1981 02 11
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
CHANHASSEN PLANNING CDMMISSION
HElD FEBRUARY 11, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Cha:i.rmm A. Partridge, Mr. J. Thanpson, Mr. L. Conrad,
Ms. C. Watson, Mr. H. Noziska, and Mr. M. Thaupson.
Members Absent: Mr. W. Thanpson.
Staff Present: Mr. B. Waibel, Mr. C. Mertz, and Ms. N. Rust.
The Assistant City Attorney, Craig Mertz, swore in Mr. Conrad as the
newly appointed Planning Camnission member.
Chainnan Partridge made note of an upcauing hearing on alternative
land fill sites for Carver County which was to be held on February
18, 1981, at the Courthouse. He said Chanhassen was being considered
and urged all to attend.
Preliminary Plat Amendment Request, Fox Chase Addition, Derrick Land
Company:
e
Mr. Mertz said the request before the Camnission was a request
to amend the preliminary plat which was, in effect, a request to amend
the plan. He recalled the City Council had last considered the subject
developnent on July 21, 1980, and minutes for that meeting had indicated
that final developnent plan approval was granted on a 4-1 vote. In
section 14.06 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 47, there was a provision
which required a new public hearing in this instance before the Camnission
if the developer decided to pursue his request for an amendment to
the fonrerly approved development plan. Mr. Mertz indicated to the
Camnission that their action should be to either grant or decline
the applicant's request for a public hearing on the anended plan.
Mr. Waibel presented his planning report. He noted he had
discussed the request with the City Attorney's office and it was decided
that, although ordinance no. 47 permitted staff to discretionarily
approve minor changes to prel.iminill:Y plats, it would be best for the
Planning Camnission to review the amendment and detennine if a public
hearing would be necessary.
e
Mr. Waibel explained that the proposed amendment essentially
involved the northerly 700 feet of roadway accessing the subject proPerty
wherein the middle 400 feet was proposed to be shifted west to an
area of higher elevations and better soils. This new road alignment
would add an additional two lots thus creating a total of 54 lots
in the developnent. Mr. Waibel noted tWo concerns: (1) is the proposed
change in the road alignment and two additional lots material enough
to warrant further review or an additional public hearing and (2)
does the proposed change canply with acceptable engineering standards.
-
2-11-81 Planning Camnission Minutes
Page 2
Mr. Waibel stated that fran a development standpoint, the
proposed re-alignment of the road should:
(1) Present rrore suitable soil conditions for the construction
on the easterly side of the plat, and
(2) present greater visual variety to the develop:nent through
the curvilinear street section as opposed to the previously proposed
street pattern alignment.
Mr. Waibel said the City Engineer recanrrended the devloPer
soften the curves at Lot 4, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 1, super-elevate
the curve to specifications on Lot 1, Block 1, and construct the grade
at the northerly entrance to provide for better stacking.
Mr. Mertz explained past plans and the nunber of lots requested in
each.
e
Mr. Curt Laughinghouse was present frau Derrick Land Caupany
and said there were two issues to look at: (1) the movement of the
road and (2) the addition of two lots. He said that if outlot area
was different on the proposed, it ~'1Ouldbe noprcblem to change that
to meet that of the fonnerly approved plan. He further said their
design engineer had talked with the City Engineer and they would meet
the su:Jgestions made by the City Enginer in the 2-5-81 Planning Report.
Mr. Laughinghouse noted that, in regard to the issue of an increase
of two lots, they were in confonnance with the R-1 single family dwelling
district zoning restrictions and said the question of suitable density
was only due to the PRD zoning. He said they had reduced frontage
fran 100 feet to 90 feet, which was the cause of the two additional
lots.
Mr. J. Thaupson stated that allOW'ing the applicant to add
two additional lots after final developuent plan approval would create
an undesirable prece:ient, and they may have to allOW' the same for
other developers.
In response to Ms. Watson, Mr. Laughinghouse said the proposed
amendment was the result of further study which showed it would be
best to move the road west frau a development and engineering standpoint.
Mr. Waibel explained studies had been done on the feasibility
of a second access for emergency purposes and said it was determined
that a second access at that time would be of marginal benefit; therefore,
t.he northerly proposed single access was to be constructed with a
36 foot wide roadway to assist in solving the prcblem of emergency access.
e
-
2-11-81 Planning Carrmission Minutes
Page 3
Discussion occurred on the possible future continuation of the
southerly portion of the access road which ended at the west property line.
