Loading...
1982 08 12 . . . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 12, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA APPROVED ON ~- ~6~ o j.lo. AMENOED ON 8"'~-8~ ..... -.- "~. Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Howard Noziska, Jim Thompson, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent: Bill Swearengin Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Scott Martin, Craig Mertz, and Becky Foreman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 7:35 p.m. Proposed Zoning Establishing the R-1MH, Single Family Manufactured Housing District, Public Hearing: Present: Dorothy spott, 5608 South County Road #18, Minnetonka Alice E. Johnson, 5608 South County Rd #18, Minnetonka Patty Kruse, 3510 Maplewood Court, Excelsion Morris Mullin, 3451 Shore Drive, Excelsior Basil & Helen Bastian, 3719 S. Cedar Dr., Excelsior Rob Roy, 3110 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior H.O. Arneson, 3401 Shore Drive, Excelsior Pete Klose, 6100 Sharon Road, Minnetonka C.A. Pedersen, 3713 South Cedar Drive Wm. Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail Jim VonLorenz, 6371 Yosemite Avenue Bill Dilly, 3890 Forest Ridge Circle Jim & Delores Lipe, 3880 Lone Cedar Circle Chuck & Helen Lawson, 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior Thomas & Mary Merz, 3301 Dartmouth Circle, Excelsior Reed Beckler, Mobile Home Minnesota, Blaine Cal W. Brastad, Mobile Home Minnesota, Shakopee Pat Swenson, 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Marcy Kurimchak, 7130 Utica Lane Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior Arvid Oas, 3230 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior Joe Fiedler, 3121 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior Jim Ginther, 3131 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior Tom Heiberg, 3725 South Cedar Drive, Excelsior Jackie Mielke, 2830 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior Kris Ortlip, 2831 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior Partridge called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Martin presented the proposed mobile home ordinance to the Planning Commission and briefly reviewed the contents for their comments. e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 P ag e 2 Martin explained that he is not proposing to designate any par- ticular area for this district, but to provide a district for mobile homes in the zoning ordinance. He suggested that all homes other than mobile homes meet the Uniform Building Code. Mertz explained that the 1982 legislature State Planning Act stated that all municipalities are prohibited from prohibiting mobile homes. Mertz indicated that Chanhassen must make a provi- sion for mobile homes in the City. He indicated that the Planning Commission could either allow mobile homes in the city using the same restrictions and codes that all other housing units must comply with, or they could amend the zoning ordinance to allow for a mobile home district. Chuck Lawson, 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, stated that he feels there should be no discrimination between mobile homes and other housing units, and that they should have the same restictions, lot size, setbacks, etc. e Marcy Kurimchak, 7130 Utica Lane, said that mobile homes serve a purpose in the community, but she would like to see larger lot sizes than in Brandendale. She further stated that mobile home parks can look tacky if not run right, and suggested that the Planning Commission require adequate parking facilities, garages, and proper landscaping. Jim VonLorenz, 6371 Yosemite Avenue, indicated that he is a deputy for an area with 3 mobile home parks, he explained that some parks do not have adequate sewage disposals, and that these areas could deteriorated quite severly through the years. He suggested that the City screen the managers of any mobile home parks. Dorothy Spott, 5608 South County Road #18, suggested that resi- dents of mobile home districts be required to buy the property and join an association, she said that this would give the residents more pride in their home. Reed Beckler, Mobile Homes Minnesota, explained to the Planning Commission that mobile homes are now recognized by the State of Minnesota as a single family residence and are required to meet the same standards as all other housing units. He suggested that a minimum width size be set and allow mobile homes in any district. He also indicated that mobile homes can be purchased with shingled roofs and suggested that that be a restriction. Partridge indicated that he is against having scattered mobile homes sites. e Watson asked Mertz if he felt he could legally defend a mobile home district. Mertz indicated that other cities are using that option, such as Chaska. . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 Page 3 Beckler indicated that setting up a special district for mobile homes is being discriminatory. Watson explained that the Planning Commission feels that mobile homes are for low and moderate income families and that by setting up a special district, they could allow for smaller lot sizes which would be easier for such families to afford. Beckler expressed his feelings that a mobile home owner should be able to buy an expen- sive lot and place a mobile home on it if that is his desire. Martin suggested that mobile homes could be permitted in any district if they meet the Uniform Building Code. Martin explained that there are two codes, the Uniform Building Code, and the Manufactured Home Code. He further explained that the Manufactured Home Code is acceptable, but the Uniform Building Code is better. Cal Brastad, Mobile Home Minnesota, explained to the Planning Commission that many people want to buy a double-wide home and do not want to locate their home in a mobile home park, they would like to have a lawn, garage, and even a basement. Partridge indicated that the City has to provide 280 units of housing for low and moderate income families. He indicated that . this could be one way of satisfying the state of that provision. Someone from the public stated that she lives in a mobile home and likes to live in a district set up for mobile homes. She further explained that if she owned a mobile home and moved it onto a lot next to a $200,000 home, she would be embarrassed and not feel equal with her neighbors. Watson moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mertz pointed out to the Planning Commission that to do nothing regarding mobile homes is inadvisable. J. Thompson stated that he feels mobile homes should be allowed in any residential district and should be required to meet the same standards as other housing units, also that they should be located on 15,000 square foot minimum lots. Watson said that if the mobile homes would be allowed in any residential district, they should require private ownership and a permanent foundation. . J. Thompson moved, seconded by Conrad, to direct the staff to investigate requirements for all homes, such as pitch in roof, width, siding, setbacks, minimum square footage, etc. and present to the Planning Commission for review at their first meeting in September. The following voted in favor: Conrad, J. Thompson, partridge, and Watson, the following voted against: Noziska and M. Thompson. Motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 P ag e 4 M. Thompson explained that he voted against the motion because the City would be promoting citywide usage of mobile homes, because the City is committed to allowing for low and moderate income housing, and because the City would be supporting 2 building codes, and that would be discriminatory. Noziska indicated he voted against the motion because he does not like mobile homes scattered in the City, he also indicated that he feels the proposed ordinance is good. Proposed Amendment to the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing. Present: Mike Lynch, Park and Recreation Committee Denton White, 3351 Shore Drive Scott Mullin, 3451 Shore Drive Morris Mullin, 3451 Shore Drive Basil & Helen Bastian, 3719 S. Cedar Drive Rob Roy, 3110 Dartmouth Drive Hud Hollenback, 6330 Elm Tree Avenue Jill Hempel, 3707 S. Cedar Drive Marianne Anding, 3715 S. Cedar Drive C.A. Pedersen, 3713 South Cedar Drive Annalee Hanson, 6400 Greenbriar Avenue Pat Crane, 6341 Cypress Drive Jack Mauritz, 6930 Tecumsah Mike Liddicoat, 436 Moorland Ave, Madison, WI Wm Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trial Pat Swenson, 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd. Tom & Mary Merz, 3201 Dartmouth Drive Joe Fiedler, 3121 Dartmouth Drive J. Ginthen, 3131 Dartmouth Drive Tom Heiberg, 3725 South Cedar Drive Arvid Oas, 3230 Dartmouth Drive Jackie Mielke, 2830 Washta Bay Road Kristen Ortlip, 2831 Washta Bay Road James & Dolores Lipe, 3880 Lone Cedar Circle Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street Chairman Partridge called the public hearing to order at p.m. Waibel read the staff report to the Planning Commission. Waibel explained that Carver County is requesting to amend the Conditional Use Permit between the City of Chanhassen and Carver County to make the permit consistent with the newly adopted Park Master Development and Management Plan. Waibel explained that the approximate 350 acres of parkland is located on the northeast side of Lake Minnewashta. Waibel further stated that the property was zoned Agricultural when Zoning Ordinance 47 was adopted in 1972. He explained that in 1977, the property was classified as recreational development shore land . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 Page 5 when the Shoreland Management Ordinance was adopted, and in December of 1977, Carver County was granted a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Chanhassen to develop the property into a regional park. Waibel indicated that there is presently no sanitary sewer and water services to the property. Waibel explained to the Planning Commission that in the Metropolitan Council's review of the Carver County's request for funding for the regional park, the Metropolitan Council noted that the 15 horsepower motor restriction placed by the City of Chanhassen on the public access in the park is discriminatory in nature and is inconsistent with the "Cooperative Program in Providing Public Access Sites on Metropolitan Area Lakes" which is prepared by the Metropolitan Council and other agencies from the state. Waibel further explained that the Metropolitan Council recommended that funding be withheld until the 15 horsepower restriction has been removed. Tom Merz, 3201 Dartmouth Drive, indicated that he was told that 2500 people would be using the regional park per day, he felt that this amount of people would be devestating to the lake. He indicated that when the regional park was planned it was decided to be used as a nature park, and that the lakeshore owners were guaranteed that the master plan could not be changed. Pat Murphy, Carver County, explained that the capacity amounts will not be affected by this change. He stated that the Metropolitan Council is requesting that the 15 horsepower restriction on motorboats from the park access be changed to a higher amount because they feel it is discriminatory. Murphy also indicated that the Metropolitan Council will hold LAWCON funding from the park, and the Department of Natural Resources will not recognize the access and a public access and will not offer water quality assistance, or fish management programs. It was indicated from the public that the 15 horsepower limit was to help protect the lake and attract fishermen, not fast boaters. M. Thompson stated that it was the intent of the regional park to remain natural. Hud Hollenbeck, former Planning Commission member, explained that when the regional park was planned, the City and County would be in control of the park. He indicated that now the State is putting pressure on the County to change the master plan on the 15 horsepower limit, he further questioned what will be next. He stated that if the horsepower limit has to be changed, then he would recommend that the park be closed because it will ruin the lake. Murphy explained that the State wanted a park close to the Minneapolis area because of the energy crises. He further explained that the State felt people are not traveling as far and would want something close. e Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 Page 6 J. Thompson <speaking as a citizen) said that he had been moni- toring the lake and found that the lake is much clearer than any other lake in the area and it would not take much to change it. He expressed concern regarding the number of high powered vehicles allowed on the lake making it unsafe and hard to fish. He indicated he would like to keep the 15 horsepower limit. Mike Lynch, Park and Recreation Committee Chairman, indicated that he feels that public waters is public property and that the lake shore owners should not be allowed to set a limit on hor- sepower. He also stated that horsepower limits would be hard to enforce, he then asked the lakeshore owners if they would be willing to restrict themselves to 15 horsepower limit. Many of the public indicated that they would. Merz explained that when the regional park was planned, lakeshore owners were sold an agreement that the master plan would not be changed, and now the state wants to change it. Pat Crane, 6341 Cypress Drive, said that he is concerned about the City's problem with the holdback of funding, but if the State can threaten the City with this this year, he asked what would be changed in the plan next year. tit It was asked how the County is planning to police the number of boats being launched from the access. Murphy explained that he is only allowing a certain number of parking spaces and also there will be someone at the gate to watch. Partridge explained that the Park and Recreation Committee suggested changing the 15 horsepower limit because they felt it is discriminatory. Conrad moved, seconded by Watson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad stated that he feels the intent of the park is to preserve nature, and that an upward change in the horsepower limit would be a change in the intent of the park. He indicated that he felt that a 15 horsepower limit is a little low for fishing. A motion was made by M. Thompson, seconded by J. Thompson, to deny Carver County's request to amend Section 6.04 of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Master Plan. He indicated that discri- mination should not be a concern, but reserving the integrity of the original plan. The following voted in favor: M. Thompson, Conrad, J. Thompson, Watson, Noziska, opposed - Partridge. Motion carried. e Partridge indicated he feels that denying this request will not do any good. . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 Page 7 Noziska moved, seconded by Conrad, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit changes as proposed in Section 1.02, 1.03, 3.01, and 5.01 as follows: 1.02 - Adds the word development in recognition that the new Master Plan replaces the previous concept plan and specifys more clearly facility development objectives. 