Loading...
1982 02 25 I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Art partridge, Bill swearengin, Carol Watson, Jim Thompson, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. Members Absent: Ladd Conrad Staff Present: Bob Waibel and Becky Foreman Community Development Block Grant Program - Discuss Program Activities: The HRA suggested that $10,000 be utilized in conducting a housing survey and that the balance would be put in reserve for future senior citizen's project or something of that nature. Generally, these types of grants go to the elderly to help them repair roofs. and install insulation. , Partridge stated that presently the Planning commission has $42,918 placed in a reserve and the City is planning on receiving $37,000 more for this year. J. Thompson asked if there was a time limit for spending the grant money. Waibel, City Planner, stated that he thought it was 3 years. Waibel stated that there was a housing assistance plan done in 1975. It indicated things such as number of houses with foundation problems, structural problems, income per household, etc. Watson indicated that the survey would be for the Planning Commission to see if there is a need to establish housing for senior citizens. She felt that this should be for low income elderly. waibel stated that urban counties of over 200,000 population get entitlement monies from the Federal Government; whereas, cities like Hutchinson, Alexandria have to compete for dis- cretionary funds based upon their need. Watson stated that if the Planning Commission would send the money back, then they would divide the grant money up with other cities. , Watson asked if it was necessary to spend $8~10,000 to hire a consultant to do a housing needs assessment? Could the survey be done in-house? Noziska stated that he feels that a multi-unit senior citizen type of a building would be something that Chanhassen needs. , Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 2 Swearengin suggested that the Planning Commission prepare a survey and mail it to the citizen& Watson indicated that the questionaire could include other information and questions that the city is interested in also. J. Thompson suggested that the Planning Commission form a sub-committee under them to work on the questionaire. He would be willing to work on it. Swearengin made a motion to recommend to the city Council #1 from the February 18, 1982 memorandum regarding Block Grants as follows: 1. Preparation of a housing needs assessment study to determine if there exists a real need for new senior citizen housing and low/moderate income family housing in Chanhassen to be done in-house. and also #3 as follows: . 3. Remaining grant funds should be placed in reserve for covering program administration costs and for future senior citizen housing site improvements and/or senior center development. Funds not expended during the current program year may be set aside for use within the next two year period. Second was made by J. Thompson. partridge, Watson, Swearengin, J. Thompson and Noziska voted in favor, M. Thompson abstained. Noziska stated that the Planning Commission feels a housing needs assessment is necessary, but we feel that we should at least investigate doing it in-house and if it cannot be totally done in-hous~ then a mail-questionaire should be used. Annual Review of Planned Unit Development Districts: Each p~district was reviewed individually. that the Planning Commission should notify if Planning Commission action considerably of their property. Waibel indicated parties involved changes the status (1) Chanhassen Lakes Business Park p-4: The Planning Commission discussed Park Drive access onto Highway 5. The Planning Commission feels that this access should be ~eviewed. The official final development plan states that this road be reviewed after County Road 17 is operational. County Road 17 has been in use for over 1 year. , ~ I Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 3 J. Thompson made a motion that there be no change in status except to review Park Drive access onto Highway #5 after the traffic study has been done; at that time, the Planning Commission shall make a decision regarding renewal or discontinuance of the access. Second was made by Noziska. All in favor and the motion carried. (2) Chaparral P.R.D.: There was some discussion as to how much development has taken place on this development. M. Thompson made a motion seconded by J. Thompson to maintain this item on the annual review list. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (3) Chaparral West P.R.D.: The Planning Commission dis- cussed the status of this development. There was some concern regarding the zoning. waibel indicated that it is too early to down-zone this property. Partridge asked if the City could track down who the owners are of the property and be keeping track so that the planning Commission does not loose sight of what is happening with the property. Noziska made a motion seconded by M. Thompson to maintain this item on the review list. Partridge, J. Thompson I M. Thompson I Noziska, Swearengin voted in favor, Watson - nay. Motion carried. . (4) Colonial Grove 2nd Addition P.R.D.: Waibel stated that public improvements have been cOJUpleted last year. J. Thompson made a motion to maintain this item on the review list. Noziska seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (5) Fox Chase P.R.D.: Waibel explained that all action on this item has been tabled until findings on drainage come from the u.