Loading...
1981 10 14 e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 14, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS APr-, 'I, r' frO VE' '__._.__ D 011,1 fA '""''':~ I'\I~ Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Carol Watson, Howard Noziska, Walter Thompson, Ladd Conrad, and Jim Thompson Members Absent: Mike Thompson Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Scott Martin and Becky Foreman Subdivision variance Request, 7075 Hazeltine Blvd., Valentine Wirtz, Public Hearing:' ...... .. Present: Valentine Wirtz, 19380 Highway 7, Excelsior Tom O'Connor, Attorney Ruth Rosen P.O. Box 114, Excelsior Helen Rosen 312 Oak Street, Excelsior Chairman Partridge called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. e Bob Waibel, City Planner, explained from his report, that this request is a 15 acre tract of land that the applicant wishes to split in half. Waibel explained the ordinance which does not permit platting in an unsewered area unless there are physiographic conditions such as soil, slopes and terrain conditions that would cause exceptional or undue hardship by strict compliance to the requirements of the ordinance. waibel explained that this property has no such problems. Tom O'Connor, Attorney for Mr. Wirtz, stated that he agrees that there are no hardships on this property, but he feels that the City Attorney has interpreteted this ordinance incorrectly. Both lots will be 7~ acres and will exceed the size limitations referred to in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wirtz desires to make 2 lots and sell one. This action will not be injurious to anyone else. Mr. O'Connor feels that the granting of this variance would be in the spirit of the ordinance. Partridge asked Mr. O'Connor if they should be talking about 3 lots instead of 2 because Mr. Wirtz has requested building another home on the south proposed lot which already has a home there. O'Connor suggested that when the variance is granted that the Planning conunission place conditions on it that would only permit one single family residence per lot. - Partridge explained to O'Connor that Ordinance 45 was adopted because of the problems the City was having with the sanitary sewer systems in the area. It was adopted to force development into the sewered areas. It has been City policy not to sub- divide in unsewered areas since this ordinance has been adopted. partr,idge explained that personally he doesn't agree with this ordinance but they have to comply with it until the ordinance is changed. Planning Conunission Minutes October 14, 1981 Page 2 e A motion was made by W. Thompson and seconded by Watson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. W. Thompson asked Waibel about the ordinance referred to in the Planning Report regarding the lot depth shall not exceed twice the width. lv. Thompson asked what the dimensions Were on the lot, they weren't shown on the sketch. W. Thompson stated that he didn't feel there was enough information pre- sented. He also stated that he felt that with 7~ acres of land the ordinance regarding the width and depth regulations did not matter. Noziska questioned why shouldn't the applicant be able to divide 15 acres into two 7~ acre lots? They will still be large lots after the split. The problem with the request is that the applicant is asking to. build another home on the lot that has an existing home on it. Wirtz, the applicant, stated that he would like to keep the old farm house and also build a new home on each lot. So there would be 3 homes on the two lots. Partridge explained that the Planning conunission is in the process of revising the present ordinances and that Mr. Wirtz should come back after Ordinance 45 has been revised. . Watson made a motion that was seconded by Noziska to reconunend to the City Council to deny the subdivision request of 6951 Hazeltine Blvd. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Partridge indicated that the Planning conunission is generally sympathetic with this request but until Ordinance 45 is changed there is nothing they can do. O'n'e Single Family. Residertti'al Lot S'pTit Request,' .M~ke. Schmidt, 6460 YosemiteA'v'e'nue ,PUbliC' FI~'aring: Present: Mike Schmidt, 5546 WedgewoodBrive, Excelsior; Laura Lundquist, 6460 Yosemite Avenue, Excelsior Partridge called the public hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. Schmidt indicated that he will be building on top of the hill and will not be changing the drainage any. Laura Lundquist, the seller of the property, stated that there is a home built below this property and the home that Schmidt is proposing will not change the drainage. Waibel stated that the City Engineer has looked at this pro- perty and is satisfied with the lot from an engineering stand- I' point. Planning Conunission Minutes October 14, 1981 Page 3 ' Schmidt explained that the proposed lot is 120 feet wide. e Noziska made a motion to close the public hearin.g. Second was made by W. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. A motion was made by Conrad and seconded by Watson to recommend to the City Council to approve the request for one single family residential lot split as requested, Planning Case 81-5 subdivision, and that the lots be assessed sewer and water as per the North Service Area Reassessment Project. All voted in favor and the motion was passed. Ccinditional Use Permit Amendment Reqtlest, Hanus Truck and Auto Fac'iTity:,' 22:9 West T9'th St'r'e'e't,' PubTi'c' He'ari'ng: Present: Donald Hanus . partridge called the public hearing to order at 8:30 p.m. Hanus, the applicant, explained that the previous proposed building has been sold to someone else. Now he is proposing a new building that will be a metal frame 60' x 120': HanuS also indicated that the Planning Report stated that this building should be used for storage only, he would like to use it for expanding his work. partridge asked if the parking problems have been resolved. Hanus indicated that they had been and that it is shown on the new sketch plan. Noziska made a motion to close the public hearing. Second was made by W. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Noziska stated that this proposal is so close to the Downtown Redevelopment Project, will that make any difference? Noziska indicated that the Planning Commission should decide what use this building should have - storage or repair. Hanus explained to the Planning Commission that he has permits for his outside storage from the City Council. He feels that he is being harassed by the City. Watson explained that she has done some study of the history of this case. From her study she found that outside storage has always been a debate since 1977. A Conditional Use Permit issued in 1977 stated no outside storage on the property except for things brought in at night and 10 new trucks that are for sale. e Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1981 Page 4 e In November of 1977, a stop work order was placed on the Hanus property because the building was being placed in the wrong place. In December, 1977, an amendment was made on the Conditional Use Permit - C regarding the building location. Martin stated that the planning conunission is to act on Hanus' application and not worry about the enforcement of the Conditional Use Permits. Partridge asked if it made any difference if the building would be used for storage or other uses. Martin explained that it would make a difference on the amount of parking required. Noziska indicated that if the building is for screening only, why not just plant more trees and put up a fence. The property is high enough so that it doesn't show that much. !s the building just to hide the junk or for additional uses. Martin suggested that the Planning Commission consider how the new building relates to the lot. It will consume much of the lot. Noziska asked why the City Council members did not show up to explain what their committee decided. e Martin stated that with the new building the lot will be covered up to 75%. 15% of the lot has to be green space according to the ordinance. w. Thompson stated that he feels the metal building is as attractive as some other things in the City. He stated that the building should not be limited to just storage. W.Thompson indicated that he would like to see a picture of the proposed building and a site plan before he approves of it. Noziska stated that if there are Conditional Use Permits now that are not being complied with, are we going to approve another one? We don't want to end up with the same problems year after year. Conrad, W. Thompson and Noziska stated that they liked the improvement in the parking space. Conrad indicated that he would like to see a landscaping map. Waibel explained that the landscaping plan is to be done by ,the City Forester. Partridge asked Hanus what he needed the new building for. Hanus explained that he will have some new steel that he would like to store inside. - Planning Commission Minutes October 14, ,1981 Page 5 tit Noziska stated that he feels it is important that the proposal of an additional building at this time, whether for purposes of screening or otherwise} not be considered as part of the present action. At such time when the applicant submits a detailed site plan on such a proposed building, it would be reviewed in reference to its effect in intensifying the building to land ratio and/ or overall activity on the site. Noziska made a motion seconded by J. Thompson to recommend that the conditional Use Permit for the Hanus facility be amended to include the concept that all parking for the Hanus facility be restricted to the site itself as depicted on the Bloomberg plan dated September 1981. Furthermore, screening of the premises is to be achieved by the installation of webbing to the existing fences and through the establishment of landscape materials between the facility and Highway 5. Prior to the installation of landscaping material the applicant must receive landscaping plan approval fromthe City Forester and City Council. Partridge, Noziska, and W. Thompson voted in favor, Watson and Conrad voted nay and J. Thompson abstained. The motion failed. J. Thompson asked if you can landsQape on the public right-of- way? It is possible if he receives a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. e W. Thompson stated that the City Forester should review and give the Planning Conunission reports in the Planning Packets regarding proposal like this one, because the Planning Commission has spent hours talking about trees and shrubs that should have been reviewed by the City Forester first. W. Thompson made a motion to adjust the agenda to move to the minutes section. Watson seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~1.inutes : w. Thompson made a motion to approve the Regular Planning Com- mission meeting minutes of September 23, 19$1 as submitted. Second was made by J. ThoIDpson. W. Thompson, Watson, J. Thompson, Noziska, and Partridge voted in favor, Conrad abstained. The motion carried. Noziska made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to note::..the__ Special City Council minutes of September 8, 1981. All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Noziska made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to note the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of September 21, 1981. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e e - Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1981 Page 6 Partridge made a comment regarding the City Council's COltlmEmts about the Planning cominissionat one of their last meetings. Partridge stated that the Planning Conunission has a very high turn over rate because of the amount of meetings that they have to attend. The Planning Commission does not have any clear guidelines for them to follow, they don't have their house in order. The Planning Commission and City Council want their noSe in everything, and therefore, it results in nothing getting done. Also,' the City Council never asks the planning Conunission for comments at their meetings. The Planning Commission has a schedule of regular City Council meetings that they are to attend, not special meetings. Partridge also suggested to the Planning Commission that if they receive a City Council packet and cannot attend, please call another member so the Planning conunission can be represented at each regular meeting. Continued Discussion, "Proosed Revisio'n to the Chanhassen Zonin Orlnanc'e The Planning Commission discussed the relationship between the HRA and the Planning Commission. Also they discussed the activi'ties between the HRA and the Downtown Redevelopment Project. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.