1.03 - the language has been changed to refer this section of the permit to the adopted Master Plan. 3.01 - this section is to be amended to include the new design capacities setforth in the new Master Plan. 5.01 - this section is amended to reference that the parks and recreation open space element of the Carver County Comprehensive Plan includes a committement by the County that it is their responsibility to provide regional parks of metropolitan signifi- cance which are to serve the county population and residence of the region as well. The following voted in favor: Partridge, J. Thompson, M. . Thompson, Noziska, Conrad. Watson - opposed. Motion carried. Watson explained that she voted against the motion because the regional park is located in an unsewered area and should not have any form of development in that area, also she felt that the City does not have the police power to watch 450 group campers. Subdivision Variance and zoning Ordinance Amendment Request, 7300 Galpin Lake Road, PubIIC Hearing, Frank Stefonic: Present John & Diane Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd. Dean Eilen, 6142 Ridgewood Drive patricia Walberg, St. Bonifacius Frank Stefonoc, Mound Jim Lito John Pryzmus, 7476 Saratoga Drive Partridge opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. Waibel explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant is requesting to subdivide an 18 acre parcel in the unsewered area of the City, and requesting a zoning ordinance amendment to locate a driving range in a residential district. . Waibel explained that this is a variance request from Ordinance 45 and is different from other such requests because the appli- cant is not requesting any building permits. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 Page 8 Waibel explained that the request for a driving range in an Agricultural/Residential district would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He further explained that golf courses are permitted uses in an agricultural district and that driving ranges are very similar in use. He also stated that the appli- cant is requesting to construct a miniature golf course. An adjacent property owner stated that they could not subdivide their property and were wondering how the applicants would be able to do so. They also expressed concern regarding the inter- section becoming dangerous with more traffic. Watson asked if the applicants could subdivide if there is no sewer. Partridge stated that the intent of Ordinance 45 is to preserve agricultural property. J. Thompson asked what the applicant is going to do without buildings and what type of sewer system they are proposing. Pryzmus stated that they are planning on using satillite systems for the sewer, and are planning on digging a well. The adjacent property owner stated that everyone in the area wants to subdivide their property, but cannot because of Ordinance 45. Watson made a motion, seconded by Noziska, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to recommend to the City Council to deny the request for subdivision approval and to deny the amendment to the zoning ordinance in an R-lA, Agricultural Residential District based on Ordinance 45 which states there shall be no subdivision on unsewered land. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Street Vacation Request, Lot iL Block lL and Lot iL Block ~ Moline Addition: Present: Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th street Richard Atherton, 2082 West 65th Street Waibel presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicants are requesting to vacate a portion of the right-of-way of West 65th Street. Waibel explained that staff recommends approval with the con- dition that the applicants dedicate a pedestrian easement along the watermain, and that the right-of-way for the West 65th Street cul-de-sac be dedicated when the street vacation is filed. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1982 P ag e 9 Don Kelly stated that the pedestrian path was originally designed to go to the Jr. High School, but now the Jr. High School is closed. Watson made a motion, seconded by Noziska, to recommend to the City Council to grant the vacation of West 65th Street with the following conditions: 1. That a 20 foot utility/pedestrian easement be dedicated along the watermain lying within that portion of West 65th Street to be vacated, and 2. That right-of-way for the West 65th Street cul-de-sac be dedicated at the time when the street vacation is filed. The following voted in favor: Watson, Noziska, Conrad, J. Thompson, M. Thompson. Partridge voted nay. Partridge explained that he feels the vacation will be shutting off an option that at this time is not seen. Min utes Conrad pointed out on the minutes of July 22, 1982, page 5, condition #5 should have the word considerably rather than possibly. Watson moved, seconded by Noziska, to approve the Planning Commission minutes as amended. The following voted in favor: Watson, Noziska, Partridge, Conrad, and J. Thompson. M. Thompson abstained. Motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Noziska, to note the minutes of the the City Council meeting of July 19, 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Open Discussion Noziska made a motion, seconded by J. Thompson, to adopt the attendance policy into the Planning Commission bylaws. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.