1981 10 28
e
e
e
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD OCTOBER 28, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Carol Watson, Howard
Noziska, Walter Thompson, Ladd Conrad, and
Mike Thompson.
Members Absent: Jim Thompson
Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Craig Mertz, Scott Martin and
Becky Foreman
Chairman Partridge called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Subdivision Proposal for~purposes of ParkLand Dedication,
Dunn Real Estate Managem~ent, .Inc.~,. Public Hearing':
Present: Julius Smith, 7101 York Avenue South, Minneapolis
William E. Engebretson, 7120 utica Lane, Chanhassen
The Public Hearing was called to order by partridge at 7:35 p.m.
Craig Mertz, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this is
a Registered Land Survey which is a form of a plat and that
each tract is a separate lot. Mertz explained that the developer
is now proposing that Tracts B,J, and G become one large tract.
Tract E is for the road alienment; Tracts D and C will become
park and will be divided into two pieces. Tracts I and Fare
for additional road right-Of-way.
Mertz explained that the developer is requesbing
the following:
1. That B,J, and G would become one piece.
2. That Tract C, or the shoreline, would be divided into
two pieces. One would be a 4 acre piece and the
other would be the balance.
Mertz stated that this item is different from the Dypwick
case for the following reasons:
1. There is no sewer on the property, a feasibility study
has been done and Bill Monk is in the process of updating
it.
2. This property already has a final development plan.
The road alienment is part and parcel of that development
plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1981
Page 2
.
3. This subdivision is in furtherance of the final development
plan. The final development plan contemplated additional
park being acquired along Lake Ann Park.
4. The owner will stipulate in writing as a result of this
limited subdivision, that he acquires no rights to building
permits over and above what he already possessed before the
approval. There will be no additional house on the property.
Partridge asked Mertz why the survey # is different on both of
the maps? Mertz indicated that they should be the same and
will look into this.
Mertz explained that the City would like to get the park land
now, so that the owner doesn't start to put houses up on the
property. This is an intermediary step in the development
process.
The City is paying approximately $10,000 an acre. Engebretson
stated that he thought this was high for swampland. partridge
explained that this isn't swampland but wooded 1akeshore.
Conrad asked if the City doesn't act now in buying this property
are they endanger of loosing the grant money? Waibel explained
that the City might loose the money fromLAWCON if not acted
upon now.
e
W. Thompson made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Second
was made by Watson. All voted in favor and the motion was
carried.
M. Thompson asked why the developer isrequestirtg to eliminate
the property lines between Tracts B,G, and J? It was explained
that Minnetonka, Inc. is interested in the 1and.and would like
to have the whole lot. The developer will have to go through
a rezoning if they are interested in using this property for
Minnetonka, Inc.
M. Thompson made a motion, seconded by Watson to recommend
to the City Council to approve the subdivision of this parcel
as per the Registered Land Survey (Planning Commission, Exhibit A,
dated October 28,1981), per the fo11owing'conditions:
1. That the developer, land owner, stipulate that by the
approval of this subdivision, the developer acquires no
additional rights to the issuance of building permits
over and above what it already possesses with respect to
this property prior to the subdivision of the land;
2. That Tracts B,J and G be combined into one tract;
e
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1981
Page 3
e
3. Tract C be divided into two pieces, one parcel shall be
4 acres in size and the other parcel the remainder of
Tract C.
All voted in favor and the motion was carried.
Review Preliminary Plat R~visions, QU9-:dyproperty:
Present: Donald Hess
Daryl Fortier
Partridge asked if staff was recommending that the hybrid plan
be rejected? Waibel ,stated that they were asking that this
item be denied and that the Planning Commission should stick
to their first motion made at the.:irmeeting before this went to
the City Council.
Mr. Hess, representative for the Quady Property, gave a review
of the property and the changes that he was proposing. Hess
has met with the neighbors and would like to change because
the neighbors might be developing in the future.
e
Hess explained that Trondel, who lives to the north, is afraid
that if this property is developed without a street to the north,
he will be landlocked. Mr. Trondel owns 2-5 acre parcels. Hess
suggested having a purchase agreement with Trondel for a utility
easement to provide access to his property from the south. Hess
proposed using Lot 7 for this easement; to keep it for 3 years
without building on it to see if Trondel needs an access from
the south.
Waibel stated that Bill Monk, the City Engineer, is concerned
about the ponding area. Lot is not shown on a platted road on
sketch presented. It was also brought up if there is enough
room on this lot to have a home and ponding area. Hess explained
that they would fix the flow rate off from the property so that
it wouldn't be any greater than it is now. Hess also explained
that they are planning to buile a dike on the west and south
side to help to hold in the water.
Hess stated that they will be adding a section of Lot 11 to Lot 12
so that both lots have an access onto a public street.
Daryl Fortier, presented sketches to the Planning Commission
showing how the property in the area could be developed in the
future and how the roads could be aliened. There could be an
agreeable access connecting Derrick Land to Carver Beach property.
Partridge stated that the section of Hobbs property shown on the
sketch as being included in part of the road, needs to be discussed
with Hobbs and Hess.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1981
Page 4
e
Hess explained that he wants to guarantee Trondle access, but
it would be best for Trondle to get his access from the east
or the west. Watson indicated that even if there were no road
from the Quady property, Trondel would still be able to go through
his north property.