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Noziska made a motion seconded by M. Thompson to maintain this item on the review list. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. (6) Lake Susan South P.R.D.: Discussion occurred on the landfill being across the road from this development. Noziska made a motion to maintain this item on the annual review list. Second was made by J. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. (7) Lake Susan West P.R.D.: Noziska made a motion that this item be maintained on the annual review list. Seconded by Watson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. , (8) Lotus Lake Estates 1st, 2nd, 3rd Additions P.R.D.: Waibel stated that 1st Addition is considerably developed and should be dropped from the review list. Noziska made a motion to remove the 1st Addition from the review list and maintain the 2nd and 3rd Additions on the annual review list. Seconded by M. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. I Planning Ce~nissien Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 4 (9) Lyman Lumber and Park One P-4 P.LD.: M. Thempson made a matian secanded by Noziska to' maintain this item an the annual review list. All vated in favar and the motion was carried. (10) MTS (CPT) p-4 P.LD.: Watsan suggested that this item remain an the review list because af all the land that CPT is net using, then the Planning Commission can keep an eye an what they are daing. Noziska made a motion seconded by Watsan to' maintain this item an the annual revie,w list. All vated in favar and the mation was carried. (11) Near Mauntain P.R.D.: Waibel stated that the develapment can tract for the first phase has been drafted M. Thampson made a motion secanded by Watsan to' have Waibel bring to' the next Planning Cammissian meeting the present status of the Near Mauntain P.R.D. in relation to' the development cantract afphasing ef the prapesed plans that Flaum is presenting to' the City at this time. AlsO' that this item be maintained an the annual review list. All voted in favO'r and the mation was carried. . (12) Oakmant P.U.D.: Watsan made a matian secO'nded by M. ThO'mpsan to' remeve this item from the annual review list because it is nO' langer a P.U.D. All vated in favor and the matian was carried. (13) Park II: M. Thompsan made a matian secanded by Naziska to' maintain this item an the annual review list. All vated in favor and the motion was carried. (14) Sarataga Addition P.R.D.: Waibel explained that this P.R.D. is mere ar less camplete except for the duplex lats and a cauple single family lats. There are 3 mare apartment buildings in the plan to' be built. Naziska made a motion seconded by Watsan to' maintain anly the apartment partian on the annual review list. All vated in favar and the mation was carried. (15) Sinnen Property (Hidden Valley Estates) p-2 P.U.D.: Watsan made a matien secendedby M. Thompson to' remove this item from the annual review because it has now been dawn-zaned to' R-lA. All veted in favar and the matien was carried. (16) Sunnyslape P.R.D.: Watson made a motion secanded by J. ThO'mpson to' maintain this item an the annual review list. All vO'ted in favO'r and the metiO'n was carried. , I Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 5 (17) Waldrip Addition P-l: Waibel stated that Waldrip indicated that he has found a potential buyer for the property. Noziska made a motion seconded by Watson to maintain this item on the annual review list. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. (18) Western Hills 3rd Addition P.R.D.: a motion seconded by M. Thompson to maintain until 70-80% of the area has been developed. favor and the motion was carried. Noziska made the 3rd Addition All voted in Final Adoption of Comprehensive Municipal Plan - Public Hearing: No one from the public was present. Chairman Partridge opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mark Koegler and Craig Mertz were present. Koegler explained to the Planning Commission the minor changes that have been made since they have last looked at the Comp Plan. . Watson made a motion seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson made a motion seconded by Noziska to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Comprehensive Plan as is without changing the wbrding and that we retain the HUSA Line designations and the highway classifications that we have shown. Noziska, Partridge, J. Thompson, Swearengin voted in favor and Watson and M. Thompson against. M. Thompson stated that parts of the Comprehensive Plan which we completed in order to conform to the Metro Council's direction which does not really reflect the City's real desire or our best interests. Also I do not believe that the Comp Plan reflects our current outlook on residential zoning as far as lot sizes and the variations of residential single family. I don't believe that we should be approving the Comp Plan until we have reviewed our present zoning ordinances and