Loading...
1983 06 08 e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 1983 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Jim Thompson at 7:35 p.m. commissioners present were Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee and Bill Ryan. Chairman Ladd Conrad and Commissioner Howard Noziska arrived later. Absent commissioner Mike Thompson Staff Present Bob Waibel, City Planner Scott Martin, Community Development Director Vicki Churchill, Secretary Public Present Linda Conner William Ziegler Delores Ziegler Don Dudycha Fay Dudycha Robert Wagner Barbara Wagner Gene Conner Roy Symanitz Ron Symanitz Roger Ellsworth Kelly Ellsworth Jacqueline Lee Mielke Pat Hanily Virginia Hanily James o. Irving Betty Long Ken Long Kay Hegman Ralph Hegman Authur Kimber Carol Regan Willim Wefung Claudia Wefung Allen Putnam T.L. Cook Phil Bonthius George Baer Nancy Swearingen Peter Throdahl Gary M. Hock Eileen M. Hock Sharon Anderson Bill Anderson Norm Grant 2521 Orchard Lane 6441 Oriole Avenue 6441 Oriole Avenue 6451 Oriole Avenue 6451 Oriole Avenue 2511 Orchard Lane 2511 Orchard Lane 2521 Orchard Lane 1505 Bluff Creek Drive 1505 Bluff Creek Drive 2441 64th Street 2441 64th Street 2830 Washta Bay Road 2660 Orchard Lane 2660 Orchard Lane 2670 Orchard Lane 2631 Forest Avenue 2631 Forest Avenue 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive 2820 Lanager Lane 6320 Forest Circle 6350 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6350 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6285 Chaska Road 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive 2300 Melody Hill 6300 Chaska Road 6250 Chaska Road 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive 2950 Washta Bay Road 2950 Washta Bay Road 19118 Townline Road 19118 Townline Road 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 2 Application to Amend the zoning Ordinance to allow the adaptive reuse of Vacant School Buildings for non-educational purposes. Martin explained that the Minnetonka School District is seeking an amendment to the Zoning ordinance which will allow the District to lease space in the Minnetonka West Junior High School Building to private business concerns. The school was closed prior to the 1982-83 school year due to declining enrollment. Since this school property is located in an R-l zoning district, and is designated for Low-Density Residential Use on the Adopted City Comprehensive Plan, staff has recommended that the School District seek an amendment to the R-l zoning regulations to allow by Conditional Use Permit certain non-educational, private busi- ness uses of vacant/closed public and private school buildings. This approach is favored over a rezoning of the property to a Commercial zoning District, primarily due to its location in respect to other residentially zoned properties and the potential for large scale commercial Development of the vacant land on the site which is presently designed for recreational and open space uses. Also, the School Board has not approved the sale of the building and grounds, only the leasin~ of space within the existing building for the next five-year period. Therefore, rezoning is not necessary to accomplish the short-term goals of the School District. The School Board is seeking City approval of a zoning mechanisim which will allow the School District to lease multi-use space in the vacant building to private businesses which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and which make sense given the structural and spatial limitations of the existing building. For example, the School District has identified the following types of uses/businesses as having expressed an interest in leasing space within the building: non-profit organizations such as the YMCA and Historical Society (the nyn is interested in leasing the gymnasium, swimming pool, and locker room areas); a cabinetmaker would like to lease the woodworking shop area for his business; a photographer would like to lease a classroom for a photo studio; a woman who makes fancy candies has expressed interest in leasing the school kitchen area for her small business; and, several individuals or small businesses are interested in leasing office space in the building. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Chanhassen zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Add the following language to Section 7.04 (Uses by Conditional Use Permit within an R-l District) of the zoning Ordinance: 11. Adaptive Reuse of Surplus or Vacant Public or Private School Buildings for private business uses, subject to e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 3 the following criteria: a. Only non-Retail Business Uses shall be permitted and all such uses shall be conducted only within an existing building; no outdoor storage or other out- door business activities shall be permitted on the property except accessory parking and loading, and existing recreational facilities be used for the purpose they were designed located on the premises. b. Exterior alteration except for approved signage, which indicates from the exterior that the building is being utilized for other than educational pur- posed shall be prohibited. c. No noxious or offensive trades, services or activi- ties shall be conducted within the building nor shall anything be done on any site which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the adjoining neighborhood by reason of unsightliness or excessive emission of odors, fumes, smoke, vibration, dirt, dust, glare, wastes or noise. d. Business identification signage shall be limited to one Business Directory-type sign which identifies only the names of businesses located within the building. e. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in a manner consistent with the minimum parking requirements of this ordinance for each specific use. In no case shall any existing parking area be enlarged unless specifically approved by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Vote unanimous, motion carries. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request for Lot I and a Portion of Lot ~ Bardwell Acres, Robert Reutiman. Chairman Conrad informed the citizens present that the City has a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which helps set guidelines for orderly growth and development in the City. Waibel stated that the purpose of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment is to consider the appropriateness of a change in land use designation for a given property or area. The applicant is requesting to receive an amendment to change the land use designation from low density residential to commercial for his approximate 4.5 acre parcel located in the southwest corner of the intersection of T.H. 41 and T.H. 7. Staff finds that the e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 P AG E 4 location of this property at the intersection of two major road- ways with significant traffic volumes and noise as well as other intrinsic site characteristics gives merit to the use of this property for commercial purposes as opposed to the presently planned low density residential use. Waibel also noted for the record that he had received numerous calls opposing this request listed as follows: Oliver and Ann DeGray, 2741 Sandpiper Trail They are opposed to the Land Plan change for Reutiman especially to hotel use. Peter Throdahl, 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive continuing encroachment of commercial into a residential area. Peter Hasnik, 2661 Orchard Lane Expressed opposition to proposal for reasons that it would disrupt quiet nature of neighborhood. John Schumacher, 2841 North Manor Not opposed to commercial property however opposed to a 3 story hotel and office conversion. Chester Butterfield, 2671 Orchard Lane Expressed opposition to this amendment. Gene Goddard: In general I'm opposed to a motel there. It seems to me that you have been asked to rezone something based on a rather sketchy proposal. I think that as a traveling man I can conceive of some kind of motels or hotels might be a welcome addition. Well, might be acceptable, welcome is an overstate- ment. I don't even know what kind of motel it is. Chairman Conrad: Right now what we are talking about is should we really consider having that a commercial intersection. After that if this group recommends that to the City Council and the City Council thinks it is appropriate too, then we would get into some zoning changes. After the zoning changes to commercial we would get into the real use. Now it may be a hotel, may be a motel, could be a service station, could be various things within a zoning category that we would pick for that particular loca- tion. We can't tell you what the quality of the motel is. The worst thing for the entire process tonight is to have a picture of a motel on the board, but that's reality. Tonight we are saying should that be a commercial intersection. Bob Wagner: I support the three inch document that you referred to earlier and your experience on the Board. I am really here to supplement that tonight with a 1/16 inch document of 120 signa- tures from residents and act as the spokesman for most of them. Some of them are here to see that I do my job right. Also, from e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 5 the standpoint from my recent experience in community activities out in that area. I illuded to earlier that we have recently gone through some lengthy discussions with the council on attempted rezoning of residential in the same area, i.e. the Baltic Corporation or Cermak property as its known. It brought from the residential community a great reaction in that they wanted the area to remain residential. I point to your own action earlier this evening to maintain the zoning of residential of the school which is in the same area. You have already in my interpretation say that based upon that that residential is the way to maintain things. At the time when I bought my property, my real estate agent talked with Bob Waibel and talked to the state and the things that we came up with was that it was definitely all zoned R-l and there was no intention of changing or grand- father rights on the Cermak property, that those ran out in about 1990. The state said there was at some point in time to make Highway 41 a double lane, other than that at that time. Based upon all that input I and what I saw as a lakeside community in an R-l area I purchased a home. I didn't think I purchased it on speculation that the land use would change. I will try to relate some of the comments of the people who signed this petition which I will be happy to enter into your records. Summarized Comments: 1. They want to continue to see a residential community in that area and they want Chanhassen to support that. 2. They are directing this opposition to the Comprehensive Plan and not the proposal. 3. They don't support added industrial or shopping in the area, they don't see a need for it. 4. One business in the area is already bankrupt and we don't need any more to do the same. 5. On Cermak property which had a Conditional Use Permit, they still have not landscaped as which was stated in that permit. 