Loading...
1980 11 12 APPROVED ON J;?-3-'?D e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD NOVEMBER 12, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman C. Horn, Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. W. Johnson, Mr. T. Hamilton, Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. A. Partridge, and Mr. M. Thompson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: B. Waibel, C. Mertz, J. Orr, and N. Rust. - Approval of Minutes: October 22, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes: Mr. J. Thompson noted he would like an addition made to his comment on page 6 which said lithe development proposal was not the best use 0 f the 1 and. II Mr. Ham i 1 ton and C h a i rm an H 0 r n i n d i cat e d they would like the following statement added to their comments on page 6: "I do not care for the design features of the develop- ment." Mr. Partridge moved the October 22, 1980, Planning Com- mission Minutes be approved with the above-noted amendments. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. September 29, 1980, City Council Minutes: Mr. J. Thompson moved to note the 9-29-80 City Council Minutes. Mr. Hamilton seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. October 6, 1980, City Council Minutes: Mr. Hamilton moved to note the 10-6-80 City Council Minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. e Waldrip P.R.D., Preliminary Development Plan Review, Public Hearing: (It was noted at the beginning of this hearing that an incorrect legal description was used when compiling the ab- stractor's certificate which resulted in an incorrect mailing list of residents. Consequently, this could not be viewed as an official public hearing but only as an informational meeting to gather input from the public.) Mr. Waibel explained the request saying the applicant was requesting permission to construct 38 residential units which include 8 units of double bungalow, 12 units of four- plex, and 17 units of townhouses. He said there was presently one single family dwelling in the west-central portion of the site. The subject property was zoned P-1 with the surrounding properties zoned R-1. Mr. Waibel indicated municipal water service was available to the subject property but gravity sewer services were only available to that portion of the site which e - - 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 was north of the existing single-family residence abutting Galpin Boulevard and Steller Circle. He discussed the relationship of the proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Thoroughfare and Transportation Map, saying the subject property and its environs were to assume a low-density single family profile and Galpin Boulevard would assume a collector function with Lake Lucy Road assuming a local street function. Mr. Waibel recalled the subject property was zoned to P-l in 1970 with the condition that no more than 87 units be constructed on the site. He said the Assistant City Attorney had rendered the opinion that due to the fact the rezoning oc- curred ten (10) years ago with a different applicant, the Planning Commission had considerable discretion in deciding how the subject property should be developed. Mr. Waibel noted the site did have intrinsic qualities which distinguished it from the sur- rounding single family land uses but there are some areas of concern dealing with transportation and utilities. He said that based on the premise that staff felt the development of the subject property with an interior street system was most preferrable, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the proposed subdivision for the double bun9alow units along Galpin Boulevard with the conditions that: 1. the units proposed in phases I and II receive access via an internal street as depicted in the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission in March of this year, 2. that the proposed covenants and restrictions for the subject development are acceptable to the City Attorney's office, 3. that the number of units proposed in the town- house phase be subject to future site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and 4. that the applicant successfully completes final development plan review as required by Zoning Ordinance No. 47 and Subdivision Ordinance No. 33. Mr. Kenneth Waldrip, the applicant, recalled he purchased the subject property in 1977 with the intention of preventing the possibility of a developer coming in and constructing 87 townhouse units. Mr. Waldrip did not feel this was an appropriate use of the property. He said that, after working on several options of development for the site, it was determined that double bungalows would be the most compatible use within the - - - 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Mark Nesset, architect for the applicant, noted the impact of double bungalows on the neigh- borhood would be less than that of single family dwellings due to the number of curb cuts and the relationship of the tree line. Mr. Waldrip said he originally desired to develop the site over a period of time but, due to the on-line assessments placed on the property, he must now develop the entire site more quickly. Mr. Waldrip then explained the definition of on-line assessments to Mr. Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street. In response to Mrs. Ellen Chilvers, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Mr. Waldrip said he would not actually construct all of the units but would retain architectural control over those he did not build through establishment of development covenants and restric- tions. All the units would be single-story. Mrs. Chilvers and Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the drive accesses unto Galpin Boulevard indicating they did not feel Galpin Boulevard could handle the additional traffic caused by the proposed develop- ment. Mr. Waibel responded that staff recommended the accesses be unto the proposed interior street with 65th Street and Steller being the two main accesses. Mr. Kelly commented that if the units were single-story, it should not affect the view; however, he was concerned about the driveways unto Galpin Boulevard because (1) the speed limit at that point was 40 m.p.h. and (2) from Melody Hill to Steller Circle the road is at approximately 20 percent grade and many times during the winter, that road is virtually impassable on the hill portion and definitely unsafe for those coming out and in driveways at that point. Mr. N. H. Dixon, 1950 Crestview Drive, wished to note that he was not notified of this meeting due to the incorrect legal description, and asked why it would not be possible to place one single family dwelling on acre lots, which would conform to the surrounding property. Mr. Waldrip responded that single family homes would over-develop the site and he had already incurred expenditures involving a planned unit development. In response to Mr. Harry Roberts, 6441 Galpin Boulevard, Mr. Mertz stated he did not believe there were any legal rights inherent with the property allowing a developer to automatically construct 87 units. He said the zoning only implied planned unit development, not the actual number of units. Mr. Waldrip disagreed with Mr. Mertz's statement. In response to Mrs. Harlan Johnson's (6340 Hummingbird Drive) question about the necessity of widening Galpin Boulevard as a result of the proposed development, Mr. Waibel said there is already a 66-foot right-of-way. Chanhassen's standard for collector streets such as Galpin Boulevard is 60 feet with a 36 foot wide street section. He noted it was vague at this time what the function of Galpin Boulevard would be in the future but there were some possibilities of re-alignment. He did not think the traffic generation in that area from the proposed development would be significant to alter the design or right- of-ways of the road. No traffic counts were available at that time. Mrs. Chilvers noted that traffic counts taken in the past may be incorrect due to the closing of a near by highway which resulted in increased traffic volume for Galpin Boulevard. e - e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 Mr. Waldrip noted it would be an economic hardship on himself if he was forced to build the interior street prior to lot sales for development, as well as provide sewer service. He felt the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council: (1) the plan should be approved as stated by staff with the double bungalow and four-plex units; (2) the interior street should be included; and (3) the sewer assessments for the site should be deferred until the property was developed and sold. In response to Mrs. Chilver's question about the process of rezoning the property back to R-l, Chairman Horn said current practice of the City was to review rezoned properties at the end of a one-year period for any action taken on the develop- ment of the property. If no action had been taken, the City could consider down-zoning the property to its former zoning classification. Mr. Mertz referred to the contract for the zoning issued in 1970. He said it was a document dated August 17, 1970, and, at this time, although the City had jurisdiction over the Waldrip property, was using the old Chanhassen Township Zoning Ordinances for that area because the comprehensive zoning ordinance for the City was not adopted until February of 1972. That contract allowed for no more than 87 units. He noted that "not more than" were the key words. Following discussion of the proposal, Mr. Waldrip indicated he would like a public hearing scheduled for January 14. The Commission generally agreed with this. Discussion closed. Rezoning Request from R-IA to I-I, 8740 Galpin Road, Merle Volk, Public Hearing: Mr. Mertz explained the specific request for a rezoning from R-IA to I-I was changed to request that the ordinance be amended to provide that the particular construction activity proposed be a conditional use in the R-IA Zoning District. He noted that, with this change, the applicant would avoid the issue of spot zoning but would open the R-IA area for this use as a conditional use; thus, the Commission would have to decide whether or not a contractor's yard was appropriate as an R-IA use. Mr. Mertz stated the public hearing notice was broad enough to allow for the revised request. Mr. A. H. Michals, representative for the applicant, recalled that a few weeks prior to that evening, an informational meeting was held on the proposal, and they received an indication from the Commission that they would not be agreeable to a rezoning e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 -- of the site to I-I. He did meet with surrounding property owners, and they noted they were concerned that such a rezoning may set a precedent for moving industrial uses outside the MUSA line. The applicant was asking that a conditional use presently allowed in the I-I district, which allows "contractor1s yards when conduc- ted entirely within fully enclosed structures and are within a completely fenced area," be added as a ninth conditional use in the R-IA district. Mr. Michals stated they would have no problem with reducing the size of land involved in the requst to only that land surrounding the structure. Mr. Roger Schmidt, 8301 Galpin Boulevard, asked if the amendment was granted as requested, would that allow others to come in with the same activity? He said he does not object to the applicant's present activity but was concerned about any intensification of that activity. Chairman Horn felt the request should be re-published un d e r the tit 1 e II con di t ion a 1 use perm i t II rat her t h a n lire z 0 n i n g II so that it would be more descriptive. He said he was aware of several individuals who would be interested in this topic. Mr. M. Thompson was concerned about how one could justify a contractor's yard in an R-IA zoning district. Discussion fol- lowed on related situations which existed in the city. Mr. Earl Holasek, 8610 Galpin Boulevard, stated he had no objection to the request. Mr. Gerald Gustafson, 8341 Galpin Boulevard, noted he had no objection to the current activity but was concerned about any future intensification. Chairman Horn responded that if a conditional use permit was granted, further intensification would not be allowed because that permit would only be for the existing activity. In response to Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Michals said notices of the public hearing were sent to property owners within 400 feet of the entire tract of land owned by the applicant not just that portion used for contracting purposes. - In response to Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. Volk said that at the time he moved his business to the subject property, he did not ask the City if it was a permitted use in that area because he did not realize it was not a permitted use. Mr. M. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Partridge seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Johnson said he had some empathy for the applicant ana his hardship but the fact remained that the area was zoned R-IA and by allowing the requested conditional use, that use would differ from the present conditional uses in the R-IA zone because they are more public oriented. He felt they would be setting a precedent by allowing this as a conditional use. 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes e Page 6 Mr. Partridge noted he had no arguments with the present operation. He had reservations about amending the ordinance, but he felt the ordinance should be amended to allow this activity as a conditional use. He did not want the property rezoned to I-I. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Mertz that if they were to proceed with the ordinance amendment, could they only allow this type of use in businesses established as of a particular date. Mr. Mertz responded that that was a possibility. Mr. Partridge disagreed with this tactic. Mr. J. Thompson commented that he had mixed emotions on the request. He did not wish to see this use or activity propagated throughout the R-IA district and felt it was Mr. Volk's responsibility to check permitted uses for the area before he moved there. He did understand the neighbors had no objection to the existing activity but felt it was in violation of the ordinance. - Mr. M. Thompson said they did not really know the degree of hardship for Mr. Volk. He noted that because almost 75 percent of the City's land was zoned R-IA, many of the City's residents would be interested in action taken on a conditional use such as that requested. He did not feel the residents would favor t his con d i t'i 0 n a 1 use and f e 1 t the y w 0 u 1 d bed 0 i n gad i s - s e r v ice to them by recommending in favor of it. Mr. Hamilton said he felt the applicant had violated the zoning ordinance. He was opposed to making any ordinance changes and said that since the change in the request was only brought out that evening, more time should be given to its con- sideration. He was not in favor of spot zoning but felt the activity so far on the subject property had been operated neatly. He felt there should be a viable solution to the situation. Mr. W. Thompson felt they were always putting in road blocks for entrepreneurs, such as the applicant, who are attempting to perform a service. He felt that as long as the equipment was stored and the area fenced, the situation should be per- mitted by adding the activity as a ninth conditional use in the R-IA district. e Chairman Horn noted he also had mixed feelings on the request. He said he knew of some individuals who would have an interest in the decision made that evening and felt the issue should be published with its revised request. He also felt unable to make any decision that evening due to that change. e e e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 Mr. Hamilton moved to deny the request to amend the ordinance to allow a contractor's yard as a conditional use within the R-IA district. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye with the exception of Chairman Horn, who felt a new public hearing should be set due to the revised request. Motion carried. Sketch Plan Review, Lots 6 and 8, Block 1, Terara Acres Addition, Harlan Koehnen: Mr. Waibel explained the applicant was requesting per- mission to subdivide Lot 8, Block 1, into two 15,840 square foot single family residential building sites, and Lot 6, Block 1, into two approximately 17,500 square foot single family residen- tial building sites. He noted the applicant wished to divide Lot 6 in an east/west direction with the northerly half to access unto Terara Lane and the southerly half to access unto Audubon Circle. Frontage, however, would not be available on Aububon Circle, thus causing the southerly half to become land- locked. A variance would have to be granted to allow the sub- division. Mr. Waibel indicated there were drainage problems on the lots which make residential development difficult. Mr. Waibel said the applicant is seeking subdivision approval because, due to the north service area public improve- ments project, Lot 6 has been assessed for two units of sewer and water. Lot 8 was similar to other proposals received in the area and meets ordinance requirements. He said staff recommended that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to consider the applicant's request provided that the applicant post all necessary escrows with the City Treasurer's office to defray staff costs in processing this application and prepare any additional preliminary plat information required by the City Engineer. Mr. Koehnen, the applicant, noted he felt he could obtain an easement unto Audubon Circle from Lot 6. In response to Mr. Partridge, Mr. Mertz said the second unit charge on Lot 6 would be eliminated if subdivision approval were not granted. However, if subdivision approval were granted for Lot 8, a second unit charge would be added to that lot. Mr. Koehnen said if only one assessment were placed on Lot 6, he would not have pursued a subdivision of Lots 6 and 8. Discussion followed on the drainage conditions of the two lots in question. e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 Mr. Partridge moved to grant a public hearing for the proposed subdivision of Lots 6 and 8, Block 1, Terara Acres Addition. Mr. Hamilton seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Site