Loading...
1982 03 25 e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 25, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS APPROVED ON </ - f - f5.--r ........ J'~ Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Bill Swearengin and Mike Thompson Members Absent: Howard Noziska and J. Thompson Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Scott Martin, and Becky Foreman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 7:40 p.m. United Mailing, Inc. Block 2, Park II, Final Development Plan Amendment Request, Park Two, Public Hearing and, Site Plan Reveiw, 192,000 Square Foot Office/Production and Warehouse Facility: Present: Frank Beddor, 910 Pleasant View Road Daryl Fortier, 330 2nd Avenue South, Minneapolis Partridge called the Public Hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. Waibel explained that the applicant is requesting to construct a 192,000 square foot office/manufacturing facili~y on one platted lot. Waibel further explained that Block 2 of Park II was originally planned to have 4 lots, the applicant is now requesting to make the 4 lots into one lot. The staff recommends approval of this concept. e Waibel stated that the first phase of United Mailing facility will be 167,000 square feet of office production and warehouse area, with 227 parking spaces for the first phase. The second phase expansion will either be the extension of the building to the east as shown on the site plan or the extension of the mezzanine over the production area. Waibel presented the staff recommendations to the Planning Commission. He stated that the staff would like to see the two accesses in the center of Block Two be combined and intersect Park Road at 90 degrees; and that before a building permit is issued for the second phase construction a site plan showing the number of parking spaces to be provided be reviewed by staff in order to verify conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance. He also pointed out that the applicant should apply to the DNR and Watershed District for the appropriate permits. Alhso,i that all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened and that all parking and maneuvering areas be lined with concrete curb. Waibel pointed out that the City Engineer agrees with the staff recommendations regarding the access onto Park Road. The City Engineer is also working with the developer's engineers and the Watershed representatives to develop a plan that requires on site retention to allow particle settlement prior to discharge of storm water in the creek. Waibel stated that the final drainage plan will probably not ~ look like it is shown on the site plan now. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 2 e Waibel explained that the applicant will need to file a hazardous and toxic substances inventory with the Carver County Zoning Office. Conrad asked why lighting was not mentioned in the recommendations from the staff. Waibel stated that the site plan has the shielded high pressure sodium lighting shown on it already and did not seem necessary to put it into the recommendations. Waibel stated that there is a problem with the on-wall lighting, because it sometimes is not shielded low enough to cut the glare. Watson asked if the building lights could be different than the high pressure sodium, and asked if Waibel could check into this. Daryl ~ortier, the appli9ant's architect, stated that the lighting p~an wlll be changed some before the final plan is finished, but they ~ll~ still use the hig~ pressure sodium lighting. . Beddor, the applicant, lndlcated that there wlll be 3 shifts working at United Mailing, so the lights have to be on all the time. Waibel stated that the area needs to be well lit for insurance reasons and also security reasons. e Beddor stated that he feels his architects have done a fine job in utilizing the wetland area on the property. The property has a gradual slope rising to the southern part of the property. The overall soil development qualities are good with the exception of a vein of poorly drained soils in the east central portion of the property and the flood areas in the northwest ~ of the property. The parking is planned for the west side of the lot and there will be bridge going over the creek to the building. Beddor indicated that he hopes to have this building open the same time as Instant Web, Inc. Waibel stated that in a letter from Minnegasco, they indicated that their lines should be coming in from the east. The City Engineer and the Watershed District are working together with the DNR regarding the pedestrian bridge. The DNR has indicated that possibly the applicant will have to apply for a permit for the bridge. Watson asked if there will be any toxic substances produced at United Mailing. Beddor indicated no. Watson made a motion, seconded by Partridge, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Swearengin made a motion, seconded by Conrad, to refer this item to the City Council without any further discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Gray-Wickenheiser Estates, Subdivision Variance Request, Lot 1, Block 1, Public Hearing: Present: Chuck Freiberg, 2121 Vincent Aven. North, Minneapolis Carl Novak, 5113 West 98th, Bloomington Partick Hanily, 2660 Orchard Lane, Excelsior James o. Irving, 2670 Orchard Lane, Excelsior e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 3 e Waibel stated that the applicant requested to fill in the low area of Lot 1, Block 1 of Gray-Wickenheiser Estates. The City Council, when this area was platted, requested that the staff be alerted to anyone coming in for a fill permit for that particular low area. The staff thought that this should