Loading...
1981 01 14 APPROVED ON d-:-ll-:::J>:/:: e MINUI'ES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JANUARY 14, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL MEmbers Present: Chai:r:man Pro Tern W. Thompson, J. Thompson, W. Johnson, C. Watson, H. Noziska, A. Partridge, and M. Thompson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: B. Waibel, C. Mertz, and N. Rust. Approval of the Minutes: Mr. J. Thanpson moved to approve the December 17, 1980, Planning Commis- sion minutes as suhnitted. Mr. Partridge seconded the motion. All voted aye. fution passed. Mr. Partridge moved to note the City Council Minutes of 11-12-80, 12-8-80, 12-15-80, and 12-22-80. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. fution passed. e Preliminary Develo:pnent Plan Review, Waldrip Addition, Public Hearing: Mr. Waibel recalled the original public hearing scheduled for November 12, 1980, was invalidated because an incorrect legal description was used on the hearing notice. He then referred to the November 6, 1980, Planning RetX)rt. Therefore, a public hearing was scheduled for . that evening. He responded to a carment made by Mr. Mark Nessett, proJect architect, which was "the impact of double bungalows on the neighborhood would be less than that of single family dwellings due to the number of curb cuts and the relationship of the tree line." Mr. Waibel's restX)nse was that this carment was valid with regard to the curb cuts although the staff reconmendation is that the develo:pnent gains access via an interior street. Mr. Waibel commented that it was possible that, from a visual standpoint, the double bungalow and four-plex structures could render a less cluttered appearance in that they were canbined structures. Mr. Waibel stated the gross density requested by the applicant for the site was 3.7 units per acre, with the originally approved develop- !rent of 87 units having been a gross density of 7.0 units per acre. He noted that covenants and restrictions would be included with the develo:pnent contract and would have to be followed by the developer of the site. These would include architectural renderings and any de- parture from these covenants and restrictions would require a plan amend- rrent review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Waibel added that the applicant should state his intentions on the ownership of the land underlying the double bungalow and four-plex units. - Mr. Waibel recommended that section 6.1 of the covenants and restrictions be dropped which said Lot 2, Block 1, Waldrip's Addition be e 1-14-81 Planning Comnission Minutes Page 2 zoned as an apartment lot for the existing 7-unit apartment lot building. He further reccmnended that no sanctions be given by the City for the existing apartment building other than those that are in place fran its initial approval. Mr. Waibel further recorrmended that section 7 of the proposed covenants and restrictions be deleted and that only a concept land use approval be given with no specific number of units to be built. Mr. Waibel said staff recormnended the Planning Commission approve the preliminary develo:pt1ent plan for Waldrip Addition with the conditions that: 1. The units proposed in Phases I and II receive access via an internal street as depicted in the Plans received by the Planning Conmission in March of last year. 2. That the proposed covenants and restrictions for the subject develop- !rent are acceptable to the City Attorney's office. 3. That the number of units protX)sed in the townhouse phases be subject to future site plan review by the Planning Conmission and City Council. e 4. That the applicant successfully completes final development plan as required by Zoning Ordinance No. 47. 5. That the subject develo:pt1ent be limited to one developer per phase. Mr. Waibel explained the site distances for the area as stated in the November 6, 1980, engineer's report. Mr. Ken Waldrip, the applicant, explained his past proposals for the site and said he wished to develop now because of the sewer and water assessments placed on it. He noted the units constructed would most likely be rental at first but would eventually becane owner-occupied. Mr. Waldrip would not develop the units himself but rather would prepare covenants and restrictions which developers of the units would have to follow. Mr. W. H. Dixon, 1950 Crestview Drive, expressed concern about the develo:pnent of the site and the motive behind the develo:pnent. Mr. Darrell Johnson, 1941 Crestview Drive, expressed concern about the danger of providing egress and driveways unto Galpin Boulevard. Mr . Johnson also asked if the apartment building was included in the density estimates. The Coomission responded that it was. In response to Mr. Harry Roberts, 6441 Galpin Boulevard, Mr. Waldrip said