Plan Review, Office/Warehouse Building, Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Dayco Concrete: e Mr. Waibel explained the applicant was proposing to construct an approximately 16,380 square foot office/warehouse building on a 2.55 acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Park Drive and Park Road. The property was zoned P-4, planned industrial district, and did have sewer and water service available. He reviewed the question of orientation versus parking and said that one of the main concerns of staff was that there be no parking capacity problems in the future brought on by the usage flexibility of the proposed type of building. Mr. Waibel said the proposal is for the building to be oriented towards Park Road with the loading areas to be on the north side of the building and garage bays for fleet vehicles on the east side. Staff felt an alternative orientation of the building could be to the north. He further said landscaping in the northern one- third and eastern portion of the property could enhance the visual qualities of the site. Such landscaping could consist of extensive berming and planting of conifers that are road salt resistent. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the site plan for Dayco Concrete conditioned on the following: 1. that the site plan be adjusted as found appropriate by the Planning Commission after discussing the previously mentioned design issue of building and parking area set- backs and building and parking area to lot ratios. 2. that there be no open storage of materials ancillary to the businesses located in the building. 3. that fleet vehicle parking be conducted as described in the applicant's letter of October 15, 1980. 4. that the applicant receive grading, drainage and lighting plan approval from the City Engineer and City Council. 5. that the applicant work with staff in developing the landscape plan for the screening of loading areas. 6. that all non-impervious areas be seeded with the exception of boulevard and berm areas which are to be sodded. e e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Pa~e 9 7. that the perimeters of all maneuvering and parking areas have concrete curbs and that all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened. 8. that the applicant post a letter of credit to insure completion of all off-structure improvements in an amount specified by the City Engineer. 9. that a maneuvering area around loading facilities be maintained at 65 feet. Mr. W. Thompson expressed concern about another road entering unto Highway 5. The applicant indicated he would work with staff on the site plan lay-out and had no problem with removing the nine temporary parking spaces. e In response to Mr. W. Thompson, the applicant said the exterior would be similar to that of the new City maintenance building. The applicant then showed drawings of the proposed building. Mr. Hamilton moved that the proposed site plan for Dayco Concrete Company be approved with the conditions stated in the Planning Report dated November 16, 1980. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. e e 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 e Mr. Waibel recalled the last review of this proposal was at the August II, 1980, City Council meeting where the applicant was granted preliminary plat approval provided the overall density did not exceed 2.9 units per acre and the total number of units not exceed 600. At this time, the Planning Commission was to have the final development plan review. Mr. Waibel felt that with regard to the sequence of platting, any departure from the proposed sequence shown on the utilities plan should receive staff review to offset any potential complications with utilities, etc., and a review report must be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. He indicated that it would be acceptable to staff to include in the develop- ment contract the entire project, with escrow accounts being provided on a plat by plat basis. Staff would also accept the request that any future assessments be spread on each lot when platted. In regard to the proposed 20 foot front yard setback for the twin home units, Mr. Waibel said he wished to decline any comments at this time but that staff was not presently inclined to give any variances such as that requested. Mr. Waibel noted that a major change in the develop- ment from the last time it was reviewed by the Planning Commission was the increase in parkland area adjacent to the northeast corner of Lake Ann Park. This area had been included due to an advancement of a LAWCON grant application for the City. e Mr. Waibel stated staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the final development plan for Chaparral West as contained in the Planning Commission exhibits for the meeting of November 12, 1980, with the following conditions to be incorporated into the final plat and development contract: 1. That all densities proposed for future phases in Outlots A and B. be contingent upon successful site plan review. 2. That site plan and preliminary plat review of said future phases additionally require preliminary development plan review information required by subsections 3 and 4 of Section 14.05 of Zoning Ordinance No. 47 not submitted for the present overall review of Lake Ann P.R.D. including, but no excluded to, any proposed covenants or restrictions, development contracts, architectural renderings, and nature of ownership and management. - 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 3. That the applicant disclose to the City any work incidental to the development of Chaparral West which may minimize municipal cost in developing the dedicated park areas (such could include grading and landscaping activities). 4. That a no-build/no-grade line be established along the drainway in the southeast portion of the proposed development for purposes of preservation of the existing drainway slopes and provision of relatively level yard area for the proposed residences along said drainway. 5. That the egress of the subject development unto Minnesota Trunk Highway 5 be designed to permit only right-in and right-out movements. 