Loading...
1981 04 22 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, C. Watson, J. Thompson, W. Thompson, M. Thompson, L. Conrad, H. Noziska. Staff Present: B. Waibel, B. Monk, C. Mertz and B. Foreman e Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request. Establishment of a privin9 Range in an 1-1 Dist, John Pryzmus, Public Hearing: Bob Waibel indicated that this request could either be a Conditional Use Permit or a Temporary Use Permit as stated in Section 23.01 subsection 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested taht if the Planning Commission were thinking of positive action on this request it should be the Temporary Use Permit due to site deficiencies. Even with the Temporary Use Permit they would have to be given significant Variances for the fence height. Mr. Waibel recommended to the Planning Commission to consider the 5 items listed in the Planning Report dated April 17, 1981. However, he noted that his overall re- commendation was denial due to site deficiencies. e John Pryzmus, the applicant, indicated that the Variances recommended by Mr. Waibel as stated at this meeting was the first time he knew of the Variances necessary. Mr. Pryzmus felt that the requests were unrealistic. All the lots in the area are covered by weeds and brush. Mr. Pryzmus indicated that this request would help to clean up the area, and would not create a blighting effect, also the Driving Range would make more jobs for the kids in the community. As for the fencing suggestion, Mr. Pryzmus felt that it was not possible for even the worst slicer to hit a ball onto the road. The balls cost to much and they do not want to loose any more than they have to. Comparing the proposed Driving Range to the Driving Range on Highway 7, the Driving Range on Highway 71s fence is about 220 yards from the tees, the proposed Range1s would be 240 yards from the tees. Most professional gOlfers hit approximately 256 yards not all in flight, most people hit on the average 200 yards. Mr. Pryzmus explained that he has an agreement with the owner of the property that when the owner sells the property that Mr. Pryzmus will have to quit his business. Mr. Pryzmus indicated that off street parking would be unneccessary because no one lives on the road or even uses the road. All parking could be on street parking or in the cul-du-sac. Off street parking would be too expensive for a temporary use. Drive Fore will be a very nice Driving Range, kept up good, fenced e Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1981 in area for children with sandbox, range will have sand trap, 3 sodded areas 181 x 181, and building will be 161 x 81 the proposed by the Staff (161 x 51) would be much to small to work in. It was indicated that the 51 width indicated in the Planning Report was just misread, should be 81. -- Mr. Partridge asked if all the parking would be on the street. Yes, it could be on the land but it would take a lot of money and work for just a Temporary Use. Mr. W, Thompson asked Mr. Waibel what his reasoning was for the 5 recommendations stated in the Planning Report of April 17, 1981. Mr. Waibel explained: 1) off street parking - the zoning ordinance does not allow for any off street parking, staff thought that granular would be acceptable. Mr. Monk stated that he was concerned about setting a precedence regarding off street parking. 2) Fences - variances for a greater height of fence was suggested to prevent any balls hitting the ped- estrians or cars driving by. 3) hours - asked that the hours be only during the daylight for the reason that the applicant had not presented the staff with a lighting plan. 4) ball shed size - size restrictions were suggested to keep the driving ra~ge as a temporary use,and to ~nform the Com~ission 9f the materials belng used. 5) no vendlng machlnes - no vendlng machlnes was recommended for the reason that it would prevent off hour traffic. It would be fine if the applicant wants to sell pop from the building during hours. Mr. Pryzmus expressed that the hours and the vending machine request was reasonable but the fence will be made out of a fine mesh and will not need to be higher. Mr. W. Thompson asked Mr. Pryzmus if he was going to have liability insurance. Mr. Pryzmus indicated yes, that will be taken care of by the owner. It was stated by Mr. Pryzmus that there will be very strict rules for the driving range, no children allowed to run along the tee area, there will be a section for them. Ms. Watson expressed some concern about the request for so much off street parking. Ms. Watson felt that there should be some off street parking but not as much as requested by the staff. - Mr. W. Thompson made a motion that a Temporary Use Permit of 1 year be granted for a Driving Range located on Lots 6, 7 & 8, Block 1 of Frontier Development Park, with the recommendations 1-5 of the staff from the Planning report, April 17, 1981 be dis- regarded. Second