Loading...
1981 06 10 e e e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 10, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL ~d\f. /93/ APPROVED ON JJ-~ 11 Members Present: Chairman A. Partridge, C. Watson, W. Thompson, H. Noziska, and L. Conrad. Members Absent: M. Thompson, J. Thompson Staff Present: B. Waibel, C. Mertz, M. Koegler and B. Foreman Rezoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review Request, Park Two Public Hearing: Bob Waibel, City Planner, submitted his report to the Planning Commission. Waibel indicated that there is sewer available for this property and that the Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property to be zoned Industrial. Waibel explained that part of the subject property is in the flood plain and the staff is waiting to hear comments from the DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Parts of .the building will be earth sheltered. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan yet. Waibel recommended to the Planning Commission to continue this Public Hearing until all the applicants information has been submitted. Steve Krenz, a representative for Park Two, indicated that he had received a letter from the Watershed District stating that the Watershed District is requesting a 100 foot easement, a 50 foot easement had been proposed but the increase is being considered. Krenz indicated that Block 1 has an unusual contour, 21 foot difference from one side of Block to other, which creates a drainage problem. Also applicant is requesting 2 accesses onto #17. One on the N~ and one on the S~, applicant is asking for consideration. Krenz stated that as for emissions there is none for Instant Web, they use a non heat set and no dryer for the ink so there is no emissions. Waibel indicated that staff feels no access should be granted on #17, #17 will be a main road when Hwy 212 gets built. The City Engineer agrees. Applicant is requesting to have such things as service stations, garden store, restaraunts in this Industrial Park. Waibel indicated that some of the businesses from the downtown area still need places to relocate. Some have requested to be located in this Park. Krenz requests that Park Two be zoned to include all the requests. Waibel indicated that the ordinance doesn't allow for that flex- ability. May have to zone lot by lot but doesn't like spot -zoning. Waibel would feel more comfortable zoning by district. e Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1981 Page 2 Craig Mertz, Assistant City Attorney, explained that they can't introduce into the zoning district anything that is not in the ordinance unless they change the ordinance. Art Partridge asked if the subject property could be zoned P-4 instead of P-3. Waibel indicated that P-4 would be more restrictive. Can't grant use variances, the ordinance would have to be changed. Mertz indicated that it would be possible to have some lots P-3 and C-3. Jules Smith, a representative for Park One, indicated that zoning by district is a good idea but not for this project, to zone this area as P-3 and then later rezone again is a lot of extra unnecessary work. Krenz indicated that there is a time factor here. Instant Web has to be out of there building by a certain time and into their new building for the Downtown redevelopment project. The same goes for the others who want to buy some of the lots because they are also moving because of the redevelopment project. Krenz indicated that they may possibly move the proposed road to the west and make the front lots wider because of the flood ~ plain. Waibel stated that if Lot 2 of Block 3 wants a restaraunt then all of block 3 could be zoned P-3. Smith stated that would limit them because service stations are not allowed in a P-3 area. Darrell Fortier, the architect for Instant Web, indicated that it is important for Lot 3, Block 2to have 2 accessess. Its desirable to have a convienant access for a restaraunt. If a restaraunt would be built on this lot the access wouldn't be noticable from the passing traffic because of the 20' slope. Motion made by W. Thompson and seconded by C. Watson to continue this public hearing to the 24th of June. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Fortier explained that Instant Web is building a 200,000 square foot building and would be able to share an access with Lot 2. They will have 300 employees and the offices are disconnected from the main building. They plan to burm considerably and plan to drain water to the rear with a small holding pond in the front. The lighting will be down and won't glare on other e Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1981 Page 3 e uses in the area. The outside of the building will be made from aluminum material and will be white in color. The roof will be flat. Conrad asked what the building will look like from the road since it is so low will the people passing by on the road only be able to see the roof? Bob indicated that the site will be well screened and that the use on Lot 2 will also help in screening this use. Frank Beddor, the applicant, indicated that the materials being used on the roof are much more expensive than what they could have used but what they are using will look nicer. Beddor is interested in setting off his building, concerned with the looks. Replat Requests, Lots 15, 16, 17, 27, 28 and 29, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition: A motion was made by Conrad seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e Motion was made by H. Noziska and seconded by W. Thompson to recommend to the City Council to approve the subject request with the condition that the applicant submit the appropriate hardshell and mylar documents necessary for recording and that the property in question be assessed additional trunk sewer and water units as per the north service area public improvement project. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Trunk Highway 101 Realignment Concept Study Review: The 5 alternatives for realignment of Highway 101 were presented to the Planning Commission. Mark Koegler from Schoell and Madson stated that the City Council wants to know which alternative the Planning Commission prefers. Watson indicated that she like alternate #2 but #5 is more workable. Conrad agrees. Noziska like #1 because of the straightness. Partridge like #2 if cost is no object but if cost is the object then #6. W. Thompson indicated that he like a combination of #2 and #5. A vote was taken by the Planning Commission to see which alter- natives were best liked. #1-0, #2-3 (Watson, Partridge, Conrad), 4It #3-0, #4-0, #5-2 (W. Thompson and H. Noziska). e e - Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1981 Page 4 Planning Commission feels that alternate #2 is the best but if cost is a factor then alternate #5, but both alternative need some changing. Approval of Minutes A motion made by Watson and Seconded by W. Thompson to note the City Council minutes of April 6, 13, 20 and May 4, 11, and 18, 1981. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Commissioner Presentation Howard Noziska, Principles of Passive Solar Construction: Noziska gave a slide presentation on Passive Solar Construction. Adjourment A motion was made by Noziska and seconded by Watson to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion was carried.