Loading...
1980 12 03 APPROVED ON J~,~j,r:J:(J e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD DECEMBER 3, 1980, AT 7:45 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AMENDED ON t.:I -/1-j'lJ Members Present: Chairman C. Horn, J. Thompson, W. Johnson, T. Hamilton, W. Thompson, A. Partridge, and M. Thompson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: B. Waibel, C. Mertz, and N. Rust. Mr. W. Thompson moved to amend the agenda to place item no. 2 between item nos. 4 and 5 so that the public hearing on the satellite fire station may be held as scheduled. Mr. Hamilton seconded. All voted aye. Motion passed. Northwest Chanhassen Satellite Fire Station, Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing: Mr. Waibel explained the subject property was located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Minnesota Trunk Highway No.7 and was zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. Sanitary sewer and municipal water are available to the property. He explained the City Council's decision to purchase the subject parcel was the result of an approved referendum passed one year ago which included the construction of this satellite fire station. Mr. Waibel stated it was the Planning Commission1s responsibility to determine what planning considerations should be included in the design and site plan to insure that the City's construction meets requirements set for other developments within the community. Mr. Waibel noted that staff had two areas of concern, which were: (1) that the architecture and site lay-out be designed so as to blend in as much as possible with the surrounding residential land uses and (2) that the lighting plan include a couple ornamental grounds lighting fixtures for safety and surveillance purposes. Mr. Waibel recommended the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit, site plan, and subdivision of the property with the condition that the proposed building be moved to the west to increase the currently proposed 20 foot front yard setback to a minimum of 30 feet on Minnewashta Parkway and that ornamental grounds lighting be added to the site to provide for safety and 4It surveillance. e e 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 Mr. Kenneth Durr, a developer of property near the subject site, showed drawings of the proposed structure and site lay-out with relationship to surrounding parcels. He said the satellite fire station was proposed to be constructed in the northernmost part of the city and could not serve the best interests of the community with the station location at such a distance from the remaining residences. Mr. Durr further said he felt the alternative location of Highways 41 and 7 would be better. Mr. Waibel responded that the reason the subject location was chosen was because that section of the city had always been significantly removed from any other facilities in the city for fire protection. e In response to Mr. Durr, Councilman John Neveaux said the Community Facilities Committee had asked the Fire Department to survey the northwest area of the city and arrive at potential locations for the satellite fire station; thus, the City essentially looked at the Fire Department's recommendation and that recommendation was for the proposed site. The lay of Highway 7 was a concern in the study for access on and off that highway for emergency vehicles. Mr. Jack Kreger, Chanhassen Fire Chief, was present and said response time from the station may be quicker at the location of Highways 7 and 41 but the residential population is sparse there and it would take longer for the volunteer firemen to arrive at the station because of the greater distance involved. Discussion occurred on the number of individual volunteers responding to fire calls and the number of fire calls reported over the last few years. Mr. John Schardlow, planning consultant for Mr. Kenneth Durr, discussed similar situations with satellite fire stations in other communities. 4It Mr. Jack Boarman, architect of the proposed facility, said the subject site was chosen from the standpoint of location with regard to the northwest lake area and accessi- bility north unto Highway 7, taking safety into account. He noted there was some natural screening for the site and some berming would also be included in the landscaping. The parking area was separate from the main access for safety reasons, and it was not a "drive-through" station but required the vehicles to back-up somewhat. Mr. Boarman then proceeded to explain the structure elevations and the materials proposed for its construction. Mr. Bob Ritter, developer of property south and west of the subject site, questioned the durability of the proposed siding materials on a public building and the opportunity for expansion of the station on that site. Mr. Boarman responded there were no plans for future expan- sion of the building but rather additional satellite fire stations would be constructed in the city when necessary. - 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Also, he had successfully used the proposed siding materials on other public buildings. Discussion occurred on the release of bids for the proposed construction. Mr. Hamilton moved to close the public hearing. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed. Mr. Boarman agreed with staff1s recommendation that there be a 30-foot setback from Minnewashta Parkway and said grounds lighting would be provided as recommended. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the proposed satellite fire station plan per staff recommendation with the exception the building be moved an additional 10 feet toward Highway 7. Mr. W. Thompson seconded. All voted aye. Motion passed. Sketch Plan Review, Replat Request of Lots 1979 and 1960, Carver Beach, Margaret Rossing: e Mr. Waibel explained the applicant was requesting ap- proval of the proposed replat to create continut~y of ownership between Lots 1979 and 1960 that would guarantee access be- tween the easterly and westerly lots, if necessary. Mr. W. Thompson moved to hold a public hearing for the replat request by Margaret Rossing. Mr. Johnson seconded. All voted aye with the exception of Mr. Partridge and Mr. M. Thompson, who voted nay and indicated they would like to discuss the proposal with the applicant prior to a public hearing. Discussion, Oakmont Rezoning: Mr. Dave Sellergren, representative from Larkin, Daly, and Hoffman for the owners of the Oakmont property, reviewed a letter from himself submitted to the Commission only that evening. The owner of the property was Partnership Investments and they had a contract of purchaser's interest on the property. The bulk of the site is still on Contract- for-Deed. Mr. Sellergren said his client had not received notice of the last public hearing. His client, in 1977, sent a letter to the City saying they did want notice of such hearings. He noted one of the owners had begun construct- ing his home on the subject property and thus would have a 4It personal interest in further development of the property. -- 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 e Mr. Sellergren said there was a contractual document between the City and his clients which was signed in 1970 regarding the property. He said the agreement had no prohi- bitions on its assignability and was his feeling, therefore, t~'t the transfer was proper. Mr. Mertz responded the contract was assignable but what rights were connected with that was a totally different matter. Mr. Sellergren proceeded to say the contract signed in 1970 was premised on the provision of sanitary sewer facilities, which to date have not been installed. He further said there was a prohibition in the agreement itself by the City of any construction of multiple d we 1 1 i n g sin the a b s e n ceo f sewer and i t was en cum b,e red up 0 n the City to provide sewer. His clients had indicated to the City they were ready to develop and asked that sewer be provided. He said his clients' position had not changed. In response to Mr. J.Thompson, Mr. Sellergren said there was no actual corresondence between his clients and the City in 1972 when the new zoning ordinance was passed but it indicated in the agreement itself that there was a recognition that there was a new ordinance under consideration and agreement was made by his clients to subject themselves to the provisions of that new ordinance and the provisions to which they agreed at the time was attached as an exhibit to the agreement. Those provisions did not contain the provision for annual review and reversion of zoning. He felt the action requested to be passed by the City Council was pursuant to provisions not attached to the contract. Another point Mr. Sellergren raised was a question regarding land use. He said the contract provided for no more than 91 acres of development out of a total of 186 acres; over 50 percent of the site was dedicated for recreational and public use. The approved number of dwelling units was 2800 which could be applied on a gross density basis of 15 dujac and on a net basis of 30 dujac. He was aware that those figures were not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and did not think plans were to develop at that high of a density; however, the concept of clustering and some increased density on the buildable land was desired. Mr. Sellergren felt the R-IA zoning category did not fit the site and PUD was the correct usage of the site with the concept of clustering around the more sensitive lands. He said that if his clients had to develop the property with single family dwellings, they would be hard-pressed to donate 50 percent of that area for recreational and public use. e Mr. Mertz asked Mr. Sellergren if his clients were willing to waive any objection that they might have to not receiving notice of the previous public hearing and, if so, 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page 5 was he authorized to bind his client on that point; and, if not, it was his recommendation that another public hearing be scheduled by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sellergren said his client was willing to waive that objection because they appreciated the opportunity to come before the Commission that evening and they expect an opportunity to appear before the City Council as well. He further said he did have the authority to bind his client to such a waiving. e Mr. Mertz then gave some background information to the Commission on the site. That information included a map which was not the map cross-referenced