was made by Mr. J. Thompson. - Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1981 Ms. Watson made a motion to amend the previous motion to read that the Driving Range shall provide 15 off street parking and some on street parking. Second by Mr. Noziska. Six members aye, J. Thompson opoosed. Final Development Plan Amendment Request, Fox Chase Addition, Derrick: Mr. Waibel presented the Planning Report to the Planning Commission, listing the 5 changes from the previous plans sub- mitted (see Planning Report April 17, 1981). Mr. Waibel also read the Staffs comments on the number of lots, street width, previously installed assessments, road alignment, conservation easement, pUblic improvements, building permits and grading permits~ Mr. Partridge indicated to the Planning Commission that the number of assessments and the public improvements are a function of the City Council and that the Planning Commission should let them act on those items, - Mr. Derrick, the applicant, explained to the Planning Commission that if the road was changed he would have to remove some Maple trees and would have to shave ground rather than to fill, or if the road was moved it would make 2 lots smaller and less desirable. Mr. Derrick has reduced his plans from 54 units to 52 units, Mrs. Kathy Schwartz, a neighboring property owner, stated that the n~tghbors had gotten together and met with Mr. Qerrick and the nelghbors agreed upon 7 pOlnts that they would llke to bring up to the Planning Commission at this time: 1. They would like to see a plat drawing with 52 units and they donlt like such density close to Pleasant View Road. 2, On the first plan Mr. Derrick had proposed 3 lots along Pleasant View Road now he is presenting 4 lots. The neighbors would like to propose that he return to his first proposal of 3 lots along Pleasant View. 3. Regarding the access to Pleasant View Road - neighbors request that Fox Path be moved to the East property line for safety purposes. e 4. It was requested that Mr. Derrick change the width of Fox Path from 36' to 281 to match the width of Pleasant View Road. -- e Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1981 5. Requested that the Planning Commission consider the soil conditions in the subject area. The water is just below the surface in the meadow area. Mrs, Schwartz presented a map showing the high water tables in the past. The neighbors asked that Mr. Monk, the City Engineer, take a closer look at the property, 6. It was brought up the the DNR and the Corp of Engineers have not been notified and that they should be notified. 7, The neighbors also requested that the Outlot area be reinstated. - John Edwards, a neighboring property owner, indicated that in the past he felt that the neighboring property owners request had been ignored. The plan approved 2 years ago had 49 units then 50 units then 52 units. Mr. Edwards stated that the property could be well platted without destroying the area maybe if less density. Mr. Edwards also expressed his concern with Fox Path dead ending into the adjoining property. Mr. Waibel suggested to the Commission that Fox Path could be made to stop 30 - 40' from the property line and put a cul-du-sac on it. Mr. Jim Meyer, neighbor, indicated concern over the soil in the subject property. Mr. Derrick replied that he had looked at the soil and it was possible to make all of the lots buildable and that it was not a complicated process. Mr. Derrick in reply to the neighbors previous list of requests indicated that he had tried to work with the neighbors. Mr, Derrick explained the he had changed the plat from 54 units to 52 units, removed the outlot and changed the road. All the lots are over the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, the reauest that Fox Path be made smaller was agreeable with Derrick. Mr. W. Thompson stated that 2 years ago the feeling of the Planning Commission was that in the future the property should have a second access and also requested a 361 width in order that the road would have a safety zone before entering Pleasant View Road. At that time there was a recommendation tfiat having Fox Path on the east property be looked into. Mr. W. Thompson indicated that from all the response from the crowd that there needs to be more changes and that this item cannot be recommended to the City Council yet. Mr. Jim Orr, from Schoell & Madson, indicated that the second access will end up cutting down some trees and there will be a grade problem. Fox Path will have about 601 platform before entering Pleasant View Road, both views of the road are reasonable. If Fox Path were moved to the east, it would e - Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 create a site problem to the east. Not changing the road to the east is an economic problem. Ms. Watson asked how the platform will look, will the road drop off on both sides? Mr. Orr indicated that the road will drop off