6. They do not want to devalue their property. Allen Putnam: I am against rezoning the property to commercial because of the extra traffic and noise that it would bring in the area. I don't not feel it would add to the community in that area. Nancy Swearingen: One thing that we have to address is that Shorewood is not single family, it has double housing. The zoning already is not R-l it is R-2. On the corner of Highway 7 and Chaska Road they are building an office. I feel we need to address the whole area at once. It is up to Chanhassen not to bury their head and to say that we are going to remain residen- tial. Peter Throdahl: I did call Bob and I could make it tonight. I think we are looking at the big picture and not just this one particular piece. I guess I am a little surprised that the e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 6 question wasn't addressed before in terms of the Comprehensive Land Plan as to how to deal with that corner if it is such a major intersection and so right for commercial development. Now I think you are looking at a spot feel in what I would call an encroachment into residential area of the development or proposed development when in fact I think you should be looking at the whole corner for commercial. I am opposed to that but I think that is really the question that you have to deal with here. I would view anything of this sort as a spot development commer- cial which will simply lead to more commercial. We will be back here again for the next one on the other five acres and across the highway, etc. Bob Reutiman: You changed the property from commercial to resi- dential it wasn't too long ago. At the time you changed from a township to a city, 1967. I think that's when they changed it over, but actual when I bought the property it was commercial and that is why we are asking at this time for commercial usage. Somebody said something about industrial, nobody's asking for anything in industrial. All we are asking for is the ability to come up with a plan that's best for the property. At that point then you can say 'we don't like it". Would any of you like to live on that corner now? No. Not Identified: I would love that lot up there. Bob Reutiman: You can have it. Not identified: Because it was beautiful for alot of houses, but you didn't do that you dug it out with the sand pit. Bob Reutiman: Because at that time it was commercial. Peter Throdahl: In terms of developing the City with the Comprehensive plan somebody still thought fit to put that in as residential property and I guess my idea still stands that I don't see a particular need to change that at this time. My final comment at the moment is the fact that I do feel we are encroaching. The Baltic I think was a tough situation, what to do with the Cermak property, Baltic came along it was finally p~ssed. I felt at that time it was an encroachment of commercial into a residential area. If you look at the entire area I think you would not have to great of difficulty calling it a residen- tial community. Except for Baltic there is really no hint of any other commercial except across Highway 7. Joe Gorecki: I would like to tell you why we put a motel on this particular drawing. We thought the people of the area would like it. What we had in mind was a nice good looking motel for out of town friends, relatives, a lot of businesses that need facilities to have sales meetings, a lot of ladies like to play bridge and e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 7 have a nice bridge game, have graduation parties at. Alot of people would like to be in our area to take advantage of our golf courses and dinner theatre, instead of going downtown. Gene Goddard: I've traveled on the road for over thirty years and as a traveler I think that good hotel motel complexes are supported by major businesses. The vacationer is not going to stop, a few maybe as a way spot on the way up north. They aren't going to stop and stay a week. It's not going to be an attrac- tion as a vacation spot. To be attractive to a major business you need more than just a room, you need a restaurant, bar faci- lities other reasons for being there than just a room. Bob Wagner: I am responsible for selecting meeting sites for my business group. We look for the activity in the area, the uniqueness of fine food and shops for the spouses. I don't believe that this area would support that kind of activity. Nancy Swearingen: I'm going to be the heavy with boths sides with some of my statements. There were a couple of clues for people when they were building out here that this was a very active commercial spot. As far as the motel business I know for a fact that the Hopkins House is going through bankruptcy. If there is that much money in motel business they aren't making it half way. I think I'm just going to plead back to Chanhassen to take a comprehensive look of their own and say what are we going to do. I'm comfortable if you could put cluster townhouses there. I think there is intelligent ways to solve or soften this slip over into commercial and I plead to Chanhassen to do something like that. Chairman Conrad: We the Planning Commission and City Council have to be sensitive to the owners like we would be sensitive to you hopefully. The area is going to be developed and we are going to let something happen. I think we could not sell it for residential because it's not the best residential area, intersec- tions are typically used for commercial. Eileen Hock: I wonder if we might ask the group how they feel about townhouses as an alternative. Bob Reutiman: Actually this request for a motel was just to open up discussion. We would like to have input from these people as to what they would like there. Chairman Conrad: What we are hearing from them is that there is another use that they feel better about. Bob Reutiman: suggestions. Other than housing would they please come up with Because it isn't practical for housing. Chariman Conrad: Would you say a higher density type townhouse is not practical at that intersection? e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 8 Eileen Hock: I think some of our problems is not that particular area. We've seen it happen all up and down Highway 7. We have a commercial building then the first thing you know the commercial outfit buys a private home and turns it into commercial. I think we are all worried even though we are quite a way from this area, eventually we all going to be commercial. Arthur Kimber: I think the area along Highway 7 is not suited for low denisty