Loading...
1981 09 23 - e - MINUTES OF THE REGUIAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING CCMMISSICN MEETING HElD SEPTEMBER 23, 1981 AT 7: 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COONCIL CHAMBERS A" '"1r".j [\ ~ f"'I1' OVtD ON /0... ~ Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, C. Watson, H. Noziska, W. Thompson, J. Thompson and M. Thompson. Members Absent: Ladd Conrad Staff Present: B. Waibel and B. Foreman Public Hearing, Russ Stoddart, 1 Single Family Lot Subdivision, 1611 West 63rd Street: Present: Russ Stoddart, 1611 West 63rd, Excelsior Kathryn Stoddart, 1611 West 63rd St., Excelsior Jim Von Lorenz, 6391 Yosemite Avenue, Excelsior Chairman Partridge called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Jim Von Lorenz, 6391 Yosemite Avenue, lives across the street from Stoddart. Von Lorenz wanted to go on record that he is in opposition to Mr. Stoddarts request. The drainage water from the Stoddart property runs through his land along with sand, debris, rocks, etc. and then into Clayson Pond in front of Von Lorenz' home. Clayson Pond used to be the most polluted lake in Carver County until some of the neighbors got together and worked to clean up the situation. The pond is finally clearing up, if another home would be placed on the Stoddart property there would be less land space for the water to drain into the ground. Von Lorenz indicated that he has talked to the City regarding the problem but they have stated that there is nothing that they can do about it. If another home is built this problem with drainage will increase because of the extra runoff from the extra roof and driveway. M. Thompson asked Von Lorenz how large his lot is? Von Lorenz indicated that he owns 2 acres. Von Lorenz explained about the culvert that has collapsed twice because so much water runs through it. Anymore water through this culvert and it will collapse again. The City has been out to fix it but is still a problem. Von Lorenz stated that Clayson Pond runs into Christmas Lake. Von Lorenz almost was sued because of all the pollution from Clayson Pond going into Christmas Lake. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 2 Von Lorenz explained that there is so much water running ~_across ~ his property that it runs across a 25' area. Partridge indicated that Mr. Stoddart is before the planning Commission because the City has placed 3 assessments on his pro- perty and he cannot afford them. He would like to split his property to be released from some of his assessments. Von Lorenz suggested that the City remove the assessments from Stoddart and let him keep his pasture. The section that Stoddart wants to be split off could be used as a runoff area and nota buildable lot. Stoddart stated that he agrees with Von Lorenz, Stoddart doesn't really want to sell off part of his land but doesn't know what else to do. He likes his property the way that it is but can't afford 3 assessments. Waibel, City Planner, suggested that the Planning Commission request that the City Engineer take a look at this property and report on his suggestions; Partridge stated that the age way and that in order to be filled quite a bit. lot. corner of Stoddarts is a natural drain- to build on that section it would have He questioned the buildability of the e Watson asked Stoddart'if he contemplates anymore splits in his property? Stoddart indicated that he is not. W. Thompson made a motion to close the Public Hearing. SecQndu was made by J. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. W. Thompson stated that removing assessments are not within the Planning Commissions jurisdictIon. H. Noziska stated that the Planning Commission should not just ignore the problem with drainage.' The City Engineer should review this property. W. Thompson indicated that both Stoddart and Von Lorenz have complained to the City. The City should assume responsibility. Partridge suggested that the proposed 30,000 square foot lot be divided into 2 15,000 square foot lots to take 2 of the assess- ments off from Stoddart property. The could be sold jointly. ~ Watson indicated that this is not an unreasonable request but the drainage shouldn't be ignored. Watson made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the subdivision request on Yosemite Lane as per sketch plan #2 for 2 15,000 square foot lots rather than one 30,000 square foot lot. Partridge, Watson, Noziska and W. Thompson voted in favor and J. Thompson and M. Thompson voted against. The motion was carried. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 3 e J. Thompson and M. Thompson both indicated that they voted against this motion because they do not approve of the 15,000 square foot lot size in this area. Noziska made a motion seconded by Watson that the City Engineer should review the drainage condition in this area. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Public Hearing,Lloyd LeirdCihl, Replat Of Lots 34, 35, ,and 36 of Shore Acres Addition: Present: Mike Leirdahl Waibel gave a brief review of the request. The applicants are requesting variances for Shoreland Management Setback, street frontage and for a replat. This area was developed in 1930, there was a home on Lot 36 but was condemned last year. This request will not be a fire hazard because of the side yard variances because the lot west of Lot 36 is an open beachlot and the home built on Lot 34 and 35 is quite a ways from the proposed home on Lot 36. Mike Leirdahl, the applicant, indicated that they are proposing to take 12' from Lot 35 to make Lot 36 8,075 square feet. Can't move the lot line over too much further or it will make Lots 34 and 35 undesirable. e Waibel read a letter from Kent Lokkesmo~ DNR, dated September 17, 1981. Waibel indicated that the Planning Commission has approved requests like this one in the past. M. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. waibel indicated that these lots are the same size as other lots in the area. This area was platted before sewer and water was in. Waibel stated that Lots 34 and 35 together is 28,000 square feet, with 50' of road frontage. Watson indicated that this is a chance to try to undo past mis- takes, by trying to make Lot 36 larger. The Board of Adjustments hoped that the applicant could move the lot line over far enough so that there was no more than a driveway for Lots 34 and 35. M. Leirdahl indicated that they could go as far as to add 22 feet and that would eliminate the 2 sideyard variances. That would make the Lot 9,000 square feet, they would also be within 3' of the street frontage requirement. This would take a lot out of Lots 34 and 35 but if they have to they will. e e e ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 23, ,1981 Page 4 W. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City Council app- roval of the applicants request with the Easterly lot line of Lot 36 be extended east 22 feet to make Lot 36 approximately 9,000 square feet. The applicant will need a written document stating that the owner of Lot 35 agrees with this request. Second was made by J. Thompson. Watson, Partridge, Noziska, J. Thompson and W. Thompson voted in favor and M. Thompson voted against. The motion carried. M. Thompson indicated that he doesn't like that small of a lot anywhere. W. Thompson indicated that the lot is compatable with the area. Noziska made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to approve the variances as requested with the replat of the east 22' of Lot 36. Partridge, Watson, W. Thompson, Noziska and J. ~hompson voted in favor, M. Thompson voted nay. Motion carried. Public Hearing, Curt Ostrum, 6 Single,Fatrtily Lot Subdivision 2141 Melody Hill Road: Present: Terry Atherton, 2082 West 65th Street Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street Bill Ashenbach, 2041 West 65th Street Bob Peterson, 2040 West 65h Street Curtis Ostrum, 6480 Murray Hill Road Kathie Ostrum, 6480 Murray Hill Road Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street, owns property at the end of the cul-du-sac. He assumed when hepurcbaSedhis property that the land next to him was undevelopable. Ostrum plans to extend the road from the north and the Planning Commission wants him to connect the roads. Kelly explained that if that happened he wouldn't be living on a nice, quite street anymore but a street that would be used not only by the people who live there but many more. Waibel explained that the reason for this request to connect the roads is so that the area has a second access in case of an emergency. The ordinance states that the only reason why the roads shouldn't be connected would be because of bad soils or topo and there isn't bad soils. Bob Peterson, 2040 West 65th Street, indicated that the road area in front of their home is full of springs, Cha'nhassen hasn't kept it up very well. Peterson stated that he doesn't want the road connected because there will be more traffic. Ostrum indicated that the road would have to be 26' wide to save the trees on both sides. Partridge indicated that a normal street width is 28'. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1981 Page 5 ~ W. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Waibel indicated that Ostrum will have to get a written agree- ment from the property owner to the north of his property if the road is going to go through their property. W. Thompson indicated that he didn't see any problem with the cul-de-sac as proposed. The safty situation will have to be over- ruled. This is a desirable layout. M. Thompson stated that he can't see any reason for a through street. These are very desirable lot sizes. Noziska indicated that he sees no problem, this is a nice devel- opment, no reason to extend 65th Street. Watson stated that she likes this request~ no reason to jOin the streets. e J. Thompson made a motion seconded by Noziska to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat as shown in the exhibit drawn by Ron Krueger and Associates, Registered Land Sur- veyors, dated September 1, 1980 and to grant a variance to the 500' long cul-de-sac provision of Ordinance 33. Also the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the recommendations from the staff as follows: 1. The applicant receive a land alteration permit from the Minn- ehaha Creek Watershed District; 2. That the applicant enter into a Development Contract with the City that will assure the standards and completion of improve- ments for the subject plat; 3. That the applicant design the access to the north in a manner that will preserve as much of the existing vegitation as possible. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Public Hearing, Americinn Motel, Conditional Use Permit, ,to est- ablish a29 unit motel in the Gentral Bus[ness Distr'ict: Present: Lawrence Zamor, Excelsior Jim Graves, Intra Financial Corp, St. Cloud, MN Jim Graves, representative for Americinn, explained that they want to build one building first with 29 units in it and next year build the other phase. e Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 6 e Jim Graves explained why they could not use a central air cond- tioning unit. It would be too expensive and not as efficient, there would be sound and smoke problems because they would follow along the ducts into other rooms. No other motels or hotels anywhere use central air. W. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to cloSe the pUblic Hearing. All voted in favor and the motio.n was carried. W. Thompson stated that he noticed the parking was quite a ways from the building, he asked if Mr. Graves would explain why this was. Graves stated that that was done for security reasons, all the cars would be parked in one place under a lighted area. The other reason is there won't be cars driving close to where someone is trying to sleep. Graves indicated that their rates will be approximately $30-34 per night. They also have provisions for the handicapped. Partridge stated that he could see no problem with the wall mounted air conditioning. Zamor has submitted a sign permit already. Has to meet with the Sign Committee to get their approval yet. e W. Thompson asked when they would like to start building. Graves indicated that they would like to start the day after the City Council approval if possible. Watson made a motion seconded by Noziska to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested for a 29 unit motel on Lot 3, Block 1, Zamor Addition, with the Staff recommendations of September 18, 1981 as follows: 1. Develop parking and maneuvering areas, with the exception of the easterly parking lot boundary, be lined with concrete curb. Since there is proposed future parking east of the first phase parking area, this curb section may be bituminous. 2. That all exterior lighting fixtures be shielded high pressure sodium amber. e 3. That the applicant receive a land alteration permit from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. 4. That all trash storage be screened with a 100% opaque material consistant with the materials to be utilized in the exterior of the principal structure. 5. That the applicant receive signed permit approval from the sign permit committee and the City Council. 6. That the landscape design be approved by the City Forester. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e e - Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 7 Public ,Hearing, Jockey Club" Inc., Galpin, Read, One Single Family Lot Subdivision: Present: William Dickel, Minneapolis Chairman Partridge opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Partridge indicated that the Planning Commission has received a letter from the Assistant City Attorney. The Assistant City Attorney stated negative feeling regarding this request. Dickel, the applicants attorney, indicated that he is before the Planning Commission to encourage them to support this proposal even in face of the negative recommendation by the Ass't City Attorney and to' put on record a reasoned rational for making such a decision and making it in a proper ang legal decision making process. Dickel explained that he feels the negative recommendations from Mertz are based on the Dypwick case. Mr. Dypwick was able to file a division and then he sought to build a house and his application for the building was denied. Now he is sueing the City. His arguements are that the decision was done in an arbritrary manner. Mr. Dickel explained that an affirmative decision fer their case would be favorable for the Planning Commission in the Dypwick case. The reason for this, is that the Planning Comnission is to make decisiorg with the following in mind: 1) the ordinance 2) application fer variance, is it in conflict with that purpose? If in conflict, is there an even greater purpose behind the variance to justify giving a variance; and, 3) if there is nO' conflict or a greater reason they decide that the purpose of the ordinance has not been violated or has been superceded. The ordinance pertaining to no dividing in an unsewered area concern as the purpose and the Dypwick application, the Planning Commission saw a new building going up in violation of your purpose of contain- ing or restricting the growth ef uncontrolled sewage, and you decided that this was in conflict with your purpose and denied the application. The same process applies to this application. You look at the ordinancepurpese of sewage, you loek at our situation, we are asking for a variance only to allow us to file the documents so that Midwest Federal may have their mortgage interest properly ef notice. We are not asking to allow us a build anything or to do anything that would increase the uncontrolled sewage situation. The building involved here has already been completed the permit was issued because it was replacing an older unit. There is a brand new building there, very expensive that must have a far better septic system than what was in the old building. So when we look at the purpose of the ordinance and the purpose of our application, they are not in cenflict. The purpese of the ordinance has been satisfied. Therefore, there is no real reason why the variance should not be granted. e ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 8 Mr. Mertz has said that he feels that such an allowance would hurt the litigation. I think actually that this might help. Dickel indicated that the Planning Commission has a very rational decision making process and that they do not make ~ arbitrary decisions. The Planning Commission had a very just and sound reason in deciding the way that they did on the Dypwick application. Granting our case would not be making an arbitrary decision, you would simply be looking to the purposes of the ordinance, find that this is not in conflict and you; therefore, grant our variance. There is a concern about the 10 acre parcel being landlocked. The 10 acres is not abutted on Galpin Lake Road and your ordinance calls for such abuttment. There are easements giving access from both the fee owner and the contract owner to the owner of the 10 acres even