some but the looks will be alright. Mr, M. Thompson indicated that Mr. Derrick has proposed a 10.8 grade level on Fox Path with a 3% grade on the platform. Mr. Monk explained that there is a maximum 7% grade level in the ordinance. The 7% is for safety in the winter time. Mr. M. Thompson asked Mr. Waibel if the staff were the only ones who are in favor of the deadend street into the Bennett property. Mr. Waibel indicated that Mr. Derrick had proposed Fox Path that way and that only lately was it ever brought up to end the road 30-401 from the property line and put a cul-du-sac on it. Fox Path was recommended to be 36' wide for the reason that that the road is a long single access road. Mr. M. Thompson asked Mrs. Bennett if anyone had approached her concerning Fox Path ending on her property line. Mrs. Bennett answered no. e e Mr. Frank Kurvers, a property owner, asked about the outlot and the sediment pond, what is going on with this item? Mr, Waibel indicated that the pond is required for run off. Mr. Monk explained that the outlot is not required for drainage but the outlot was to be for the property owners in Fox Chase in order that they could all have use of the lake. The sediment pond is a different thing. Mr. Curt Laughinghouse, a represent- itive for Mr. Derrick, stated that initially the sediment pond was planned to be in the outlot, The outlot was planned for recreational use. Now the proposal is that the pond be placed in the backyard of the lake front lots and the outlot has been disgarded. Mr. Kurvers asked if all of the work on the lake shore was going to damage the soil and if there would be any runoff into the lake. Ms. Watson asked Mr. Derrick if he understood that 201 along the lakeshore was to be designated to the city for a Conservation Easement. Mr. Derrick answered that this was the first he knew that the easement was to be along the lakeshore. Ms. Watson asked why no docks were permitted. Mr, Craig Mertz, the City Attorney, explained that the Conservation Easement first came up when the Park & Recreation Commissi~n considered the sketch plan on March 20, 1979. They recommended the Conservation Easement and through the development process it was required to have a Conservation Easement, That was incorporated into the City Councils approval of the plat in July of 1980, The Conservation Easement that applies, to this community means that you canlt dig on the lake shore or fill on the lakeshore, you canlt cut the vegitation and you canlt construct structures on the lakeshore, if you can't con- e Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1981 ' struct structures that means no docks. Mr. Waibel indicated that on the plans the Conservation Easement is shown to start between Lots 12 and 13 and then along the lakeshore. The Utility Easement and the Conservation Easement are in the same place. Mr, Derrick indicated that he is against the Conservation Easement if it prevents the lakeshore home owners from having docks. Mr. Derrick explained to the Planning Commission that if the road (Fox Path) would be moved to the east property line it would create a lot with 2 road sides and that would make the lot undesirable. There are nice trees that would have to be taken down and it would mean an extra 100 feet of sewer and road. Ms. Nancy Osborne, a property owner, expressed concern over Fox Path. She feels that in the winter there will not be enough of a run to make it up Pleasant View Road. Mr. W. Thompson made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Second by Mr, L. Conrad. Vote: 6-ayes, l-nay. Mr. M. Thompson opposed. - Mr. Mertz explained that the Planning Items that the Planning Commission should discuss and recommend to the City Council are the street width, 2nd access, road alignment, number of lots and the Conservation Easement. The rest are Administration items such as building permits, previously installed assessments! grading and public improvements. Mr. J Thompson expressed concern of all the filling and moving of land east of Fox Path that is proposed to be up to 121 in height. The Planning Commission has been told that this process is the problem of the builder but Mr. J. Thompson states that as the Planning Commission they have a responsibility to the people who are going to buy the property, and this should be looked into more carefully. Mr. J. Thompson indicated that he likes a combination of the last two proposals, maybe could take out lot 26 of Exhibit A and make that for future consideration for an easement to the south, Mr. J. Thompson suggested that the road be curved more gently and the 321 width of the road was expressed. The Conservation Easement is necessary. e e Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 Mr. Ladd Conrad indicated that he would like to see Lots 1 & 2 of Section 2 taken out and make the road access further to the east. He likes the idea of an outlot to the south of the proposed property