Loading...
1980 09 24 APPROVED ON /0 -;;;r~ -J'o - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING CO~1MISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. AT CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE AMENDED ON It) ~:<-J{J - Members Present: Chairman C. Horn, J. Thompson, W. Johnson, w. Thompson, A. Partridge, and ~1. Thompson. Members Absent: T. Hamilton. Staff Present: B. Waibel, Land Use Coordinator, R. Larson, City Attorney, and N. Rust, Secretary. AEprovalof the September 10, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes: Mr. Waibel asked the Commission if minutes should be sent to the City Council prior to Commission review; he indicated that at times the Council has planning issues that come to them before the Planning Commission minutes have been reviewed by the Commission and thus need those minutes to refer to. The Commission generally felt this would be necessary at times and was an acceptable procedure. Discussion followed, whereby the Commis- sion asked Mr. Waibel to look into the possibility of stamping minutes that had been corrected. e Mr. Partridge moved for approval of the September 10, 1980, Planning Commission minutes. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. J. Thompson moved to note the August 18, 1980, City Council minutes. Mr. W.Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Subdivision Request, Tract D, R.L.S. No. 15,6301 Church Road, Terri Larson, Public Hearing: Mr. Waibel explained that at the last review of this item, the Planning Commission and staff were not certain whether or not .this subdivision could be accomplished without necessitating a plat. Since that meetinq, he had been in contact with the Carver County Recorder, Mr. Kelly Hanson. Mr. waibel recalled that ~1r. Hanson had indicated this parcel did have two metes and bounds descriptive parcels, and it is policy that no more than one (1) metes and hounds description exist for any parcel within a registered land survey without requiring a plat. Mr. Waibel said that, this being the third metes and bounds description, a formal plat is recommended by the Carver County Recorder. - Mr. Waibel noted that since the proposal does not entail any building sites or expansions of public improvements, there should be no need for a development contract. He said that upon performing an assessment search, the subject property did not have lateral sanitary sewer available which results in a technicality of subdivision. - Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 Mr. Waibel explained that since the applicant's intent was to convey what is shown as Lot 2 for the subject property to the property owner of the land on the northeast quadrant of the Highway 7 and Church Road intersection, Carver County requires plats of previously divided registered land surveys, and there are no building permissions inherent with the subdivision, he felt this subdivision would not be in violation of the spirit and intent of the City's planning practices. Thus, he recommended approval of the subdivision request on the following two (2) conditions: 1. The plat conforms to the proposed subdivision drawing prepared by Cardarelle and Associates dated August 20, 1980, with the amendment that the parcel shown as Lot 2 be indicated as Outlot A. 2. That the applicant enter into a Platting Agreement with the City of Chanhassen to be filed with the plat that would designate that no building permis- sions are implied or granted in the subdivision. Mr. Bill Schmidt, 3670 Highway 7, had no objections to the e subdivision request as proposed. Discussion followed on the nature of the proposal. In response to Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. Waibel said there is a lateral for sanitary sewer north of Highway 7 that runs approximately 200 feet west of the property in a north-south direction. Thus, the subject property could receive lateral sanitary sewer service. Mr. Merlyn Wanous, 6231 Church Road, indicated he would like to purchase that part of Lot I on the sUbject plat to add on to the rear of the northerly three lots in the registered land survey at Town Road and Church Road sometime in the future. He asked what the process would be to do so. Following discussion of Mr. Wanous's intention, the Commission stated that it would be an acceptable procedure and felt it may be easier to perform both that intention and the current request to limit time and money involved. Mr. W. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. J. Thompson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. W. Thompson moved the subdivision request be recommended for approval to the City Council with the conditions stated by staff. Mr. Partridge seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. e e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 Replat Reqeust, Lot 7, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 1st Addition, Robert Buesgens, Public Hearing: Mr. Waibel recalled that the last review on this request brought up the question of the importance of the drainage swale on the norther property line of the subject site and whether there were any major utility easements on the site. He said that in discussions with Mr. Jerry Schlenk, Building Department, it was determined that there were no utility easements along the side property lines; however, there was the drainage swale on the north end of the property. Mr. Schlenk had noted in those discussions that this swale is now taking considerably less water run-off since some re-workinghad occurred on the Highway 5 culverts, whereby much of the drainage was re-routed to the creek area behind the subject property. '. Mr. Waibel recommended the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the replat request based on the September 8, 1980, Planning Report and September 22, 1980, Planning Report, provided that the replat include the location of the border landscaping between the rear lot portions of Lots 7 and 8 and that such landscaping should be contained within Lot 8, with such to be verified by the City Engineer. The replat should be filed with the City and County as per the platting requirements of Chanhassen. Discussion followed on the location of the border land- scaping and whether the replat line should be drawn at this location. Mr. W. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Partridge seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. In reponse to the Commission's concern over a possible architectural review of the proposed dwelling for Lot 7, Mr. Robert Buesgens, the applicant, presented to them plans of the proposed home. Mr. Waibel then stated that there is an architect who acts as a review committee for the Chanhassen Estates community to ensure architectural and building conformity. Mr. Partridge moved to recommend the City Council approve the replat request using Minnesota Valley Surveyor's sheet of the July 3, 1980, exhibit for replat of Lot 7, Chanhassen Estates with the condition the title to the triangular piece of land on the southeast corner of Lot 7 be given to the owner of Lot 8 and that such variances as may be necessary to conform to the plat plan be granted. Mr. J. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. -- e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Discussion, Ordinance Amendment Request, Volk Construction, Inc.: Mr. Waibel recalled that in a memorandum to Mr. Merle Volk and his representative, Mr.A. H. Michals, he had requested that they appear before the Planning Commission for an informal discussion of a non-conforming construction corporation working at the subject property located on Galpin Boulevard. He said that since the request was for an informal discussion, no staff analysis had been made; however, he said staff would recommend that because the present ordinance does not permit this use, consideration of the extension of this use at this time would be difficult until research was done to justify whether such a use could be a conditional use in an R-IA district, whether the property could be rezoned, or whether another zoning approach could be taken on this issue. He indicated that, at this time, the August 7, 1980, letter to Mr. Volk, indicating to him that action by the City will be taken should the use on the premises not be removed within 30 days after receipt of that letter, was still in effect. e Chairman Horn expressed ooncern over creating a precedent for similar situations in the future. In response to Mr. Partridge, Mr. W~ibel said the subject property presently has numerous construction equipment being used and stored at the site, there are several buidlings for the construction operation, and it appears to be a refurbished farm- stead. He further said this is a zoning issue which falls within Ordinance Nos. 45 and 47, which deal with permissible uses in unsewered, R-IA districts. Mr. A. H. Michals, representative for Mr. Volk, proceeded to give a history of the subject property. He felt that due to highway locations, existing and proposed, and the railroad location southeast of the SUbject site, industrial and commercial develop- ment will occur in the area in the future. He said that, at the present time, Mr. Volk is basically using the site for farming purposes with some equipment storage. He further said that upon review of the current zoning ordinance, the only area where Mr. Volk's business activities would fall within would be the Industrial Zoning District. He hoped that because of the agricul- tural nature of the business and because there was no need for sewer and water other than the existing well and septic tank, it would be an allowable use. He said this was not the kind of activity that catered to the public and there were no employees there on a permanent basis other than to supervise the equipment that comes in and leaves the site. e In response to Mr. W. Johnson, Mr. Volk said the property is basically used for storage of construction equipment and some e e e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 maintenance with fuel storage for the equipment. There is a small business office there, as well. He said the site was 192 acres in size. Mr. Michals indicated the conditional use could be restricted to the area on which the buildings were located rather than to the entire 192 acres. Discussion followed on past proposals for the subject property and surrounding land uses. Mr. Russ Larson, City Attorney, stated that whether the construction equipment was stored inside or outside, Mr. Volk was still in violation of the existing zoning ordinance. He did not feel this property was at a stage where it was ready for industrial development and felt there would be a great deal of neighborhood opposition if this use was permitted. He further felt the allowance of this use would create a dangerous precedent for the city. Chairman Horn agreed with Mr. Larson's statement regarding the creation of a dangerour precedent and felt that if this use was allowed in this are, it would eventually become a competing area for Chanhassen's existing business and industrial areas. In response to Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. Volk said there are currently 4 to 5 machine uni ts on the site. Mr. Michals noted the city of Chanhassen had a large percentage of acreage in that area of the community that was open for some type of development because of the contiguous and adjoining development in Chaska. He said it becomes a question of the location of the demarcation lines for development in Chanhassen. Mr. Larson explained that a rezoning to an R-I zoning district would have to occur for the subject property in order to allow the proposed conditional use because this was not permitted under the existing R-IA zoning as an accessory or conditional use. He felt this action would result in spot zoning. Mr. Johnson felt the key issues were whether the area should be developed through spot zoning and that the area is now zoned for agricultural uses. He said the City was striving for orderly growth and the proposed use would create an undesirable precedent. Discussion closed with no motion necessary. e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 Discussion, Downtown Redevelopment Overlay District: Mr. Waibel explained the boundaries for the Downtown Redevelopment District. (Below is a transcript of this discussion.) Mr. Waibel: - From the last discussion, I detected that the Commission wished to develop a list of concerns for the overlay district and that they had more or less endorsed the design framework approach. I have attached copies of the design framework approach for Yorktown in Edina so that we may get some ideas of what we can ultimately work towards. For goals which we all agree ppon, we want (I) a highly imageable district or visually appealing district, and (2) a highly functional physical layout which is economical. By using the design framework method, I feel we could probably divide this area into sub-districts. The sub-districts could be: (I) the area south of Highway 5, comprised of Chanhassen Business Park, the Victor Schmieg property, and the Martin Ward property and (2) that peripheral area to ~he ring road area north of Highway 5 and (3) the ring road core area itself. I think that these areas, by their geographic location, by their size, set themselves up for proposed land uses that are quite distinct. There is sub-district general land use criteria including transportation, setbacks, parking, ratio of building to land, ratio of parking areas to land, boulevard landscaping plans, and loading zone standards. What would you like to do with transitional areas? We must also look at visual