he would probably sell sane lots, Le. four-pI ex lots, to a single developer and would develop the rest of the lots himself. e Discussion occurred on the lot sizes proposed for the develo:pnent. - 1-14-81 Planning Canmission Minutes Page 3 In response to Mr. Roberts, Mr. Waldrip said the assurance the site would be developed with City and neighborhood approval would be contained wi thin the covenants and restrictions which the developer would have to follow. Mr. Waibel said the developnent plans would fm:m the basis of any approvals and any departure from thern would constitute the necessity of a plan amendment review and would require an additional public hearing. Mrs. Ellen Chilvers, 6271 Hurrmingbird Road, expressed concern about the possibility of rental units within the proposed develo:pnent and about the applicant developing only a tX)rtion of the site. Mr. George Steller, 6311 Steller Circle, carmented on the traffic that already existed in the area and on the low-lying area in the east :[X)rtion of the property. Mr. Waldrip displayed tX)ssible architectural renderings for the develo:pnent. Mrs. Jane Partridge, 6280 Hurrmingbird Road, felt the four-pI ex units were out of character with the neighborhood. e In restX)nse to Mr. Roberts, Mr. Waibel said Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road would maintain their current road status. In restX)nse to Mr. Partridge, Mr. Waldrip said the existing apartment building on the site was fo:r:merly approved by the Chanhassen Township and was pe:r:mitted to exist as a non-confo:r:ming use. Mrs. Betty Bragg, 6320 Steller Circle, ccmnented on the density of traffic that already existed on Galpin Boulevard and the increase that would occur if this develo:pnent protX)sal were approved which may necessitate a widening of the raod. Mr. Waibel read a letter dated January 12, 1981, from Mr. John Gallagher, which said the protX)sal was not in keeping with the neighbor- hood and had an inappropriate density. Mr. J. Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Mr. Johnson. All voted aye. Motion passed. Discussion occurred on the availability of sewer and water for the subject property. Mr. Waibel said past studies showed that sewer could be provided through gravity sewer or the construction of a lift station. The Chai:r:man Pro Tern Walter Thompson tX)lled each of the Conmission members for their comments: e e 1-14-81 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 e Mr. Partridge: This was bad zoning to begin with and this has been cantX)unded by the assessments which have placed a burden on Mr. Waldrip. The City Attorney's office has said the levying of eight (8) on- line sewer and water assessments against Mr. Waldrip's property has no relevance at this time for the consideration of the Planned Unit Developrlent (PUD). The alternative is to zone it back to R-1 and get a conditional use pe:r:mit for the apartment building. There was no requirement that there be any multiple residence other than the existing apartment building and no requirernent for any specific number of units other than the eight (8) units resulting fran the assess- rrents. There has been no develo:pnent on the property for ten (10) years. As far as I am concerned, this is a brand new develo:pt1ent. From a practical standtX)int, the building industry is at a low tX)int but that piece will have to eventual 1 y be developed. There is sewer and water available, assessments against the property, and Mr. Waldrip has paid a substantial amount of money toward its developnent. I do not have any strong feeling for or against the idea of multiple housing if it is built as originally protX)sed. If this property is sub-divided into individual lots for double bungalows, quads, and townhouses, we have little control over that. There is an advantage to this kind of design in te:r:ms of the amount of open spaced because the buildings visually are one unit rather than two separate units and there is more grassy areas around the units. There is no density criteria or lot size criteria for planned district zoning. My own personal opinion at this point is that the protX)sed dE!nsity is 20 to 30 percent more than what we have been approving for other develop- ments. No authorization should be given for the townhouse units. Within architectural constraints, I do not want to see quadraminiurns. Mr. Noziska: I concur with Mr. Partridge and what I see Mr. Waldrip proposing is a piecemeal type of development. Mr. Partridge said he would reeormnend that no curb cuts be placed between Steller Circle and the existing private apartment drive. Mr. J. Thompson: I am in favor of Planned Unit Develo:pnents. I did like the architectural renderings shown to us at a past meeting. I do agree that the density is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson: My main concern is the curb cuts on Galpin Boulevard. As far as a PUD multiple housing, we will be living with that for a while. If, in fact, we see this subdivided and then sold for developnent, I would like to see the covenants and restrictions at our level and would like to see them restrictive enough to include the . st,yl'e~ of house consistent with the area. I would further like to see the develo:pnent take place in an orderly fashion rather than in a piece- meal fashion. e e 1-14-81 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Ms. Watson: I originally liked the looks of the plan but Galpin Boulevard at present cannot handle anymore streets coming unto it because of the tX)Or site distances. We have to deal with Galpin Boulevard as it stands not as it will be sane day. I think the interior street may be a better. I do not like the road in the back of the develop- rrent because the area was a wetland area and should be kept as such. I am also in favor of seeing the townhouses receive no approvals. Chai:r:man Pro Tern W. Thompson: The density less the apartment is approaching what we have recanrnended on some of the other subdivision but is still higher. I do not desire to see any cuts unto Galpin Boulevard but think. that if traffic increases and the road becomes unsafe, that road will have to be improvedregax:d1ess:- of whether or not the protX)sed develo:pnent occurs. I think this is a viable stituation if the interior road can be developed for it. I am not really. concerned about whether single family dwellings or doubles occur on the site but I think. a lot of thought has gone into the develo:pnent of the double units and I cannot feel it would dislocate the air of the property to have well-designed double units there. However, I will not be in favor of a develo:pnent that will place more cuts unto Galpin Boulevard. e Mr. Partridge moved to reject the preliminary develo:pnent protX)sal based on density, traffic accesses as currently planned, and the nature and number of units. fution was seconded by Mr. M. Thompson. Discussion occurred on the enforcernent of the develo:pnent covenants and restrictions. Motion was recalled and all voted aye. fution passed. Preliminary Plat Review, 'IWo Residential Lots, 6270 Ridge Road, John Edwards, Public Hearing: Mr. Waibel recalled the Planning Report dated December 15, 1980. He said staff felt that the condition would be appropriate that would require building plans to be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the state of Minnesota in the case that a structure would be proposed to be built on any portion of the property that would have greater than 12 percent slope. This would limit developnent on the property's western one-third. Mr. Waibel further felt that although Ridge Road was presently a private road, it could at some future date become a public street. Therefore, he recommended that the applicant be required to maintain for the principle structure a 55 foot setback from the center line of Ridge Road. e Mr. Wiabel said that based on the Planning RetX)rts of December 15, 1980, and January 8, 1981, he would recorrmend that the Planning Commission e e e 1-14-81 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 recommend that the City Council approve the subdivision and street frontage variance request for the subject property with the following conditions: 1. That building plans for any residence proposed on the subject property on a slope greater than 12 percent be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the state of Minnesota. 2. That a residential setback for the subject property be maintained at a distance of 55 feet from the center line of the Ridge Road easement. 3. That the applicant provide documentation demonstrating the perpetual right of access for the subject property that is found satisfactory to the City Attorney's office. 4. That sewer and water unit assessments be administered on the subject property as per the north service area public improvement project 71"""1. Mr. John Edwards, the applicant, noted he had talked with his neighbors on the proposal and they had indicated no objections. Mr . Edwards further noted he had no objections to the conditions stated by staff. Mr. Edwards said he found from the County. Attorney that there had been no conflict with the easernent granted on Ridge Road since its inception. It was originally conceived on an easement against the property owners in that area on December 11, 1924. He said he had secured the original documentation of the agreement which is a part of his present warranty deed, a subsequent and amended easement to align or re-align the road which was made on November 15, 1931, and of the final road agreement reflected in his warranty deed dated August 28, 1933. He