updated it, and that it reflects our current position on zoning. At this point we are dealing with outdated zoning ordinances and I don't believe that our present Comp Plan as proposed has taken these changes that should be made into consideration. Watson stated that the Planning Commission did not write the Comp Plan as proposed, this is the Metro Council's Plan. , I . , Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 6 Approval of Minutes: M. Thompson stated that the last paragraph regarding the Environmental Protection Committee should be amended as follows: The planning Commission or Chairman is going to develop a plan or charter for the Environmental Protection Committee and give them a specific group of charges that they are to carry out. There shall be 9 voting members. When vacancies occur they should be filled by the process of appointment in the same manner in which the original appointrnents were made. The Committee is to set attendance standards, and a member could be removed by not meeting these standards. The Committee shall elect a Chairman from among it's members for a term of 1 year. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings. The Corrmit.tee shall elect a Vice-Chainnan to preside in the Chairmans absence. They shall hold 1 regular meeting each month or more to adopt rules for the transaction of business, shall keep a record of its business, and transactions and findings, and that the Committee shall prepare a program of work outlining activities proposed to be undertaken. ~he work program may include: 1. Wetland Protection 2. Woodland Protection 3. Unique Habitat Protection 4. Soil Erosion 5. Ground Water Recharge 6. Conservation Districts 7. Agricultural Preservation 8. Mineral Extraction 9. Noise Abatement 10. Hazardous Substances. Minutes of the Environmental Protection Committee shall be provided to the Planning Commission, and a member of the Environ- mental Protection Committee shall appear before the Planning Commission on a regular basis to-advisethe.Gommission of progress made in completion of the Committee's work program. The general purpose of the Environmental Protection Commission is to prepare ordinances to protect the environment. I . , Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 7 M. Thompson made a motion seconded by Noziska to amend the minutes of February 11, 1982 with the above modification~ All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Noziska made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning commission meeting of February 11, 1982 as amended. Seconded by Watson. Partridge, Noziska, Swearengin, M. Thompson and Watson voted in favor, J. Thompson abstained. Watson made a motion to note the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 25, 1982. Seconded by J. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Partridge made the following comments regarding the United Mailing, Inc. proposal held at the February 8, 1982 City Council meeting: "That the approach to the City Council was inappropriate and unfortunate, and the comments made by the council and by the Mayor were unfortunate and inappropriate. That the Planning Commission wishes to have no further dealings with this part- icular project. All the elements of planning Commission review were considered by the City Council and there is no further need for our participation in this particular venture." Partridge also made the following remarks regarding the Water Surface Usage Ordinance from the same meeting: "That the City Council having called upon Commissions and Committees to draft ordinances does not see fit to recognize or invite those members of the commissions at the time of formal ordinance adoption and further sees fit to modify the ordinances in what would appear to be a. capricious manner. II M. Thompson further stated: "That the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council that they should make notice or commend the Lake Study Committee for the hard work and excellent job they have done on the Water Surface Usage Ordinance and the Beachlot Ordinance." Watson made a motion to note the City Council minutes of the February 8, 1982 meeting. Seconded by J. Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Agricultural Preserves Act: Waibel explained that this program is manditory because of the legislation in 1980; whereby, in order to preserve farm lands, they are given tax benefits. The deadline for applicants is Monday, March 1, 1982, for this program. I Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1982 Page 8 Partridge explained that a farmer has to have 40 acres of agricul tural land & he gets a tax break, but in return, for 8 years he gives up the rights to develop the property. Waibel stated that he recommends that everything south of the "Chanhassen MUSA Line", and that is zoned R-IA be included as an eligible parcel. Certification of it would corne about by an application process. Watson made a motion to recommend to the City council that all R-IA zoned properties outside the "Metropolitan MUSA Line" be certified eligible for the agricultural preserves act and are also eligible to apply for that program. Seconded by Noziska. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. ~ I ~ - - --<~"'-"