Mr. Phil Goetz, representative of the neighbors of Pleasant View
Road, was present on their behalf and reviewed the city's PRD approval
process as he understood it. He felt the option was not to decline or
order a public hearing. He reviewed the history of the developuent and
noted it was his understanding that a secondary access and 50 lots had been
approved at the public hearing and the final developnent plan was approved
with 52 lots and no secondary access. He wished to note this discrepancy.
He felt the developer was violating the zoning ordinance and that a new
public hearing should be held due to the above noted discrepancy.
Mr. John Edwards, 6270 Ridge Road, noted his concern about the
steepness of the proposed road.
Ms. Joyce Bennett, Pleasant View Road, stated she agreed a second
access was important but she felt threatened with the proposed road ending
at her property line.
Mrs. Kathleen Schwartz, Pleasant View, felt the developllent was not
consistent with the neighborhood character due to lot size.
e
Mr. Frank Beddor, 910 Pleasant View Road, did not agree with
plaCEment of smaller lot developuents in areas such as Pleasant View
because they were not appropriate.
The President of the Christmas Lake association felt the developuent
should be diligently analyzed because it oordered Hennepin County,which
still had rural characteristics.
In response to Mr. Beddor, Mr. Jim Orr, City Engineer, said no road
feasibility study had been done since the original one at the beginning
of the developnent discussions. No feasibility study had been done for the
existing proposal.
Mr. M. Thompson noted there was a discrepancy in the developllent
plan presented to the Planning Camnission and that presented to the City
Council.
Mr. Bud Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road, expressed concern about the
single access for the developnent.
e
In response to 1>"li. Roger Derrick, the applicant, Mr. Mertz said
that if another public hearing were held, he could not guarantee that any
of his proposals would be approved because it would be the beginning of
a new process. Mr. Derrick said he wished to decline his request for an
amendment to his preliminary plat and his final developuent plan. Mr. Derrick
wished it noted that the reason for fluctuation of lot numbers was a road which
was proposed for the Western side of the property but did not actually occur.
-
2-11-81 Planning Camnission Minutes
Page 4
Ms. Bennett felt the south end of the access should not dead end at
her property but should connect to the City's southern road easement.
Mr. Edwards felt the withdrawal of the applicant should be rejected
and a public hearing should be held to eliminate any discrepancies in
plans presented to~the Planning Comnission and City Council.
Mr. J. Thanpson indicated that the neighborhood could possibly get
together with the applicant to work out a more desirable plan. Mr. Derrick
said he was open to talk with both the neighbors and staff but that, if
possible, he would like to begin construction just after the spring thaw.
Mr. M. Thanpson moved to recorrrnend to the City Council that they
negate their final developnent approval based upon the fact that the plan
viewed by them was not the same plan viewed at the public hearing .
Motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Ms. Watson moved that staff work with Derrick Land Company and
the neighborbood to attEmpt to solve problems of road lay-out, lot numbers,
and secondary access. Mr. Noziska seconded the motion. All voted aye
except for Mr. M. Thanpson who voted nay. M:>tion passed. Mr. Noziska noted
he felt the curvi -linear street was more appealing than the straight street.
e
Review Alignment Alternatives forNew Carver County Road No. 18
Pat Murphy, County Engineer explained the history of the County Road 18
c.orridor. He said they were requesting state aid for t:h~ construction, which
would require City Council approval, of the cities inv61ved,of-tne road
construction plans. He said the county wished input from Chanhassen and Chaska
before they prepared the actual construction plans because some land use
implications were involved both long tenn and short tenn. Mr. Murphy said
the proposed road vrould provide a connection to trunk Highway No. 212 and would
be another east-west road which could divert traffic from Highway No. 5
Mr. Don Wisniewski, assistant County Engineer, reviewed the four
al ternati ve Road Plans the county had prepared. He said the road would have
a rural - like appearance and would be a two-lane highway. It may potentially
beccme a four lane highway. Below are his conments on each of the al ternati ves :
(1) This al ternati ve would connect the two industrial parks in Chaska.
Because of this, the County Road may result in taking on a collector function,
which is not a positive aspect. Also the road would go through peat soils,
and a ravine, which, again, are not posi ti ve aspects.
e
(2) This al ternati ve is similar to al ternati ve (1) and has the same
pros and cons. It can be constructed with the least cost to the county.
e
2-11-81 Planning Conmission Minutes
Page 5
(3) (a) and (3) (b) These alternatives are the same with the
exception that (3) (a) goes through a marsh area and (3) (b) is more on the
edge of the marsh area. They limit any severance of land from Chanhassen.