suhnitted those documents and his warranty deed to satisfy condition no. 3 which was to provide docurrEntation demonstrating the perpetual right of access for the subject property. He wished this easement to be extended to the newly platted lot in his subdivision protX)sal. Mr. Partridge moved to close the pbulic hearing. Motion was seconded by Mr. J. Thompson. All voted aye. MJtion passed. Mr. Partridge asked about the confo:r:mity of the proposal with the Shoreland Management Act and Mr. Waibel restX)nded it was in confo:r:mance. Mr. Partridge moved to reeormnend to the City Council approval of the Edwards subdivision proposal as requested and that it be in concurrence with staff reccmnendation and corrments. Motion was seconded by Ms. Watson. All voted aye. Motion passed. . e 1-14-81 Planning Comnission Minutes Page 7 Organizational Items: The Corrmission held nominations for Canmission tX)sitions. Mr . M. Thompson moved to nominate Mr. Partridge as Chai:r:man of the Commis- sion. Mr. Noziska seconded the motion. All voted aye with the excep- tion of Mr. Partridge, who abstained. IVbtion passed. A rrotion was made by Mr. M. Thompson and seconded by Ms. Watson that Mr. W. Thompson be aptX)inted Vice-Chai:r:man of the Planning Ccmnissin. All voted aye. Motion passed. A motion was made by Mr. Noziska and seconded by Mr. W. Thompson that the Planning Ccmnission shall conduct business pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order. All voted aye. Motion passed. ~Jr. W. Thompson requested a book on Roberts Rules of Order by purchased for reference p~ses. fution was made by Ms. Watson and seconded by Mr. Noziska that the regular Planning Camnission meeting nights be the second and fourth W:rlnesdays of each month at 7:30 p.m. for regular business. All voted aye. Motion passed. e Chai:r:man Partridge said he felt in the last year that the agenda had been out of their control and would like to see the Planning Ccmnission take charge of its own agendas. The Corrmission thus asked that tentative agendas be reviewed during the open discussion portion of each meeting. Chai:r:man Partridge asked the minutes review be placed at the end of the Agenda. The Camnission stated they WJuld like to place a curfew of 11 :30 p.m. on meeting lengths and that those items uncovered should be tabled to the next regular meeting. A motion was made by JYI..r. M. Thompson to operate under an agenda system, that all materials for iterns under considera- tion be sul:mitted 21 days prior to the next available regular Planning Ccmnission !reeting, that the Carrmission is allowed to review tentative agendas for their approval and are allowed to approve any special meetings and that they operate under a curfew system with 11 :30 p.m. designated as the curfew time and anything beyond that time to be tabled to the next regular meeting. Motion was seconded by Mr. Johnson. All voted aye. fution passed. A motion was made by Mr. M. Thompson and seconded by Mr. Noziska that Mr. Johnson be aptX)inted to the Chanhassen Sign Carmittee. All voted aye. fution passed. A motion was made by Mr. Noziska and seconded by Mr. M. Thompson that Mr. W. Thompson be aptX)inted the Chanhasen Planning Carmission' s representative to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. All voted aye. fution passed. e A motion was made by Mr. M. Thompson and seconded by Mr. J. Tharpson that Ms. Watson be the alternate to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. All voted aye. fution passed. Ie 1-14-81 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 Discussion occurred on the relationship of the Planning Com- mission with the various comnissions of the City. Mr. J. Thompson moved the Planning Canmission withdraw representation on the Lake Study Com- mittee, Park and Recreation Commission, and Corrmunity Facilities Com- mission and that these carrmissions and the Sign Comni ttee become sub- committees of the Planning Commission with coordination occurring through !reans of minutes. Motion was seconded by Mr. M. Thompson. All voted aye. Motion passed. The Comnission noted the City Council meeting dates of 1981 which were assigned to each Commissioner as well as their te:r:m expiration dates, which was supplied for their info:r:mation. Open Discussion: Mr. Waibel noted that at their last meeting, the City Council had requested the Planning Commission research and establish tX)ssible criteria which could be used in situations relating to violations of ordinance in R-lA districts due to private business operations. The Carmission discussed this request with relation to their present work- load. Ad jourmnent: e Mr. M. Thompson moved to adjourn the 1-14-81 Planning Commission at 11:30 p.m. with motion seconded by Ms. Watson. All voted aye. fution passed. Meeting adjourned. e