until a road access is necessary. Mr. Conrad felt that the cul-du-sac is important and the a 28' or 32' street width is acceptable. He would like to see 52 lots instead of the 54 presented on the first plan, Mr. H. Noziska stated that he is concerned about the land is it buildable? Also, he felt that there are to many units than there should be compared to the terrain of the land. He feels that 36' street width is reasonable because there wonlt be a secondary access for some ti~e. Mr. Noziska likes the idea of the Conservation Easement and feels that the number of lots shouldnlt be more than 52 units. e Ms, Watson indicated that she would like to see a secondary access maybe in the south, could be used as an outlot until needed as an access~ and felt that a 28' or 321 street width was acceptable. Ms. Watson felt that the road should be moved over to the east not only for the reason that the street would have better sight but the grade is better to the east. Ms. Watson is very much in favor or the Conservation Easement and would like to see the outlot back again. Ms. Watson expressed concern for the movement of all the dirt in the area, who will protect the lake and what will prevent the lakeshore owners from dumping their fertilizer into the lake as erosion occurs. Mr. Mike Thompson indicated that he would like to preserve the meadow and feels that there are better ways of planning this plat. Mr. M. Thompson stated that the environmental impact of this area is fairly good. This proposal is not in keeping with the particular area. Mr. M. Thompson expressed his concern for all the moving of dirt, demucking and filling and is concerned for the effect on the lake. He would like to see the access moved to the east the hill is to steep and the sight is poor. Mr. M. Thompson did not like the 361 street width, too wide, and the grade standards are violated by having too steep of a road. He also indicated that he did not like the idea' of Lot 3, Block 2 access onto Pleasant View Road, He expressed his mixed feelings about the Conservation Easement, if a lakeshore owner should be able to have a dock or not. Mr. M. Thompson indicated that he does not like the 52 Units would rather see 35 but 52 have been approved. Mr. M. Thompson asked how a lot is made buildable, would they have to demuck the whole lot or just the building site? Mr. Derrick stated that the whole lot would be buildable, fill it with proper soil. The muck is taken out and replaced with good soil~ then compacted and then filled again if needed. Have to raise the lots because of the water table and to keep the grades down. Mr. Jim Meyer asked if any building permits could be issued before the Final Plat approval? Mr. Mertz indicated e e Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1991 that one building permit could be issued as one large lot but no more than that. e Mr. J. Thompson stated that with 52 lots and looking at the lay of the land in keeping with the rural area in this part of Chanhassen Mr. Derrick could develope this land very attractively without all the grading by utilizing the combination or clustering and single family homes. He feels that the property would be more desirable and energy efficient and would be a real plus for Chanhassen. Mr. Conrad asked if Mr, Derrick was beyond the point of changing his plans. Mr. Derrick stated that he has been working on this plat for a long time and that any other city that he has worked in has not had to make this many changes. When Mr. Derrick bought the land he looked at it before and had investigated what could be done with the property. The city has accessed the property as 69 units. Mr, Art Partridge indicated that he feel that the removal of the outlot and making it into lots is quite an improvement. He is for the Conservation Easement and feels that a southerly access is important. Mr. W. Thompson indicated that the Planning Commission should get a consensus on the item presented, Mr. J, Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City Council that Fox Chase access onto Pleasant View Road be moved to the easterly property line. Second by Ms. Watson. 6 ayes, Mr. Noziska nay. Passed. Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the Planning Commission accept the proposal to make a curb cut onto Pleasant View Road from Lot 3, Block 2 as shown on Exhibit A. Second by W Thompson. Mr. Noziska, Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. L. Conrad - aye, Ms. Watson, Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. Partridge - nay. Failed. Mr. L. Conrad made a motion to decrease the proposed road width from 361 to 321. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 - ayes, Mr. Noziska and Mr, J. Thompson - nay. Passed. Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the street alienment of Exhibit A SUbject to the first motion about moving the curb cut east and no accesses from any lots directly on Pleasant View Road. Second by Ms. Watson. 5 ayes, Mr. Conrad - nay, Mr, J. Thompson sustained. Passed. e e Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 Ms, Watson made a motion that the Planning Commission request that the developer dedicate a right of way 50' in width between Lots 26 & 27, Block 1 for possible future 2nd access. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 aye, Mr. Noziska, Mr. Partridge, Mr. W. Thompson - nay. Passed. Mr. Conrad made a motion that we maintain the Conservation Easement, this Conservation Easement will not allow the alter- ation of lakeshore and installation of structures including private docks. Second by Mr. Noziska. 6 - ayes, Mr. M, Thompson nay. Passed. Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the developer be reqUired to dedicate a trail easement originating 0.n the southerly line of the plat within the Utility easement commensing at the southerly edge of the property and lying northerly to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1 according to Exhibit A and running westerly at that point to its point of intersection of Fox Path as designated in Exhibit A fuence continuing northerly with the right of way of Fox Path to intersection of Pleasant View Road. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Outlot may be incorporated into the individual properties as shown in Exhibit A since they have virtually no utility as an Outlot. Second by Mr. Noziska. All in favor. e Mr. W. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Exhibit A. (4-22-81) be accepted but the Planning Commissions recommendations for such be subject to the modification previously approved. Motion was withdrawn. e Mr. Conrad made a motion that a permanent cul-du-sac be recommended on the west end of Fox Path. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 aye - Mr. W. Thompson and Mr. Noziska opposed. Passed, Mr. W. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission present to the City Council approval of Exhibit A to include the recommendations to the SUbject property as previously approved. Second by Mr. Noziska, Mr. W, Thompson and Mr. Noziska - aye, 5 - nay. Failed. Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to reject the proposed planned development (Exhibit A) based on the previous 9 motions until they are met. Mr. Conrad seconded the motion. 6 in favor Mr. W. Thompson abstained. Passed. tit Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 Near Mountain, Final Plat: Mr. Waibel read the Planning Report to the Planning Comm- ission, Mr. Waibel recommended approval of the Final Plans provided that the City Engineer approves of the Plan. Mr. M. Thompson asked about the access onto Pleasant View Road. It was indicated that at one time there was a problem with the access but has been cleared up now. The road has been made so that traffic can only turn to go to 101 to keep traffic off the major portion of Pleasant View Road. Mr. W. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Final Development Plan (Exhibit A, 4-22-81) of Near Mountain with the exceptions of City Planner and the City Engineer in the Planning Report dated 4-21-81. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompson opposed, Mr. M. Thompson stated that he has never been in favor of this project. e Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Beach Lot Dock~eguest: Mr. Waibel submitted the planning report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mertz explained that there is an outstaning conditional use permit on this property stating that there be no docks be permitted. The conditional Use that is on this property was passed by the City Council July 1979 and no docks were permitted then. Mr. Terry Thompson, one of the applicants, stated that they just wanted to get a dock because the outlot is really small. e Mr, J. Thompson stated that with the Conditional Use Permit that is on the land already the applicants chances are very nill that they would get their request. Mr. Partridge indicated that the request is for a 501 x 201 dock with 8 slots. there are 36 lots in the Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition and 6 are duplex lots. POlicy for Ritters Plat is guide used for this Plat. Ms. Watson indicated that if they were permitted the dock they couldnlt keep their boats there over night because that is another condition that there be no overnight docking of boats. " '~'" e Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 Mr. Conrad indicated that the feelings of the Planning Commission were negative but if the applicants still want to apply for a public hearing they can, but the Planning Commission feel they should go by, Mr. Mertz indicated that the outlot is to be used for swimming and picnicing. Mr. Noziska made a motion to schedule a public hearing for a dock in Minnewashta Heights 2nd Addition. Second by Ms. Watson. All in favor. Meeting was ajourned at 12:40 a.m. e -