They use the existing railroad crossing and do not serve to connect the
industrial parks in Chaska, which were posi ti ve aspects.
(4) This al ternati ve has the greatest construction costs because
it involves the longest length. This alignment involves the least amount of
severance of land from Chanhassen, and it does not encounter peat soil. There
may be a slight problem of the way the industrial parks in Chaska could connect
to the road.
In response to Mr. M Thompson, JYT..r. Wisniewski said they had only talked
with the affected property owners in a general aspect to make them aware that
a new county road would at some time be constructed in that area.
Mr. Waibel noted the proposed road corridor was included in the 1968
City Plan.
e
In response to Mr. Conrad, Mr. Murphy stated the short range goals were
to connect the industrial parks, and it would provide an al ternati ve route in
and out of the industrial parks. The mid-range goal was to provide a connection
to Highway 212; and the long range goal is to take traffic from Highway 5
and have an extension to Victoria.
Mr. Jim Orr, City Engineer, said the northern two alternatives (3 & 4)
best served Chanhassen' s needs which related to traffic on Highway 5.
Mr. J. Thompson felt the affected property owners should be shown the
al ternati ves and stated he felt the best road location would be south of the
industrial parks in Chaska. Of the alternatives, however, he felt options
3 and 4 were the most favorable.
Mr. Conrad felt alternative No. 4 was the most favorable because it
met Chanhassens needs best.
Ms. Watson felt alternative No. 4 was the most favorable.
Mr. M. Thanpson felt alternative No. 1 was the most appropriate.
Mr. Noziska felt alternative No. 1 was best from an imnediate standpoint
but No. 4 was best from a long-tenn standpoint.
Chainnan Partridge felt alternatives 3 and 4 were best because he did
not feel the road should go through the industrial parks.
JYT..r. M. Thompson moved to recoImlend the first priority be alternative
No.1. M:>tion failed for lack of a second.
e
Mr. Conrad moved to reconmend to the City Council that first priority
be alternative No. 4 with number 3 as an alternative to NO.4. M:>tion failed due
to the lack of a second.
e
2-11-81 Planning Comnission Minutes
Page 6
Mr. M. Thanpson IrOVed to notify the City Council that the Conmission
had been exposed to the alternative road alignments and that, based on
infonnation seen, had no specific reconmendation. Ms. Watson seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.
Subdivision Request, 7554 Frontier Trail, Sketch Plan Review, David Almich:
Mr. Waibel explained the request and noted it was request to subdivide
a single parcel into two lots at approximately 33,190 square feet and 38,650
square feet. There was access to both sewer and water; However, an easement
would be necessary to provide access to the westerly rrost lot.
Discussion occurred on the reassessments which could occur on the
property follOW'ing an approval of the subdivision.
Ms. Watson moved to hold a public hearing on the subject request
P-746. Mr. J. Thonpson seconded. All voted aye. Motion passed.
Discussion, 1981 Commmity Developnent Block Grant Program:,
e
Ms. Rust reviewed the program guidelines and noted the projects
selected must meet the following criteria: 1-3
l. principally benefit low-and moderate-incane persons;
2. prevent or eliminate slums and blight; or
3. meet a need having a particular urgency .
She noted that through staff discussions the follOW'ing suggestions
evolved:
l. Partial subsidy of land and site improvements for
senior citizen housing.
2. Housing rehabilitation for low-and moderate-incaue households.
3. Partial subsidy of land or site improvements for new home
construction of low-and moderate- incane households.
4. Senior and handicap camnunity center construction as integral
part of downtown redevelopnent plan.
Mr. J Thonpson rroved to accept staff's suggestions as laid out in
their memorandum of February 6, 1981. Motion was seconded by Mr. M Thanpson.
All voted aye. Motion passed.
e
e
2-11-81 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. M. Thorrpson moved to approve the 1-14-81 Planning Comnission
minutes as submitted. Ms. Watson seconded. All voted aye. Motion passed.
Mr. M. Tharrpson moved to noted the January 5, 1981, City Council
minutes. Mr. Noziska seconded. All voted aye. M:>tion carried.
Open Discussion:
Discussion occurred on Ordinance No. 28 and on the actual authority
of the Planning Camnission.
Mr. J. Thorrpson noted that the services of Nancy Rust as secretary
were greatly appreciated during her time with them.
Adjournmant:
J:.1r. M. Thonpson moved to adjourn the 2-11-81 meeting at 11:45.
Mr. Noziska seccnded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
e
e
\