though they are the same, they have different corporate names so there are easements. The purpose of the ordinance against landlocking is to prevent a piece of land not having access, the easements are there. This would not be in violation of the ordinance. There will be no change in the way it is today. There will be no growth, no increase in uncontrolled sewage. Watson asked Dickel if the request would not be granted would the applicant go for the 20 acre subdivision? If the applicant would go with the 20 acres, they would have to redraft all of their documents and get all of the parties of interest to sign. That would then take it out of the hands of the City Council and it would be under the State statutes. Because of the cost and the difficulty, unless Midwest Federal insists, his clients will not do this. A motion was made by W. Thompson seconded by J. Thompson to concur with the Assistant City Attorney's opinion (letter dated 9/1/81 to Mr. Dickel) and not grant this request for a 10 acre conveyance. Watson, Partridge, J. Thompson, W. Thompson voted in favor and M. Thompson, H. Noziska abstained. The motion carried. Noziska indicated that the struoture is there and the sewer system is in already, this is just a technicality. J. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission has to be consistant with Ordinance 45. Public Hearing, Park II, . Request to amend P-3 Distric_t Pro- visions of Zoning Ordinance 47: Present: Frank Beddor ~ Chairman Partridge called the public hearing to order at 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 9 e Waibel explained that the City Council has referred this item back to the Planning Commission with questions regarding Land Use, C-2 zoning in particular. Staff recommended that the app- licant make an application to file for an amendment to the P-3 District permitted uses. The permitted uses requested are listed on the application from Jerome Carlson received September 18, 1981 for a rezoning petition. Every one of the uses requested are in the proposed zoning ordinance. The staff indicated that they would like to restrict #21 which is off-sale liquor stores, to those that would be like a bar/lounge, an overall operation rather than a free standing off-sale. Partridge stated that basically the Planning Commission is being asked to amend the original ordinance upon what they might put in the new ordinance. Which has not been approved yet. Waibel explained that the C-2 Commercial Zoning for certain lots in Park Two was not acceptable to the City Council. Watson stated that they are being asked to anticipate what were going to do on an ordinance that does not exist. Watson indicated that she was disappointed with the situation. She feels that the way that the Planning Commission handled this item was in keeping with what exists now. The existing ordinance exists today, the proposed ordinance does not exist today. ~ Frank Beddor, the applicant, indicated that he has done all that the Planning Commission has requested to get this thing done with. He has a time limit to work with. Beddor stated that he has about 4-5 contracts that he can't even talk about because he doesn't know what the property is going to be zoned. Beddor indicated that he does not what to get stuck between a feud with the Planning Commission and the City Council. He felt that the Planning Commission bent over backwards, they expidited the matter, and he felt that what the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council would fit for his needs. Watson stated that she would be willing to go along with the P-3 District only because she wants to see Park Two usable by some of the people who would like to relocate there, but in no way does she want them to think that she approved of one page of this document by saying that there is P-3 with additions. Watson made a motion seconded by J. Thompson to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning of all of Park Two to P-3 with the amendments 8-22 on the rezoning petition filed September 18, 1981 at.the"City Hall listed as follows: - 8. Building materials, sales & storage 9. Auto body repair shops 10. Auto parts stores 11. Auto service stations 12. Business machine sales & service 13. Clubs & lodges ~ e e Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1981 Page 10 14. Garden supply stores 15. Home centers, including accessory lumber yards 16. Laundry & dry cleaning plants 17. Office supplies & services 18. Repair shops for home & garden equipment 19. Taverns 20. Tennis, handball, racquetball courts 21. Off sale liquor establishments ancillary to a permitted principle use. 22. Other similar uses as determined by the City council to be of the same general character as this District's permitted uses, based upon the legislative intent of this District. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Watson made a comment that when she made a motion~anting P-3 with the amendments it had nothing to do with the proposed ordinance, it was strictly Unto itself. The Planning Commission has in no way shape or form approved of proposed Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance and there is no I-I as listed in the zoning Ordinance for the P-3 to rollover into, it does not exist. There are going to be changes and there should not be any assumptions on anyones part that anything is going to rollover and become anything in the proposed ordinance. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by J. Thompson and seconded by Noziska to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1981 meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion was pasted. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.