housing, we have a number of the residences who have sold and resold because they can't live with the noise and traffic. I also think that the area should be developed because it's an exhausted gravel pit and few other things that aren't paying any tax dollars for the area they take up. Whatever is put in there we should be careful so that it doesn't get involved with multiple story buildings. Peter Throdahl: Why is housing thrown out entirely? Joe Gorecki: We haven't thrown it out, if the density is right and the numbers work there is nothing wrong with townhouses. Peter Throdahl: Has anybody looked at that question? Joe Gorecki: No. It doesn't make any difference,if there is something else that is more feasible to put on that piece we are all for it. George Hock: My concern is that it can be developed into a resi- dential area, not private residences, but a residential area that would meet the approval of everybody. Kay Hegman: Why don't you have a show of hands to see if these people would go along with the idea of townhouses or cluster homes. Chairman Conrad: We could do that just to get an indication of your sentiments, those who would like him to pursue the alter- native of having higher density housing than what is currently on the Comprehensive Plan, right now it shows it as a low density area, as opposed to commercial. Most of the people in attendance agreed that they would rather see a higher density residential neighborhood than commercial use in that area. Nancy Swearingen: I think that you have to reflect what Shorewood is doing on the same side of the road. I know it's tough because Shorewood has completely different plans for that strip than Chanhassen has. They have commercial plans for that strip and just wanted to address that to you. e . e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1983 PAGE 9 Not Identified: I just happen to think, would the City of Chanhassen be willing to buy the property and make it into a park area for the kids. We are kind of limited, we have one picnic table down there on Highway 7 and that's our park. Martin: There is a neighborhood park, it's called Herman Field. It is just to the southwest of this area but I don't think it's fully developed yet. William Ziegler: I would like to know about that house just north of our property (Baltic) how they can rent the property without a permit? Martin: We are aware of the situation. Allen Putnam: Just one final comment, I would request that the Planning Commission consider the many people who could suffer and their property values versus the few people who might gain by this. Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. The Commissioners agreed that there were to many questions unanswered that there are no provisions here; it's not improving the local neighborhood; there are no provisions for the adjoining property owners. They felt that they should know what the pro- perty across the road is planned for by Shorewood and just to take a look at the entire area. Noziska moved, seconed by Ryan, to table the item in lieu of the staff providing us with additional information that we need to more thoroughly analyze the situation. Vote unanimous, motion carries. Final Development Plan Amendment Request, Near Mountain P.R.D., Lundgren Brothers, Inc. Dennis Mulvey, a representative from Near Mountain explained that the request of the proposal is to amend the Near Mountain Final Development Plan to construct 31 small lot single family detached dwelling units in the northeasterly most 7.8 acres previously approved for 36 quad home units. Bill and Sharon Anderson were present for this public hearing and expressed concern of the public hearing that approved the final development on Near Mountain. They were not even aware of this proposal and said that they were sure none of their neighbors knew anything about this. They were also concerned about the traffic that would be generated from this development. e e e e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE B, 19B3 PAGE 10 Ryan moved, seconded by Albee, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the final development plan amendment for the northeasterly most 7.B acres of the Near Mountain project as proposed with the following conditions: 1. That the roadways are to be constructed to City standards. 2. That the model unit to be constructed not be occupied until provision of full public improvements to the site have been initiated, and 3. That proposed covenants and restrictions are subject to City Attorney approval. Vote unanimous, motion carried. Replat of Outlots H and I of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Chanhassen Lakes Business-Park Third Addition) Michelle Foster a representative of Opus Corporation was in attendance. Waibel briefly explained that the proposal is to replat the 113.9 acres contained in Outlots H and I of Chanhasssen Lakes Business Park into three industrial development sites (Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 1) and three outlots. Due to the applicants plan to only construct the street section from County Road 17 to the easterly line of proposed Outlot B, the only area eligible for imminent development would be that having improved street frontage. Noziska moved, seconded by Jim Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the prelimi- nary plat for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition as depicted on the preliminary plat official file copy for Planning Case B3-4 Subdivision, dated received May 5, 19B3 Chanhassen Community Development Department with the condition that: 1. The applicant dedicate all drainage and ponding easements as required by the City Engineer, and 2. That individual lots within the plat are not eligible for development until such time as extension of full sewer, water and street improvements have been initiated. Vote unanimous, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.