6. That at the time of development of Outlots A and B, provisions for a public street be made in a fashion similar to that discussed in the preliminary development plan reviews. 7. That the roadways within the multiple areas of the development be 32 feet in width and that the road widths along Potomac ~ Drive, Pawnee Drive, and Aztec Drive be 36 feet in width. 8. That the applicant draw the final plat so that setback variances will not be needed for gravity sewer due to slope conditions. 9. That a minimum structural setback of 110 feet be adopted for properties adjoining Minnesota Trunk Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. (The applicant has indicated considerable opposition to this condition. This office feels that further discussion on this may be warranted in order to arrive at a standard that will assure that the objectives of this particular requirement are accomplished.) 10. That the areas indicated as park and the 80 foot strip of land along Lake Ann be accepted for purposes of park and public open space and that said 80 foot strip be reviewed by staff for its location relative to ordinary high water marks. 11. That approval of the final development plan be conditioned upon successful completion of an E.l.S. review, watershed district review, review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Soil Conservation District. e 12. That the proposed covenants and restrictions are found to be acceptable by the City Attorney's office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. -- 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 13. That the trunk, sewer, and water services be constructed within the development as per the Schoell and Madson feasibility study dated March 26, 1980. 14. That a bituminous pedestrian way 8 feet in width be constructed as part of the development around the west side of Potomac Drive and extending along Aztec and Pawnee Drives to the Park area. 15. That a conservation easement be dedicated, as per the comprehensive plan, along the drainway in the southeast portion of the proposed development with said conservation easement being coincident with the no-build-no-grade line to be established. e 16. That consideration be given to reduce the crowding effect of the twin homes proposed in the area of lots 14 through 16 of Block 3 and the townhouses proposed on Lots 35 through 38 of Block 2. 17. That at no time shall any part of the development have a single acces greater than 600 feet in length. Mr. Waibel noted that in discussions with the applicant, Mr. Dunn, a request was made to delete Tahoe Road from the plans and staff was in agreement with this request with the condition that the remaining three egresses from the development would have no problems in regard to congestion and stacking distance. The County Engineer indicated concern about the full access unto Highway 5, site distance, and wished the egress from Potomac were shifted south. The County Engineer had also expressed concern about the capacity of culvert in the northeast section of the site. Mr. Dunn said the proposal that evening was a modification from staff's recommendations. They had reduced the number of units to 600 and adjusted the density accordingly. He noted he had two primary concerns: (1) the limitation of access on Park Drive from Highway 5 and (2) the 110 foot setback from County Road 17. Mr; Dunn further noted that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was being conducted which would eliminate the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). -e In response to Mr. J. Thompson's question on the ratio of land uses, Mr. Greg Frank from new Horizon Homes said Outlot B would be commercial, Outlot A would have about 120 apartment units; there would be 140 single family homes, 168 twin homes, and 172 townhomes. Discussion occurred on the design of the homes proposed for the development. In response to Chairman Horn's question about the possibility re . e ~ 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of row houses, Mr. Frank said they were researching them but they would only be possible on flat land. Discussion followed on the ratio of multiple family to single family units and the cost of the units with concern expressed in both areas. Mr. Frank indicated he did not feel a 110 foot setback was necessary from County Road 17. Chairman Horn said he would like to see a mix of housing types. Mr. Frank responded that would be difficult due to associations involved. It was noted that the greater part of the run-off from the development would be into Lake Ann. Discussion occurred on the access points unto Highway 5. Mr. Dunn felt only a right-in, right-out access at Lake Ann was extremely constraining and said a traffic engineer should examine the situation before a recommendation was made on the access points for the development. Chairman Horn recalled that Park Road was recommended by the Planning Commission only until the time New Highway 17 was completed. Mr. Frank commented on staff's recommendation. He said that New Horizons did not feel bike paths were important to the development and further commented on the proposed road widths. Mr. Hamilton moved to recommend to the City Council that the final development plan be denied based on the feeling that the developers and builders are not working with the City and taking into consideration the City's best interests and that the City Council send the request back to the Planning Commission for further negotiation with the developer. Mr. J. Thompson seconded. Mr. Johnson said he felt denying the request was not the proper way to approach it because this would not clear up any problems but would only stop the process. The following voted: Ayes: Chairman Horn, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. M. Thompson, and Mr. Partridge. Nays: Mr. W. Thompson and Mr. Johnson. Motion carried. Discussion occurred on the housing mix, setback requirements, and the accesses unto Highway 5. Mr. J. Thompson felt phasing should be incorporated into the development process. Discussion closed. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m. ~-~_.~.~ "