applicant has submitted a ghost plat to show how the property might be subdivided in the future to accommodate additional lots. He felt that due to the undeveloped state of the surrounding properties, that the ghost plliat that has been submitted is equally viable in light of the flexibility by the undeveloped state of the properties. He recommended that the planning commission approve the proposed replat and rezoning as requested conditioned upon the applicant entering into a platting agreement as developed by the city attorney's office to assure that all assessed and deferred assessments related to the north service area project are accounted for. Mr. Cunningham explained what his plans are for Lot 2 Vine land Addition (9~ acres). Mr. Jackson gave a report on this, stating that one of their comments was how the new home could best be served by sewer and water. He stated the most economical way to serve the property would probably be by sewer along the back lot line because of the grade, and the sewer then discharging into the Derrick plat. He also explained the assessments against the property. Jack Bell moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. e Clark Horn moved to allow rezoning and replatting as presented on Planning Commission Exhibit liD". Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 11 e REZONING, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WESTERN HILLS 3rd, H & K CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 9:45 p.m. with the following interested persons present: Robert A. Navarro, Jr., 516 Laredo Lane, Chanhassen Thomas Klingelhutz, 225 W. 77th Street, Chanhassen Bev Hansen, l7001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka Doug Hansen, 17001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka James W. Hawks, Waconia Phyllis Pope, 7055 Carver Beach Road Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Kerber, Santa Vera Drive John & Jan Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road Tom & Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road e A staff report was given by the Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator. He stated that the Park and Rec. Commission is to present a motion as to their policy and decisions on this. He also stated that the City Attorney's office will need to advise the Planning Commission as to the need for a conditional use permit for the public accessway connecting Maria Lane to the Western Hills Pond area to the south of the proposed plat. He also stated the planning commission should comment as to what the Western Hills pond area is going to be in a final development, or will it be, and also what consideration should be made along the area, and these comments should be submitted to Park & Rec. for their action. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision, rezoning, planned residential development, and condi- tional use permit for Western Hills 3rd upon the condition that the applicant be subject to the concerns of the planning commission, planning reports, city engineer, city attorney and Park and Recreation Commission. Mr. Ray Jackson gave the city engineer's report Mr. Tom Seifert stated that they were again concerned about the runoff going into the Carver Beach area. He wanted to know about ponding. Mr. Bob Waibel stated that the city had received a letter from Penberthy & Larson, Ltd. representing Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Kerber, objecting to the proposed plat of the parcels. Roman Roos stated he felt the planning commission can not make any final recommen- dation without all the elements finished, such as drainage plans, park and rec's comments, etc. e Gordon Freeburg said he didn't see how they could do anything, as they don't know what the Watershed District is going to do. We covered most of the other points in the previous meeting. All of the questions from the last meeting haven't been answered. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 12 Pat Swenson stated she felt one change that had been made was the double plats, those 10 lots with 0 lot lines. Mr. Jim Hawks representing Hansen & Klingelhutz made a presentation on this this item. He stated they do not have an answer to how part of this is going to be approved by the Watershed; until it is approved it will be held in abeyance. They would like, however, to have the preliminary approval of the total plat so they can go to the Water Shed and get this phase of it straightened out and see what the answer is on the portion to the West. He spoke about the turn-around, the temporary portion would be 15 ft. in the front yards of two lots. There would have to be an agreement with the prospective owners that they would stay until the road is continued, and then the temporary turn-around could be removed. He also spoke about the utilities and assessments. Mrs. Bernard Kerber stated their attorney sent a letter expressing their views, and she wanted to know if the Planning Commission read this letter, and wanted to make sure everyone did before they make a decision. Ms. Phyllis Pope representing the Park and Rec. Commission asked that any recommendations be deferred, because the Park & Rec. Commission have some very serious questions regarding the lots that are abutting the Western Hills Park, and they also have some reservations regarding the lots that go onto the creek up at the north end. e Mr. Tom Klingelhutz stated if they do have to give up land for park, they would certainly want to reserve the right, if they do have to put ponding on it, to be able to put ponding on it. Ms. Pope stated we have a large Western Hills Park that is mostly pond right now, and they are having a great deal of trouble making it in any way usable. Mr. Klingelhutz stated that the people that live on there think it is great the way it is. If you tried to change it, you would probably be in big trouble with some of them. e Roman Roos stated they need an extra week, from the standpoint of the Water Shed approval, the drainage approval, the utility approval, Park & Rec. recommendations · I think,._the Planning Commission all along has gone along with the concept and the overall road layout and the scheme, but not the lot sizes. Mr. Hawks stated/Rid a copy of the original 1969 approved PUD. In the Laredo Lane area, there were 34 townhouses approved. We put in 21 lots, so there were some 13 homes overall. There were 51 lots on the property, and there are now proposed 57 lots. We would be about 12 homes over the 1969. If they could put these up, they would look like a single family home, they would have double garages, everything as a home, except not as much land with them. You would be able to put a person in a home for similar to New Horizons. It is a matter of a community making a decision as to what kinds of lots are going to be developed to serve who, basically those people who have enough money for the large single family lot, or some others where it would have to be done differently. We are trying to provide housing for the people who are in the housing market. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 13 Pat Swenson stated that no matter how the building is put up, we are still winding up with a piece of property that is 5500 sq. ft. and she doesn't approve. Roman Roos said they should look at New Horizon with quads on their lots. This is a very successful addition to any community as seen in Bloomington and here in Chanhassen. The area of those lots is about 17,000 divided by 4. Pat Swenson said it was the type of building that she was talking about, a duplex that is split. Does everyone own a little bit of that land? Craig Mertz stated on New Horizon you have 1/4 of the lot and 1/4 of the building . There was no common area the way they have it set up. Roman Roos said he felt it was a sign of the times, there are some changing ideas in construction, first with the town houses, then the condominiums, then the duplexes or quads. That's a question we are going to have to answer, do we want that kind of thing in the city of Chanhassen. e Gordon Freeburg stated we had a list that was added in on the last meeting of 12 items, and from what he could see they have answered 3. The Council has a couple in there that we haven't answered, but I think if we can get the answers to the rest of these and resolve this zero lot line thing between us, all these questions will be answered. Lets have them finish answer those questions and we will resolve this thing ourselves in the next session. Gordon Freeburg moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. Roman Roos stated he felt Gordon's comment is well taken. This will give every- one a chance to get the answers they need. Perhaps the Water Shed will be in. We should be able to come up with a conditional approval on the overall plan based on what we know to be fact with the conditions on those items that we still have questions on. Clark Horn stated he felt they should have some kind of an indication on how we are going to go. I think that is something we have enough information on to resolve. Gordon Freeburg stated zero lot lines are fine with him. Tom Droegemueller stated he had some questions on it, but I guess I am con. Clark Horn - con Roman Roos - pro Walter Thompson - I would agree with zero lot lines Pat Swenson - con Jack Bell - con Roman Roos stated to resolve that issue, maybe the possibility is to make the lots a little bit larger. e Gordon Freeburg moved to table this item until August 29, 1979. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller, and unanimously approved. e REGULAR PLANNING C~MMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 14 Gordon Freeburg moved to table Item No. 12. Motion seconded by Tom Droegemueller and unanimously approved. PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, REPLY SYSTEMS, INC., PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 10:30 P.M. with the following interested persons present: John Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road Darrell Fortier A staff report was given by the Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator, stating the only concerns he has are: 1. That the city engineer review the gnading plan and comment on its adequacy; 2. That the city attorney's office advise the Planning Commission and staff as to how parking allocations can be controlled in light of the archi- tectural flexibility of the existing and proposed buildings to convert greater floor space designated for storage and warehousing into production areas. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the subject request as proposed contingent upon the satisfaction of the items mentioned above. e Mr. Darrell Fortier made a presentation mn behalf of Reply Systems, Inc. He stated it was their intention to add another 15,000 sq. ft. to the north side of the Warren Beck building. This would be leased to Reply Systems, Inc., which is a producer of return order forms. They anticipate having 7 or 8 employees. He described how they intend to handle the truck docking and the parking in front of the building. Inasmuch as this is one building, the Warren Beck building, the parking for The Press and Reply Systems, Inc. were treated as one. The parking provided is in excess of the requirements. He also explained how the drainage will be handled. Walter Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg and unanimously approved. Craig Mertz stated that a warehouse might have less need for parking than a printing production area would, and the floor space usage could change over a period of time. This is zmned PUD, so there would be a development contract that would set forth the conditions on which the building were approved. We could put something in the contract attempting to describe some formula under which additional parking spaces would have to be added, but a simpler way might be to provide in the development contract that the parking lot configuration would not be changed, but upon issuance of a new development contract, then post the frontage road for no parking. That puts the burden on them when they hire employees and there is no place for them to park, they are forced into the position of coming to the city for amending their site plan to build additional parking surfaces. e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 11EETING - August 22, 1979 Page 15 Gordon Freeburg moved to approve the subject request contingent on (1) that we post "no parking" on the frontage road, and (2) that the grading plan when submitted will be subject to final review of the city engineer. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH, PUBLl C HEARING Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 10:50 P.M. with the following interested persons present: Margaret & Gordon Julius, 7601 Bittersweet Rd., Eden Prairie David & Ali Brock, 330 Pleasant View Road Tom & Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road Jan & John Nicolay, 608 Pleasant View Road Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road e The Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator gave the staff report on this item. He stated he believed the parking plan is adequate with the exception that the two handicapped spaces should be provided over and above the 20 proposed. The conditional use permit should strongly stress that absolutely no parking is to occur outside the designated parking area and that if necessary, the parking must be expanded to accommodate any increase as needed. The plans do not specifically indicate concrete curb and gutter around the parking area. It would be his recommendation that this is included for the hard surfaced drive areas on the proposed plans. The final plans should include a berm area along the southerly property line of the subject property to break the vertical of the parking area from the residential zoned properties to the south. I believe they had a handicapped ramp somewhere in that area, maybe the parking should be shifted to the north to accommodate both the berm and the handicapped ramp going up the slope to the east. The applicant should be advised that any intended lighting must be approved by the city engineer. It was his recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend that the city council approve the site plan with the above mentioned conditions and that the city council direct the city attorney's office to draft a conditional use permit to be considered for final approval. Mr. Ray Jackson gave the city engineer's report, stating the possibility of unstable soil beneath the fill, and it may be advisable to determine the suitabil- ity of the soil before granting a conditional use permit. He recommended that the developer secure soil borings in several strategic locations and submit them to the City for evaluation. Mr. Carl Diem stated that they had planned to have the soil borings done. He also stated there will be no parking on the street. He stated the building is not designed to be expanded in any way, so there should be no problem with the parking situation. As far as the lighting, what they have generally done is put flood lights on the back of the building, which can be shut off when the event is over. e Mr. Seifert stated the biggest problem he could see is the increased traffic on Pleasant View Road. He said he feels there will be a traffic problem on that road with this increased traffic. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 16 Mr. Diem stated if you look at the amount of traffic generated, it is still negligible. You will find the amount of traffic is maybe 5 or 6 trips per week more than the average household. Mr. Seifert disagreed, asking if the church was never going to expand? Mr. Brock, who owns the land adjacent, stated he felt that any church would have a natural desire to develop a larger congregation. Mr. Diem stated the church was designed to hold 59 people, it can not be made bigger, longer or wider. The reason it is being started out here is because we have members that live as far west as Waconia. Some are in the Carver County area, Minnetonka, some are in the Hopkins area. Right now there are 30 members, and they are planning to double the size of the congregation, which is 59 people. When the church gets that big then they look where the members are living, and they will build a small church there. There are 400 church buildings in the United states, 23,000 members on the books. The average church congregation size is about 50 members. e Mr. David Brock stated he felt as the congregation develops, there will be other pressures made on the church to make use of the facilities. The road itself does not bear pressure well, Pleasant View Road does not accept heavy traffic. He stated he does not understand how a unit that is zoned a single family dwelling lot can have a facility or structure put on it where you are drawing considerably more traffic. His main opposition is the traffic that would be created on the road, it is not a safe road. He has no opposition to a church. Mr. John Nicolay wanted to know how far in the planning process the Planning Commission was on this matter. Is it preliminary? Roman Roos stated it was a conditional use permit that would be recommended to Council for a building permit. Mr. Tom Seifert wanted to know if everyone was familiar with Pleasant View Road. Clark Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jack Bell and unanimously approved. Mr. Craig Mertz explained how a church could be allowed under the zoning. Jack Bell _ I am sure that the problems on Pleasant View Road need to be addressed. I don't think that this particular use in my judgment will be the straw that breaks this camel's back, and I am favorably inclined towards it. Pat Swenson - I am also in favor. Walter Thompson _ Have we ever had a traffic count on Pleasant View? What is the traffic count on there? e Ray Jackson- Something came across my desk about 2 months ago for some traffic counts in the city this year, and I think Pleasant View was on that list. It would certainly be possible to put a counter up there for a week. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 17 Walter Thompson - I think it might be advisable, not in this particular situation but for our own information for the development that is going on there. I appreciate the comments from the public on this, but I can not feel that the traffic flow of the church is going to be much more than 1% or 2% of the problem, and I would approve their request. Clark Horn - I think back to the statement I made when we went through the corridor study. I believe it was something to the effect that I didn't want to hear about any increased traffic usages on Pleasant View Road, because at that time when we disapproved the corridor we didn't say that we were going to cut off development to those areas. It was very well laid out that night that development would happen in those areas, there would be increased pressure on Pleasant View Road, and the people still did not want a course to relieve that pressure, and I quite frankly can not be very tolerant about the situation of decreasing the traffic. I can't see that this would do it anyway, but that is the general feeling I have on issues of increased pressure on Pleasant View Road. To me the decision was made against an alternative to relieving those pressures and that is what people agreed to. Tom Droegemueller - I concur with Walter's comments, I don't think the increased traffic load will be significant enough to be concerned about. e Gordon Freeburg - I very heartily concur with Clark's feeling on this. It was very well brought up that night that we were not going to stop develop- ment. I have no problems with it. Roman Roos - I have nothing different to add. Gordon Freeburg moved to recommend to the city council that a conditional use permit be granted subject to no parking outside the parking area of the church, no lighting on the parking lot except for the curch rear light, and also that concrete curbs and gutters and berming would be on the parking lot as per Exhibit "G" and recommendation of staff. Motion seconded by Jack Bell, and unanimously approved. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOWELL VETTER~ PUBLIC HEARING Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at 11:15 P.M., with the following interested persons present: Lowell and Judy Vetter No one else was in attendance for this public hearing. Gordon Freeburg moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. e The Assistant Manager/Land Use Coordinator gave the staff report on this item. He stated the property is presently zoned I-I industrial and the HRA downtown redevelopment plan proposes that the subject property assume and maintain a general commercial identity. Presently the I-I provisions of Zoning Ordinance 47 do not permi t retaiL e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - August 22, 1979 Page 18 He stated he felt rezoning at this time would be premature in light of the parking design of the existing building of 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor space vs. retail requirement of 1 space for each 150 sq. ft. He stated there is no data other than what the applicant has stated as far as the probable or possible volume of retail traffic that can be anticipated. This is bulk and retail in nature, and that should by its nature reduce the number of trips into the area. Some provisions should be worked up that will enable us to allocate the parking sufficiently where this area can attain some kind of a commercial identity, but of a low parking demand nature. Craig Mertz, the Assistant City Attorney, summed this up stating the Vetters want to have both a wholesale meat operation and a retail operation. The existing zoning is industrial. Under that zoning the wholesale operation would be permitted, but the retail aspect would be prohibited. If you wish to have that retail business on this particular property, there are several amendments to the zoning ordinance that would be possibilities. Whatever you do is going to have some effect on the balance of the tenants in the building. You could rezone to C-2 or C-) which would make the retail meat sale a permitted use. However, it would then make the other tenants in the building illegal. They would be non-conforming uses. That has some undesirable effects. You could change the list of permitted uses in the I zone and say that retail sales of products that are warehoused on an I zone property would be permitted. e Walter Thompson stated that Mr. Vetter previously explained that everything was a package situation, not a meat market operation really. Roman Roos asked the possibility that they would rather relocate or at some later time be located up on the street, are you going for a long or short term lease? Mr. Vetter stated there is a minimum time of 5 years on the lease. All the equipment is able to be moved in a very short period of time. Clark Horn stated that it was brought out last time that under industrial, lumber goods Craig Merta stated at the moment under the industrial category there is only one retail activity that is permitted, and that is building material sales (lumber yard) . Clark Horn said what we are proposing to do since we already have an exception to the industrial, is to add their use on to that. It stillstlilYs restrictive. Roman Roos asked if there was a way to handle this on a temporary basis? Walter Thompson - I certainly would not care to have the rezoning done just to take care of this situation, but I would be very much in favor if we can do it on a conditional basis of acceding to this request. e Craig Mertz - If you wanted to keep the change as narrow as possible, you would add a new category under permitted uses that would perhaps be "retail sales" or "sales of products warehoused on the site incident to a wholesale business", something of that nature. You can even say a "meat businessll. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ~ETING - August 22, 1979 Page 19 Clark Horn - I feel the door is already open by including building supplies. Lets close the door when we have facilities that can house these things, but not keep them out. I think we can always, once we have facilities;that can house this type of thing, go back and take these uses out of our industrial. Roman Roos - This man needs a place of business. If we don't find someplace for him he is going to go someplace else. Jack Bell - If we find a better place in 3 or 5 years, he is probably going to move there. Gordon Freeburg moved that retail sales of meat products incidental to the wholesale meat business be added as a permitted use under the I-I zone. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. Gordon Freeburg moved to amend the Agenda to take care of Item No. 12 at this time. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. OPEN DISCUSSION Discussion took place on when public hearings will be called. Other matters such as zoning and lot sizes were also discussed. e Walter Thompson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Jack Bell and unanimously approved. Don Ashworth City Manager e