compatibility and implementation of the criteria. Chairman Horn: How much license are we really going to have for some of these criteria within the core area. It is my understanding that Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld is working with the H.R.A. and that two developers have decided what they would like to place in that area in regard to architecture and imagery. Mr. Waibel: - I think we will have to use discretion in the ring road area. It has been told to me that the Planning Commission will perform site plan review and will have input on the architectural rendering and overall layout of the project. To begin with, you could review the possibility of signage control, the inside treatment controls. e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 Chairman Horn: ... I would expect that some of that information would be contained in the development contracts or the leasing contracts that the developers place on the particular sites. Mr. Waibel: When we do a site plan review of that core area, I think we should be asking for that information. Chairman Horn: Are we to more or less set the theme for this area as far as the architecture? Mr. Waibel: ... At that time when you are reviewing particular furnishings, i.e. fixtures, standards for lighting, etc., you may wish to discuss them with a consultant. . . . Whomever's responsibility it is to review plans that come in outside or within this area, they would come before whatever body is in charge of that document and they would review them and make recommendations on the site plan. . . Mr. W. Thompson: I think talking about lighting and signs is good but that is the tail end of the process. I think we should be looking at the parking situation and how delivery is going to occur for the shops in the downtown area. The transportation part of this program should be developed before we begin to become involved in other details. e Cha,irma,n Horn: Mr. Johnson: Mr. Waibel: Chairman Horn: e . . . r think that the typical architects are going to concentrate more on imagability than on the functionality; therefore, we would do more good becoming involved in the functionality of the project, such as parking and transportation. We should look at typical business uses and determine their traffic flow for each day using trip counts generated, when this traffic occurs, and when the deliveries are made and by what kind of vehiCle. . . Was there any consideration of a parking deck? That was a consideration as far as the development of goals is concerned. This is something that has to be worked out through an economic analysis. I am concerned about redundancy among the Planning Commission, H.R.A., and staff and consultants, and I would like to find out exactly what our charter is in this project. e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 (Discussion occurred which included comments on potential businesses which would locate within the downtown business core.) Mr. Partridge: I don't think it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine colors and textures, etc., for the downtown area. I tnThnk it would be easier to look at what a consultant comes up with. Chairman Horn: We must first establish the zoning in the area outside the ring road and the types of uses in that area. Mr. J. Thompson: Is energy consideration a part of our task? Chairman Horn: It would be in the architectural issue and is a later step in the process. . . Chairman Horn: e Mr. Wa, ibel : Cha,irman Horn: Chairman Horn: Mr. Johnson: Chairman H.orn: e We should first establish our approach to decide on the initial zoning and would choose the first attack to be in the area north of the industrial area and outside the ring road area. We want to get away from the absolute land use type of criteria when property is zoned so that it is available to only a very, restrictive clientele. we should create standards that will apply to the design criteria more so than the la~d use. I don't think we should define our zoning based upon different types of businesses but rather define it on more of a functional nature, such as through transportation. . . I think the key issue is the concept of transition so that we have a reasonable transition from the core area and outward. It would seem that transportation would be a key issue of this through trip counts. . . I think the traffic in the downtown core area, will be primarily foot traffic rather than auto- mobile traffic. Therefore, I'm not sure it would appropriate to spend money on a transporta- tion study for the project area. I a,gree with you and think we should be looking at compatible types of transportation such as foot traffic as opposed to delivery traffic. e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 (Discussion occurred regarding uses within the different area designations in the downtown redevelopment area.) Chairman Horn: Is there a, way we could have a common loading area within the core area? (Discussion occurred on the responsibility of the various commissions and the City Council in order to determine where that of the Planning Commission lay.) Mr. waibel: We will have to prepare and file a final plan for the downtown redevelopment area with the state and use that document as a guide as to the latitude the City will have in making decisions about the project area. . . Mr. W. Thompson: I don't think the different area designations within the project area should compete with one another. . . - Mr. Johnson: It should be our top priority to put together a design function. Chairman Horn: I think we should outline the steps in this process. Mr. Waibel: Do you agree that we can work with three (3) different districts? From these districts, we could then make even more sub-districts within them. Chairman Horn: I think the first and third districts will stay as the distinct districts they are; it is the second one where we have our transitional oppor- tunities. Mr. Johnson: We should define more on how we are going to use consulta,nts. . . Mr. Waibel: B.R.W. is working for us on a technical assistance basis; there is a budgeted allocation for this, and, as we request their services, they will provide these services. . . e Discussion ended with Mr. Waihel stating he would meet internally with the City Manager, Mayor, B.R.W., and the Chairman of the H.R.A. or arrange to have them meet with the Planning Commission in order to determine where the responsibilities and latitudes lie for each in the downtown redevelopment process. e Minutes of the 9-24-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 Open Discussion: Discussion occurred regarding non-conforming uses in the city of Cha,nhassen. Adjournment: Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the September 24, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting Adjourned at 11:15 p.m. e e