in the contract but it was a density sketch prepared for the property and was dated 1969. He explained the key features of the sketch and reviewed the 1970 contract/agreement with the Commission as well as the history of the site. Mr. Mertz felt property owners had entitlement to certain land use categories when action such as the obtainment of a building permit, significant construction, or substantial expenditures for development had been taken on the property. Mr. Mertz noted that two years ago Partnership Invest- ments was before the Planning Commission with a different development plan for the site which requested the establishment of 26 - 30 single family lots that were a minimum of 2~ acres in size with the balance of the property in outlots. He thus felt Partnership Investments abandoned their previous plan for 2800 units. Discussion occurred on the amount of land to be dedicated as parkland. Mr. Mertz recalled the owners of the property could not go beyond the sketch plan stage because of City Council Resolution No. 911721, which dates back to early 1972 and says the Planning Commission was not authorized to process applications beyond the sketch plan unless sewer is imminent. Mr. Sellergren said the activity in 1978 with the proposal for single family lots was irrelevant because nothing had happened with it. Discussion occurred on the process the property owners would have to follow to develop the site and the method of development. e Mr. Johnson moved to reconsider the previous recommen- dation of the Planning Commission to the City Council to down-zone the Oakmont property from P-2, Planned Residential District, to R-IA, Agricultural Residential District. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. All voted nay. Motion failed. e 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Mr. Mertz distributed informational booklets to the Planning Commission on the proposal by frank Bedore and Jerome Carlson for a new tax increment district surrounding liThe Press.'1 He said the proposal would be discussed at the December 10, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion, Tax Increment Overlay District: Mr. Waibel recalled the Planning Commission wished a relay of their responsibilities and the time schedule involved with the downtown redevelopment overlay district plan. Don Ashworth, City Manager, was present to give this information. - Mr. Ashworth said that in the year 1977, the H.R.A. went through the process of looking for ways to carry out re- development in the downtown area and ways to encourage business in that area. The only feasible way determined by the H.R.A. was through tax increment. He said a plan was then prepared with findings that established the district. As far as how this area was to be developed, those findings did not include that information. The plan did adopt land uses and street patterns. Mr. Ashworth continued that the H.R.A. then tried to come up with a plan with their only concern being the downtown area. They came up with names of developers for the ring road or core area for a specific plan which was presented to the City Council in May of last year where it was approved. This was handled as a plan modification that was filed with the State. Therefore, the issues of land use, development methods, street configurations, controls, et~, have not been addressed for outside the ring road area. Mr. Ashworth said there are two options available for the redevelopment area: (1) The H.R.A. leaves the plan in a general format because that area outside the ring road area is in this format or they could go through the same process used within the core area and develop a plan. They would then have to go through a public hearing and submit it to the Planning Commission for their reaction and then to the City Council for a decision; or (2) the Planning Commi- ssion establishes through an overlay zone, rezoning of property, etc., what the area should look like and the H.R.A. reacts to their plan. He said the H.R.A. would like to see the Planning Commission create the plan as in the second option because it fell within their function. Mr. Ashworth indicated that the decision of responsibilities between the Planning Commission and H.R.A. should be determined in a joint meeting between the H.R.A. and Planning Commission. B.R.W. should present a schedule to them and both Commissions should decide upon who should react and who should initiate. e e e e 12-3-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 Brief discussion occurred on issues which the Planning Commission wished to address in the overlay district plan, and on the time schedule they were up against. Approval of November 12, 1980, Minutes: Mr. Partridge moved for approval of the 11-12-80 Planning Commission Minutes. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hamilton. All voted aye. Motion passed. Reappointment of Planning Commission Members: Mr. M. Thompson was up for reappointment and he notified the Planning Commission that he wished to resign his positin. Therefore, there were a total of three (3) positions open on the Planning Commission. Adjournment: Mr. Partridge moved to adjourn the 12-3-80 Planning Commission meeting at 11:40 p.m. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned.