Loading...
1981 07 22 MINUTES OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 22, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M. tit CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman A. Partridge, W. Thompson, L. Conrad, H. Noziska and C. Watson Members Absent: J.Thompson and M. Thompson Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Scott Martin, Bill Monk and Becky Foreman Review of. _PF~p~sed ~endmentfor T~x, .I~crement District #2 :. The Planning Commission indicated that they had no further comments on this item. No one was present from the public. Motion was made by Watson, seconded by W. :Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amended Plan without any specific comments. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Final Review of proposed Recreational Beach Lot.Ordinance and .Water sur'lace hsageOrdinance; . , . . A. Partridge explained to the public that this is not a public hearing. Scott Martin, Community Development Director, gave a review of the revisions of both ordinances. e Walter Coudron, Chairman of Lake Study Committee, the reason for having a boat close when a swimmer 100 feet from shore. It was for safety reasons. the Lake Study Committee had indicated to Martin meeting that they concur with this. W. Thompson indicated that the Committee worked very hard on this ordinance but there are some sections that he is unhappy about. Section 3.02 W. Thompson stated that feels there should be a definate limit on the length of the dock, he would be favorable to 100' dock but would not be favorable to anymore than that. He did not care for Section 6.04, it was written in bad language, it permits chemical toilet facilities 75 feet from the lake. W. Thompson indicated that at another meeting someone used the term "satelite" which has no meaning in our definitions, He perfers to call it a latrine. It was mentioned at the last meeting that one latrine would be an improvement, two would be a better improvement and three is better yet, if that would be the case we could have one for the ladies and one for the men and one in reserve to handle the overflow when the others get full. They might even be painted red, white and blue and star put on them instead of a half-moon, how are you going to keep this use under supervision of the people that own it. explained is more than The rest of prior to the Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 2 e W. Thompson stated that if this is such a good improvement for whoever it was that proposed it, if it is such a good improve- ment on that outlot then any outlot like Riley, Lotus, Minne- washta, Lucy or Ann, we should put one on all of the outlots, but make this a requirement for all the outlots. Conrad asked if there is a section in the ordinance prohibiting a dock that would be too long? Martin indicated that ordinance states "can't be an obstruction of navigational waters" but it would be easier to state a length. Conrad asked if permits would be needed to put in a latrine? Martin stated that any revisions on the outlots that are not there now would need a Conditional Use Permit. Conrad indicated that the City could deny a request for a latrine if it was not up to standards. Conrad asked if Section 3.05 permitted renters to have boats? Martin explained that definition 2.17 included renters. Conrad asked if Section 6 regarding T's on a dock, if this section clearly means a T or would it be possible to have 4 of 5 crosses. Is there any limit? Martin explained that the intent was that a T not extend more than 25 feet but more than one T is not regulated. e A. Partridge stated that these ordinances are intended to control future developments, it is a guide to go by. Martin explained that Ordinance #47 is regarding Outlots and #70 is to regulate all other property. A. Partridge indicated that Commercial Use are not addressed in these ordinances. Arron Babcock, a member of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, stated that 6.04 is discriminatory against outlots. Four feet isn't enough, should be 8 feet or 10 feet. Motion was made by Watson, seconded by Conrad to recommend approval of Ordinance 47 and 70 to the City Council and the Planning Commission suggests to the City Council to hold a Public Hearing to take public comments on these proposed ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion carried. W. Thompson indicated that these ordinances have created more complication in the village than any other item. There is a lot of positive and should be commended. W. Thompson stated that he is in favor of sending the proposed ordinances to the City Council but there are some section that he does not go along with. e Conrad agreed with W. Thompson, he also indicated that the Lake Study Committee did a very good job. Noziska agreed with W. Thompson also. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 3 e prel~minary Development Pl.an ~~Rev~ew,T J?ublicLH~aring,6 431 Galpl.n Road,. K.en waldrip: The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 8:45 p.m. Partridge gave a brief review of the property. Originally it was proposed to have duplexes, townhouses, and 4-plexes. Now the applicant is proposing single family dwellings and duplexes. Waibel presented the Planning Report to the Planning Commission. Partridge indicated that there are no plans to put sewer and water down Lake Lucy Road. Harry Roberts, a neighboring property owner, indicated that the Public Hearing Notices stated that the proposed development would be taking place on Lot 1, Block 1 of Waldrip Addition, that is his lot so he was concerned. But the proposed dev- elopment is taking place on the Outlot of Waldrip Addition. e In the Planning Report it was suggested that Lot 1, Block I have his driveway onto the proposed cul-de-sac instead of where it is located now. Roberts asked why he had to move his drive. Waibel explained that staff is trying not to allow too many accesses onto major roadways. Partridge indicated that the apartment access is a temporary access and that when this property is developed then the access will go into the cul-de-sac. Bill Monk, the City Engineer, explained where the applicant is proposing the sewer to go. Monk indicated that he would like to discuss this with the applicant and see if it could be changed to be more servicable. Lot 9 would need to be filled extensively because it is located in the drainage way. Mark Nesset, the applicants architect, stated that the applicant feels that maybe Lot 9 should not even be used because it is probably not buildable. Mr. Steller, a neighboring property owner wanted to know if they could hook up to the proposed sewer. Possibly, Monk will contact theI Roberts asked if he would be assessed more because of this development. Partridge indicated that he would not. Watson indicated that the lots are a good size. - Nesset stated that the duplex will be the same design as presented before. They will be high quality. e Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 4 Watson suggested regarding duplexes, the lots could be divided with zero lot lines rather than dual ownership. Roberts asked if the developer could come in and build Wausau Homes. Partridge explained that the developer has to have a development contract with the City and that the applicant also has to present a performance bond to the City. The applicant wants to start with the duplexes and with the money from those he will build the road. This development will be a sequencial development. Waibel stated that the applicant could put in the covenants that a Architectural Control Committee review plans that are coming in. This committee would be made up of owners from Waldrip's Addition. The Steller's indicated that they liked this plan better than the first proposed plan. Motion was made by W. Thompson, seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e W. Thompson indicated that he was concerned about Lots 4-9, maybe there should be a frontage road for them so there would not be so many accesses onto Lake Lucy Road. He has no concerns about the duplexes. Conrad indicated that'he likes this plan. He asked about the suggestion regarding the trimming of the hedges. Monk explained that the hedge goes right up to the roadway and that if a road would be put in there would be sight problem. Monk also was concerned about Lots 4-9, he suggested that they remain an Outlot until further review. Nesset indicated that Lots 4-9 would be single family dwellings and they couldn't justify having an extra road for that. Watson indicated that she likes the plan. Noziska stated that this plan is an improvement from the last one. He indicated that 5 or 6 access onto Lake Lucy road was alright with him because of the amount of traffic on that road. He did not like the idea of barns and horses on the property but the layout is good. e Partridge stated that this plan has a substantial improvement in density. The doubles as proposed won't harm the area. Partridge indicated that he has a problem with the Lots along Lake Lucy Road. He asked Nesset if the applicant could make those lots into an outlot? Nesset indicated that maybe the applicant would be open to committing Lots 4-9 as an outlot. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 5 tit Noziska stated that the proposed development would be a good location for earth sheltered and passive solar homes. Noziska made a motion seconded by Watson on Outlot A, Waldrip's Addition plan dated May 27, 1981 and received June 17, 1981, Sheet 2B, be accepted for Pr~liminary Plan approval and that the applicant shall proceed with steps required for Final Development Plan. The staff recommendations of July 17, 1981 by the City Engineer be included with the exception that Section 2 be deleted and the last one being that as an Outlot and the City Planners recommendations of July 20 and 21, 1981, zero line setbacks be negotiated between City Staffand the applicant also negotiations with developer and staff regarding the relocation of the parking lot and the public road front. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Preliminary Plat, Publi~ He~~in~, CarveE~Beach Rro2er1!~s, Inc. The Public Hearing for Carver Beach Properties was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 10:00 p.m. e Mr. Hess, a respresentative for Carver Beach Properties, gave a brief history of the property. He presented maps of different alternatives of developing the property and where the houses would be on the lots, etc. Waibel read a letter that he had received prior to this meeting from John Johnson, 6694 Nez Perce Drive. Hess indicated that the road would be 28 feet wide and that there will be a 50' right-of-way. LeRoy Berg, a neighboring property owner, stated that their water pressure was very low and that the new homes would make it worse. Monk indicated that he would have to look into this, he thought that the water pressure was low because the area is at the end of a pipe. Layton Paine, another property owner from the area, indicated that lots 11 and 12, Block 2 has problems with drainage and wants to know what the developer is going to do with it. Hess explained that they will raise the edges and control the flow, creating ponding to help the drainage. There will also be a controlled overflow to the south. It was asked what the size of the lots will be. that the smallest is 15,000 square feet and up. size is approximately 16,000 square feet. Waibel stated The average e Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 6 e Cheryl Hobbs, an adjoining property owner, expressed her concern for the road access onto #17. She stated that it is a danger- ous place to put the road. Partridge explained that Hess was asked to align the road up with Lake Lucy Road. Trondel indicated that the point where the road is accessing onto County Road #17 is the highest point on the hill. W. Thompson made a motion seconded by Noziska to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. W. Thompson stated that he doesn't feel that a road needs to go to the north. Waibel explained that dedicating a roadway for the future development of adjoining land is a standard planning principle, the adjoining property owner may use the property until such a time as the road would need to be put in. Hess stated that if he dedicated a roadway to the north it would take up one lot. The other lots would have to be made smaller. Monk made some suggestion for this development: e 1. There are extensive street vacations being requested. Monk has no problems with any other except for one. He does not believe that ~ of Western Drive should be vacated at this point simply because it is not being used. 2. The right-of-way in the area of the Hobb's property will have to be worked out with the developer and the Hobbs, or a slight realignment will have to be worked out so that there is no overlapping of right-of-way on private property. 3. A small piece of Lot 11, Block 1 should be dedicated so that if Nez Perce is ever extended to the north than we could have a 900 angle to turn onto Nez Perce. 4. Monk has severe reservations regarding the drainage of Lots 11 and 12, Block 2. There is a lowland situation in that area. The watertable is high. Monk would like to designate this area as an Outlot until this could be looked into further. Noziska indicated his concern regarding Lots 11 and 12, Block 2. Also is concerned the right-of-way to the north, he feels either way just so that it is worked out. He leans towards not having a road to the north. Lot size is better. e Watson is opposed to the roadway to the north, there is no proposal for the property to the north and there are other ways to develope the property without placing a roadway to the north. e . e Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1981 Page 7 Conrad stated that the developer has met with what the Planning Commission has asked for. Still he is concerned with the drainage on Lots 11 and 12, Block 2. Conrad made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Quady Property with the recommend- ations made by the staff with the exception of #2 and mod- ifications to #1, Lot 11 and 12, Block 2 not be developed at this time until the Engineering is resolved. Also deleting #4 of the Engineers Report. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. va~e,guest, Michael Willis, ,6~4l Haze~tine Blvd.: No one from the public or the applicant was present. There were no objections from the Planning Commission. Partridge made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Variance Request by Michael Willis. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Sk~Ch p'lan, ~eview,' 2141 Melody Hill"-,,,Road,~:t:. Ostrum: The applicant was not present. Partridge made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to table this item. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Appr.~val of. Minut:es: Motion by Watson, seconded by Noziska to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 1, 1981 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Watson, seconded by Partridge to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1981 meeting. Watson, Partridge, W. Thompson and Conrad voted in favor, Noziska abstained and the motion was carried. Motion by Watson, seconded by Conrad to approve the Planning Commission minutes of the July 15, 1981 meeting. Watson, Conrad, Partridge voted in favor, Noziska and W. Thompson abstained. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.