Waibel expressed his concerns for Lots 11 and 12. Is there
adequate space for a home on that lot? What if the owner wants
to expand. Hes.sstated that the ponding areas can be defined as
drainage easements and the owners cannot touch it..:
Watson stated that if the road is added to the north, then Hess
will make the lots smaller. The lots are shown on the sketch
as 13,000 square foot lots. She can not agree to that small o'f
lots, 15,000 would be the minimum lot size she would agree with.
Watson also stated that she does not feel comfortable with Lots
11 and 12 the way that they are. She is not sure that they are
buildable, maybe Lots 11 and 12 should be left as open space.
W. Thompson stated that the east access is an engineering problem,
there is a gully there and there will have to be a lot of fill
brought in. What about the drainage going down the road from
all the proposed filling? The engineer has not addressed this
prob lem yet.
e
Hess explained that they are planning to fill some of the area
for the road, but will also be lowering the road in other areas
to keep a 7% grade. Staff is also suggesting a 900 angle at
the east intersection. Hess stated that he will be leaving a
section out of Lot lIon the east side to make the intersection
a 900 angle.
Hess stated that Lots 11 and 12 to the south is just a concept.
The engineering has not been done yet, but it is physically poss-
ible. Hess indicated that he cannot live without these two lots.
The Planning Commission reviewed the City Council comments.
1. That any access to the North have a 900 intersection with
thru east/west traffic movement.
The Planning Commission stated that they didn't care where the
road went to the north, that is up to the developer. It needs
to be shown on the sketch.
2. Urge the Planning Commission "to proceed with Bill Monk's
suggestion #4 on lots 11 and 12 and make a recommendation
back to us."
The Planning Commission stated that they would like a better
report from the City Engineer.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1981
Page 5
-
3. The plan should not have more than one access to the North
from the east/west road in the proposed development.
The Planning Commission would like to see a sketch plan of the
road they are proposing to the north. They do not like the idea
of smaller lots just because Hess is adding a road to the north.
4. That the possibility be explored to remove the Hobbs' and
Coudrons' accesses form Powers Boulevard.
The Planning Commission felt that it would be an improvement for
the Hobb's to connect onto the street being proposed.
Partridge asked for a concensus of the Planning Commission if
anyone agreed with having lots below 15,000 square feet?
All of the members stated no.
M. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission stated before
that they would not like a road to the north. Now Mr. Owens
wants the road to go to the north so that later it will be easier
for him to develop his property. Mr. OWens has never been to
any of. the Planning Commission meetings to express his feelings
to them. M. Thompson suggested that the Planning Commission
stay with their first idea and have no road to the north.
The Planning Commission should not be concerned with the Owens
property until he brings in a development plan.
e
Partridge stated that the Planning Commission approved a Preliminary
Plat in July 1981. The Trondels and Owens should have come in
at that time if they had something to say about it. The Planning
Commission does not have the responsibility to imply development
beyond this application for development. M.Thompson stated that
Hess isn't responsible to plan the areas around him either.
Conrad stated that he doesn't want to force development, but
maybe the Planning Commission should be flexible and consider
this.
W. Thompson indicated that he is willing to change on access to
the north, but doesn't like to see 13,000 square foot lots. The
developer should recommend where he is going to place the road
to the north.
Noziska indicated that the access to the north makes good sense,
but if they have to give up lot size, which way do they go?
Noziska would like to see larger lots. Noziska stated that he
would like to know what to do about Lots 11 and 12, should have
the City Engineer give up a report.
e
Partridge indicated that the Planning Commission concensus is
that they do not want lots less than 15,000 square feet in this
area.
.
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1981
Page 6
A motion was made by Conrad and seconded by Noziska that after
reviewing the hybrid plan, the Planning Commission would like
to reaffirm their stand based upon the July 6, 1981 minutes with
the option that one (1) northerly access be allowed with location
and design to be determined by the staff. The Planning Commission
further emphasises that they reserve the decision on Lots 11 and
12 until more engineering information is available. Also, no lot
under 15,000 square feet shall be allowed in this development and
a section of the northeast Lot 11, Block 1, shall be dedicated to allow
for a 900 intersec:tion. W.Thompson, Watson, Partridge,
Conrad and Noziska voted in favor, M. Thompson - nay. Motion was
carried.
Discussion of Amendments to the Chanhassen zoning Ordinance:
The Commission continued their review of the proposed Commercial
and Industrial Zoning Ordinance amendments. This review will
continue at their next regular meetings. (November 18, 1981).
Partridge moved, seconded by Watson, to establish a Planning
Commission policy concerning scheduling of development applications
following Planning Commission action on City Council agendas:
"Planning Staff shall not schedule development applications
on City Council agendas if the proposed development plan has
been modified by the applicant following Planning Commission
action on the application; except that staff may use its
discretion..." No action was taken on the motion.
Minutes:
Watson asked that a statement be included in the October 14, 1981
minutes as follows: No action should be taken on any new building
on the Hanus facility due to a lack of prior complaince.
W. Thompson made a motion, seconded by Watson to approve the
minutes as amended and note the C.C. minutes of September 28 and
October 5, 1981. All voted in favor and the motion was carried.
M. Thompson made a motion, second by Watson to adjourn the meeting
at 12:15 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.