be processed as a variance to the subdivision conditions that the City Council placed on it. The referral agency review only resulted in a letter from the Watershed District telling the applicants that they may need to receive a permit for the filling of this low area. That will be the responsibility of the applicant. They are proposing to remove fill from the hill and move to the center of the lot. They want to do this to achieve a better access to the home they want to build on the hill. The applicant wants to make some alterations on the outlet that goes into the pond on the western side. This is essentially an Engineering matter. Monk, the City Engineer, stated in his report, that it is apparent that the developer is aware of the drainage situation and is attempting to accommodate the drainage from his own lot as well as the tributary areas towards the ponding area to the northwest. He finds that the proposed grading plan is acceptable and recommends approval to allow development of this lot as originally intentioned. Waibel stated that the soil maps for this area do not show peat deposits here, indicating that this, in all likelihood has developed as this area urbanized. e Swearengin stated that one of the problems with the City, is that they are trying to allow filling where it shouldn't be. There are problems in filling lots, maybe this shouldn't be done. Partridge indicated that this is not going to be a significant amount of filling. He asked if the filling is going to move more water onto the adjacent properties. Waibel stated no. Freiberg, the applicant, stated that the intent is to build a house into the hill. The intent to fill is not to build on it, but to get the water to take a more rapid flow back to the existing pond. The idea is so that it is no longer swamp and so they can have a nice lawn. There is about a 35' drop in the hill, the fill is for a better driveway also. The applicant has two children and a dog and does not want a swamp on his lawn. The house isn't going to be built for about a year. Waibel stated that in 1976 when this area was platted, this lot was found to be a buildable lot, it was also assessed a full unit. The plan does not show where the house is going to be, because he did not want to be tied into a spot when they are not going to be building for about a year or more. The filling will be done this year, so that they will have a year to see if it is going to work. e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 4 e Swearengin stated that he is against filling the lot, he stated that there is plenty of building area on the rest of the lot, and an access can still be obtained. Partridge indicated that this will not be changing the lot that much. He is just changing the retention of the swamp. The Engineer indicates that this is such a shallow ditch, that it does not have that significant of an impact. It does not show on the Wetlands Inventory Map as being a designated wetlands area. Swearengin stated that he would like to look at this lot first. Pat Hanley, 2660 Orchard Lane, stated that he owns Lot 3. At the time of platting, he could fill his lot, but Lot 1 could not be filled. Since then, he has put a holding pond on his lot. The people in the neighborhood would rather see that land developed than to just leave it unused. Hanley's pond would suffice for a filtration system. He stated further that what ever happens to the lot doesn't matter that much, as long as the flow is continued and no blockage occurs. Lot 1 has become sort of an eye-sore because people have been dumping junk on it. e Swearengin asked the applicant if he would consider a holding pond. Freiberg stated tht he does not want a deeper hole; he just wants to channel the water so that it can flow faster. The applicants intent is to preserve the natural outlet, the only reason that the water sits on his lot is because the release has become, silted. The natural flow of the water comes down the street, across the neighbors lawn and goes into the pond. The applicant stated that he will let it still do that; he just wants to channel it so that it flows faster. Tom Thomas is the owner, he has signed the application and is aware of this request. Swearengin indicated that he feels the applciant didn't need to come to the Planning Commission for a variance. Waibel stated that any fill more than 150 cubic yards needs a permit from the City Council. Martin explained that this wouldn't need a permit except for the previous City Council decision made in 1976 to not have this lot filled. Watson made a motion, seconded by Conrad, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. M. Thompson stated that he feels this will be an addition to the neighbor- hood, it is not creating any problems, there is an assessment on this property, and obviously the City Council felt that this was a buildable piece of property at the time of platting. e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 5 e Swearengin stated that this never should have been brought before the Planning Commission; he doesn't think there is a problem with this lot. He stated this is a buildable lot, it is not a wetland, the fact that the Council in 1976 made some comment isn't relavent now. Swearengin told the applicant, as far as he was concerned, he should go ahead and build on it, as long as you don't alter the drainage, and as long as you still allow the drainage to flow through, you are allowed to slop dirt over your land where ever you want. He also pointed out the applicant could do what he wants as long as he doesn't move more than 150 cubic yards of dirt. Swearengin made a motion to recommend to the City Council to accept the grading plan and recommend approval to allow development of the lot. Motion died because of lack of a second. Conrad stated that this motion is not dealing with the requested action. The request was for a variance to the condition of plat approval that the property remain in its natural state so that site gradi~g and filling improvements can be made. Swearengin indicated that he does not intend to make his motion to grant a variance. Waibel stated that the City Engineer has looked at this property and has found no problem with the drainage and the ponding in the area. e Swearengin stated that this is not a wetlands, and it is not going to alter the drainage. He asked why doesn't the applicant just go ahead and do what he wants; why does he need a variance and technical reports. Conrad made a motion, seconded by Partridge, to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to the condition of plat approval stating that the property remain in its natural state so that site grading and filling may take place as suggested by Bill Monk, the City Engineer. The following voted in favor: Watson, Partridge, Conrad, and M. Thompson. Swearengin voted nay. Swearengin stated that he voted nay because this request was not necessary, it is not a wetland, and there can be less than 150 yards moved without a variance. Partridge indicated that there was no opposition from the neighborhood. e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 6 e Sign Permit Variance Request, ABC Millwork, 18800 West 78th Street: No one was present representing the applicant or adjacent property owners. Martin presented the variance request and explained that the subject sign was erected in August, 1981 without a permit. He pointed out that the request involves variances to the following sign ordinance provisions: 1) The sign does not meet the sign ordinances technical definition of a "directional sign", in that it does not direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic to "public facilities or functions", 2) the sign display area contains 10 square feet, while the ordinance limits directional signs to 4 square feet in area per side; and, 3) the sign is located a distance of six (6) feet from the street property line, while the ordinance requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from the public right-of-way. Martin added that the sign does serve the purpose of directing vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the ABC Millwork complex, and would therefore be commonly called a "directional sign", rather than a business or advertising sign. e He recommended that the sign ordinance be amended to specifically allow small directional signs (such as that requested by the applicant) for all commercial and industrial sites. He suggested that one such sign be permitted for each access drive, with a minimum setback of 10 feet from all property lines and a maximum sign display area of 10 square feet. Martin pointed out that a similar request by McDonald's Restaurant for "entrance" and "exit" direc~ional signs would be presented to the Commission at their next meeting. Conrad stated that the property looks cluttered with the directional sign and the business signs mounted on the retaining wall and located on the other side of the main access drive. He added that he sees the value of directional signs on private property for public safety reasons, but that he's unsure of what specific criteria should be established for directional signs. Watson asked if the sign could be moved back to the retaining wall. Martin indicated that the sign must be clearly visible to truckers who make deliveries and pick-ups on the site. M. Thompson stated that he is against granting this variance request since it doesn't meet the sign ordinance standards and would be a precedent for future similar requests. e Swearengin stated that he would like to see the variance granted. Martin suggested that the variance could be granted with a time limit, and pointed out that the Americ-Inn Motel was granted a permit with a time limit of 18 months for the sign located closest to Highway 5. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 7 e M. Thompson stated that this is not a directional sign according to the ordinance, and that even if it were, a directional sign can only be 4 square feet in area and has to be set back 25 feet from the street right of way. Martin suggested that a variance be granted and that an amendment to the definition of directional sign in the sign ordinance be approved by dropping the phrase about "Public Facilities or Functions." M. Thompson asked what signs are permitted for a private enterprise according to the sign ordinance. Martin answered that business identification signs are permitted subject to certain size and locational requirements. Martin explained that McDonald's signs for "entrance and "exit" will require a variance if the ordinance is left the way it is. M. Thompson indicated that the Commission still have to deal with the size of the sign, since this sign is 10 square feet, and the ordinance allows only part of the staff's recommendation for amendment to the sign ordinance. He added that the minimum setback should also be changed to 10 feet from all property lines. e M. Thompson stated that the Commission shouldn't amend the sign ordinance in response to one particular situation, without taking into consideration all the ramifications that may come down the line. He felt that it would be best to deny the request and then later review the ordinance in a comprehensive manner in the future. Swearengin stated that he does not like to amend an ordinance that we know is going to be scraped later, hut would rather approve variances with a specific time limit. Swearengin made a made a motion to approve the variance with a 2-year time limit on it. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Conrad made a motion to deny the variance request. Second was made by M. Thompson. The following voted in favor: Watson, M. Thompson, Conrad. Partridge and Swearengin voted nay. Motion carried. Partridge and Swearengin stated that denial of the variance request is a mistake, that will be costly to the company and will cause a problem for those delivering to ABC Millwork. Conrad made a motion seconded by Partridge, to recommend to the City Council an amendment to Ordinance #36, Section 2f by deleting the words "to public facilities or functions". The following voted in favor: Conrad, Watson, partridge, Swearengin. M. Thompson voted nay. Motion carried. e M. Thompson stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should not change the sign ordinance on a piece-meal basis, but rather an overall review should be made of the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 8 ~ Adopt Revised Planning Commission Bylaws: Watson made a motion, seconded by Conrad, adopting the Revised Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. (dated March 19, 1982). All voted in favor and the motion carried. Discussion, Agriculture Preserves Zoning: e Martin explained that the Planning Commission , on February 25, recommended the certification of lands lying outside the Metro MUSA line as eligible for participation under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. However, in an opinion presented to the City Council on March 1, the City Attorney advised the Council of the need to create a new agricultural preserve zoning district within the Zoning Ordinance that specifically addresses the Ag Preserves Act and goes further than Ordinance 45 currently does in providing for development controls in Agricultural areas. The City Council accepted the Attorneys recommendation of March 1st and referred the issue of Agricultural Preservation zoning to the Planning Commission for immediate consideration and preparation of an ordinance amendment consistent with the requirements of the Act. Martin recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the maximum residential denisty for land in unsewered agricultural areas. He added that the Act provides that Ag Preserve densities cannot exceed one non-farm residence per quarter-quarter section of land (40 acres). Anything less than 40 acres, by definition, is non- farm. Martin explained that one farm has already been certified by the City for participation under the Ag Preserves Act. This farm is just south of Lyman Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Sanitary Landfill site. He added that it is highly unlikely that the Metro Council or the County Auditor will challenge the certification of eligible &ands based on inadequate agricultural zoning provisions. Partridge agreed with the staff position that Ordinance 45 sufficiently meets the zoning requirements of the Ag Preserves Act. He was I) concerned that the City Council sent this issue to the Commission just because Russ Larson drafted a letter which any other lawyer might disagree with. He added that by asking the Commission to develop a new zoning( 'category, the Council is denying the Commission the opportunity to fully study revisions to Ordinance 45. He felt that there are too many questions to answer in one night. Partridge felt that the action the Planning Commission took on February 25th certifying eligible lands for Ag Preserve designation should be enough until we can take a better look at Ordinance 45, especially since the 1982 certification deadline of March 1st is past and the only application received thus far has been certified to the Councy and Metro Council. tit e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 9 Conrad asked what harm there would be if the Planning Commission would develop a pew zoping . . category at this time, as dlrected by the Council. Martin pointed out that Commission review of Ordinance 45 was scheduled for later this year in the Adoped Planning Commission Work Program. He expressed concern that work priorities would not be completed if other issues were addressed simultaniously. Conrad asked how much work is involved and whether Ordinance 45 should be a higher priority. Martin stated that the Ag Preserves Act attempts to protect the farmer long-term interests, since what happens around their property influences the survival of farms. If they are right next to a developing sub- division and they have a feed lot, the feedlot is going to go next, and the farm may be out of business. Martin pointed out the fact that numberous issues are involved in providing adequate protection for agricultural operations, so study of these issues are likely to involve a substantial time committment from the Commission. Partridge summarized by stating that the City has the threat of a dumpsite being located in our City and the property owner wlishes to continue farming. In order for the City to stall this dumpsite, the property owner and the City filed for an Agricultural Preserve status for his property, which might help in preventing a dump site. Although the City Attorney on March 1, at the City Council meeting, disagreed with the staff's recommendation, Partridge believes that our ability to file and claim agricultural preserve status for the property is adequately protected by Ordinance 45. Although the City Council directed the Commission to revise our zoning code, the adoption of such an ordinance mayor may not help the progress of the Ag Preserves application. He felt that there is no reason to believe that the application cannot be processed on the basis of the information already submitted to the County and Metro Council. According to the adopted work schedule, the Commission will need about 6 months of study for this issue. Conrad stated that the Planning Commission would rather not work on Ordinance 45 right now and that the Commission feelings should be passed on to the City Council. The Commission feels comfortable with what we have in terms of unsewered area regulations for now, and any work on Ag Preserves zoning now would alter the Commission work schedule to the detriment of higher priority work elements. Partridge noted that the City Council minutes of March 1 indicate that Clark Horn made a motion to direct staff to prepare a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, if necessary. He felt that the Commission should advise the City Council that the processing of the application mentioned in this motion is adequately protected by Ordinance 45 development restrictions, and that changing the zoning code would be a hasty and foolish thing to do at this time. If necessary, he added, the City should get another attorney's opinion. Swearengin made a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the model ordinance from Metro Council in order to satisfy the Attorney's concern over agricultural Preserves Zoning. Motion died due to the lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 10 - Partridge stated that if that ordinance was adopted we would be prohibiting any development or building in the city other than within the Metro MUSA line, at least until such time that the ordinance were revised or repealed in the future. Partridge stated that Ordinance 45 has more restrictive requirements than' called for under the Ag Preserves Act, and that we don't need to rush out and amend our ordinance at this time. Conrad stated that the Planning Commission should direct Martin to go to the City Council and tell them that this issue is more complex and involved than they might imagine, and if the City Council still thinks that the Ordinance should be amended immediately, the Commission will be willing to adjust their work program accordingly. Partridge stated that he would write a letter to the Mayor concerning the Commiss~on's position on this issue. Watson stated that Ordinance 45 is the next item on the Commission Work schedule, so in about 1 month the commission should be able to get to it. e Conrad made a motion, seconded by Swearengin, to add the Ag Preserves zoning issue into the Planning Commission Work Schedule, which provides for the revision of Ordinance #45 by December 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Work Program Priorities: M. Thompson stated that if the City Council gives the Commission specific assignments in addition to work elements included in the work program, the Commission should do them. The areas that the Commission is bogged down in are not because of the Planning Commission. Martin said that the last 2 Planning Commission agendas have not provided enough time to discuss Commercial and Industrial Ordinance Revision, so this work element is running behind schedule. Martin suggested that the planning Commission either compact their agenda and limit their discussion of routine items, or set special meting dates to address ordinance revisions. Conrad asked who determines the make-up of the agenda. He suggested that staff allocate 1 hour each meeting for discussion of work program elements. Martin explained that development application must be processed as expeditiously as possible since applicants deserve a timely review of their applications. He added that staff establishes each agenda based on the number and type of pending applications, and on specific referrals from the City Councilor directions from the Commission. e Swearengin stated that it is a waste of time when things get bounced back and forth between the Planning Commission and City Council. For example, the Bylaws have been before the Commission on 3 d~fferent occasions. e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1982 Page 11 Partridge stated that if the City Council has a problem with one of the items that they send back to the Planning Commission, then one of the Council members should come to the Planning Commission meeting and explain their problem. Partridge stated that he would like to set up a special meeting for next week with the new Environmental Protection Comittee. Martin explained that the City Council has not approved the Committee ii' appointments as yet, so suchameeting would be premature. Minutes M. Thompson made a motion to approve the March II, 1982 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Seconded by Conrad. The following voted in favor: Watson, M. Thompson, Conrad. Swearengin stated nay. Partridge abstained. M. Thompson made a motion to adopt a Planning Commission resolution in support of the Planning Staff, in that the Commission is thoroughly satisfied with the job that the staff is doing for the Commission. Seconded by Partridge. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Partridge added that staff reports are much improved over the last year, and that good reports make the Commission's job much easier. The Commission expressed concerns that City Council minutes are not available to the Commission in a timely manner, and noted that the most recent Council minutes received by the Commission are those of January 18, 1982. Martin said that steps are presently underway to correct this situation through the realignment of clerical staff functions. Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.