Loading...
1980 10 15 APPAOVED ON II-)q-Fa - MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD OCTOBER 15, 1980, AT 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Horn, J. Thompson, A. Partridge, and M. Thompson. Members Absent: T. Hamilton, W. Thompson, and W. Johnson. Staff Present: B. Waibel, M. Koegler, C. Mertz, and N. Rust. e 1. Public Hearing - Dypwick Subdivision Variance - Unsewered Area: Mr. Mertz stated that when the applicant asked the proper procedure to obtain a building permit for the subject property, his response was that this request should be treated as a variance to Ordinance Nos. 45 and 33. He said his rationale for this response was primarily that Ordinance No. 45 did not allow for subdivision of unsewered lands, which was the case with the Jeffrey Dypwick property. Also, according to Ordinance No. 33, all subdivisions cannot be filed without a City Council Resolution, and the subdivided property in question had not received such a resolution; finally, a preliminary plat for the subject property had not been filed which was also required by ordinance. Mr. Mertz proceeded to delineate the review process by th~ City for platting of property. He explained that if property was subdivided into tracts larger than that required by ordinance, that subdivision must allow for the opening of streets and for any future subdivision plan. To help streamline the review process in this situation, Mr. Mertz stated he had suggested the possibility of the applicant foregoing the variance hearing before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and combining the variance request with the subdivision request which would allow a building permit for the property. Mr. John Zima, Chicago and Northwest Railroad, was present on behalf of the Railroad and stated they had no objections to the subject request provided it does not include any more railroad crossings, there are no roadways adjacent to the property to create additional assessments, and no drainage problems are incurred. Mr. Jim Orr, City Engineer, responded to the Railroad's concerns saying the proposal at this time is for one single family dwelling and he has seen no road proposals or anything which would indicate a drainage problem on the site. e Mr. Michael Young, representative for Donald and David Halla, neighboring property owners, indicated the Hallas were opposed to any variance request such as that requested that evening. He noted that to grant a variance of Ordinance Ie Minutes of the 10~:~80 PC Meeting Page 2 e No. 45 and No. 33 on that site would sway from the intent and purpose of those ordinances. He did not feel this would be a positive action by the Commission because there was no real hardship for the applicant which would allow for such a variance. He further felt this would create a strong precedent for that type of request in unsewered areas of the city. Mr. Mertz indicated similar requests had been approved only twice before. They are the Hesse Farm request which included a plan for the entire tract of land and the Pauly request for which he had been unable to locate a file covering the proceed- ings and reasons for its approval. Mr. Bruce Douglas, representative for the applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Dypwick, responded to the concerns stated by the Railroad; he said there were no proposed road crossings, no drainage problem, and no further assessments which they can foresee. He felt that, in some respects, a precedent had already been set. He noted the request was for a variance to allow one single family home on a 13-acre parcel of land. Because of the land size, he felt there would be no problems with the installation of a septic tank on the site. The applicant had no intention of seeking additional subdivision to the land. As far as the road access question, Mr. Douglas said that the proper authorities had been contacted and the applicant had been assured that access will be granted to the property. Following discussion, Mr. Mertz noted the following variances would be required with the subject property: 1. Variance from the ordinance stating depth of a lot cannot be greater than two times its width. 2. Variance from the ordinance stating building permits shall not be issued to parcels without the minimum required footage on a public road, which is 180 feet. 3. Variance for the subdivision itself, wherein the ordinance states the City Council may grant variance to specific tracts due to hard- ships resulting from the topography, etc., provided the action did not affect the purpose and intent of the ordinance. e Mr. Jim Sulerud, 730 Vogelsberg Trail, noted his objection to the request and recalled past practices of the City Council where they had disallowed similar variances and remained firm in requiring ordinance standards. e Minutes of the 10 -15- 8 0 PC Meeting Page 3 Mr. Douglas felt the primary purpose of limiting con- struction in the unsewered areas of the city was the cost of extending sewer out to those devlopments. He said that because the ~equest is for merely one single family home, the City sewer installation costs would not occur. He stated it would be a hardship for the applicant if he were unable to construct a home on that site with a septic tank sewer system. Mr. Sulerud felt the definition of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA line) should be a factor in develop- ment practices. Mr. Russell J. Barto, 415 Lakota Lane, stated he had no objectionsto the subject request as long as it was spelled out as a single family dwelling with no further subdivisions. In response to Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. Donald Halla indicated the reason for this objection to the proposed variance was that he wished to retain an agricultural atmosphere within the area and subdivisions such as that requested would only hinder this. e Mr. M. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. J. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Mertz explained the Commission had the following three options: (1) deny the variance request; (2) approve the variance request; or (3) deny the request and take the necessary steps to amend Ordinance No. 45. Discussion followed on the conduction of perculation tests for the site and Mr. Douglas stated those tests had been done and the soil is adequate for the installation of a septic tank. Mr. Partridge moved to deny the variance request. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye with the exception of Mr. J. Thompson, who voted nay. Motion passed. 2. Public Hearing - Nickolay Subdivision Variance Request _ Unsewered Area: e Mr. Phillip Canning, representative for the applicant, Mr. David Nickolay, noted that he felt this variance request should be considered separately from the Jeffrey Dypwick request. He said the site was a favorable one for an earth shelter home, which is what the applicant is proposing to construct on the property. Mr. Canning indicated there was available access through an established easement. Minutes of the 10-15-80 PC Meeting _ Page 4 Mr. Canning felt a single family dwelling on the site would not be injurious to the area and because of the size of the parcel~ development on that site would not adversely affect the surrounding property owners. He further felt the request complied with all reasons stated in the ordinance as to why a variance should be granted. Mr. Michael Douglas~ representative for Donald and David Halla, who were neighboring property owners, agreed with Mr. Canning's comment that all variances should be viewed on an individual basis for its own merits. However, he felt the ordinance should be complied with in this circumstance because of the intent and purpose of the Ordinance No. 45. He s aid there was a pro b 1 em wi t h the access unto a pub 1 ic road in that access was to be obtained through a 30-foot wide easement which was not subject to litigation. He felt the~e was no hardship shown for the applicant because he had not actually purchased the property yet and he could build on another site. Mr. M. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. J. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. e Mr. Roy Teich, 305 Great Plains Boulevard, the original property owner of the subject site, said that when he first sold the property to Mr. Jeffrey Dypwick~ a former owner, in 1972, he had the understanding that it was necessary to have only 2! acres in order to build. He was not aware of Ordinance No. 45, which limited development in unsewered areas, at that time. Following brief discussion, Mr. Partridge moved to deny the variance request. Motion died with lack of a second. Mr. J. Thompson moved to approve the variance request of Ordinance No. 45 contingent on the applicant obtaining a right-of-way easement and obtaining satisfactory perculation tests. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the following voted: Ayes: Nays: Mr. J. Thompson and Mr. M. Thompson. Chairman Horn and Mr. Partridge. A tie vote resulted and the members gave the following reasons for their votes: Mr. M. Thompson: The property was subdivided in the year 1972, only one yar subsequent to the passing of Ordinance No. 45 and the individual property owners may not have been e aware of the Ordinance restrictions. e Minutes of the 10-1~80 PC Meeting Page 5 Mr. J. Thompson: He felt it was a suitable use of the land and the date of the subdivision was at such a time whereby the property owner may not have been aware of the ordinance restrictions placed on it by Ordinance No. 45. Mr. Partridge: He felt that it would be best to restructure Ordinance No. 45 prior to the granting of variances such as the subject request. Chairman Horn: He felt the same as Mr. Partridge with it being best to wait on approving variances such as this until the Ordinance No. 45 has been reviewed. He also indicated that as an advisory body they must act objectively. e 3. Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Discussion: Mr. Koegler explained the Community Facilities Section was primarily concerned with public facilities and support systems. He commented on existing and proposed municipal buildings, fire services, schools, and the library issue. He indicated the facilities with the exception of the proposed municipal buildings would be adequate until 1990. It was anticipated that further expansion of the municipal offices would be required in approximately 1985. The Commission generally agreed with the contents of the Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. No motion was necessary. 4. Comprehensive Plan - Housing Discussion: Ms. Rust reviewed the numerical housing goals for both subsidized and modest cost housing. She explained possible methods for implementing these housing goals which included various federal and state funding programs, local practices which included the provision of alternative housing types and density transfers which allowed a greater density of housing in some locations. Ms. Rust also discussed housing quality and how local review procedures and government funding programs can come into play to ensure it is provided. The Commission generally agreed with the Housing Section discussed. No motion was necessary. e 5. Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Discussion: Mr. Koegler recalled from preliminary discussions of the Transportation Section of the plan that that section was primarily tailored for the time-frame of 1990 to 2000. e e e Minutes of the 1 0 -15- BOP CM e e tin g Page 6 Discussion occurred on the area including Highway 101 north of Highway 5 and Dell Road with Mr. Koegler saying the City of Eden Prairie did not wish to connect Highway 101 with Dell Road. He then. further explained Eden Prairie1s plan for Highway 5. The Commission was concerned about the traffic situation which could potentially occur on Highways 5 and 101. Mr. Koegler discussed the situation involving Highways 169-212, Highway 41, Bluff Creek Drive and its connection to Pioneer Trail, and the plans for other arterial and collector roads within the city. Discussion occurred on seaplane operations and what the City policy should be regarding them. Discussion closed with no motion necessary. 6. Adjournment: Mr. Partridge moved to adjourn the 10-1-80 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. J. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.