HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-04-1984Page 78
Planning Commission Minutes
April , 1964
Ruth Ubs6 dj 1606 Black Oaks Place, explained she had ques-
tions end concerns reqarding, the Chelsea Deeds development
Area . She Indicated that she was puzzled by the notice
she received, recalling hearingss several years apo which
4resumably dlarlfled the zoning. She -i ulred as to the
current elassllatlens I and to their meaning,
Planning Director Tremere explained the purpose of the Guide
Flan Classification, and the density differences among clas-
sifications.ions. Ms. Bosold stated she and others were cdn-
eerned with retaining the densityIn their area, and they
were also concerned about the impact of future development
in the -area.
Ray Mitchell, 16530 County Read 6, inquired , about the status
of the ` parcels east of Dunkirk Lane which are not ; part of
the Chelsea gWoods development, and which are currently zoned
R - 1A. He asked whether there would be an impact upon the
taxes if this property were rezoned.
Planning Director Tremere explained that it was recommended
the guiding and zoning of the parcels he the same as the
surrounding land though it is in sepprate ownership. Real
estate taxes are a function of the market value, othe land,
and rezoning and/or requiding the land does not result In a
direct change in the taxes on that land Further
development or re -development of the property could' change
the market value, and thus eventually the assessed value of
the property might change to reflect that.
Chairwoman ' asiliou then recognized Bella Braverman 14845
18th Avenue North, stated she vias concerned with the area
surrounding the Cimarron East development (Arca 8). She
stated she favored the single family residential, character
of the area, and the proposed action.
Tom Loskins 1, 1720 Ithaca. Lane, expressed his support for
the proposed re,uidlnq to ` LA -1.
Vasil,i.ou then recognized Dorothy Ciskovsky, 14376
County Road 15t who stated concerns with the area north of
County Road 15 and west of 1-494 (Areas C and it)x She e m -
me ted on the impact of the ` new interchange, and of the -
Carlson Center heCarlson'Center Development. She inquired whether proposed
guiding and zoning actions would result in, or promote earn;-
morcial development. Planning Director Tremere explained
that the proposed reconciliation would net he conducive to
commercial use of the land north of County Road 15.
Page
Planiting Commission Minutes
April 4t 1984
Everett 1230 Harbor.' ted that he t
th r than 500 ft. from the subject area, but was c noe: ed
that the City should have notified him and others throughout
the entire neighborhood. He statad that In his Jttdgment
that would enhance the City's image, and h cited means, by
whotl, other.
r
iedntereted parties °
ins official .eal notices were not
fullydesor , u tied as to , the purpose for the
proposed act
Chair o an ?ix4 ,sponded that notification 1
potentially inter, od parties was a difficult to k, and
that all r asonab o3 jeans were used to notify interested
parties., She stated that citizens needed to assure that
they kept Informed about actions which might affect thea r
neighborhoods, and this could be done by periodically
checking with the City and by reading ,the designated legal
newspapers.
Planning Director Tremere explained the >purpose of the
reconciliation action, and Mr. Cline and another unidenti-
fied
n den -
f d resident of the area suggested that tit- reconciliation
actions would, not be needed if the City had kept track of
zoning and guidlvq actions over the years.
Sam Hartmann, 140 Harbor Lane, stated he also was an area
resident, north off the railroad tracks, nc he scgges ed
that the Land Use Guide Paan should not be necessarily
viewed as "gospel",, and that either gulling and/or coning
could be changed to satisfy the desires of area residents.
He stated the Carlson Center Development would have substan-
tial effect upon this area, and it is not clear that the
Land Use Guide Pian Criteria for class if I cations are as
valid today as they were originally.
Mr. Hartmann submitted a petition he had earrt.ed through the
neighborhoodproposing a change in` zoning; he suggested that
the guiding be changed for Areas C ana , to -1' # He cited
reasons including the natural amen tiea:in the area such as.
the ponding and. tree * he and other nelghbors are not in,
favor of Fernbr ek Lane coming through this area between
unty Road 15 and County Road 6, as ,indicated on the
fhoroug', are Guide Plan; and, a general concern with the
quality of life in the neighborhood and the lady of e fec-
tive recreational facilities. He stated high density devel-
opment could impact what recreational facilities there are.
He recalled that he had suggested some years ago that the
City consider acquiring the land adjacent to 1-4914 for a
natural preserve or park.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 1984
W. Hartmann reiterated the intent'of the p tltl n on behalf
of residents north of the railroad tracks.
Commissioner Plufka commented that the guiding aijadent to
1-494 ias in recognition of the freeway, and the need to
provide for a type of development that would provide. for
transition I.e., through the use ` of open 'space and land -
cap that could he achieved with multi -residential devel-
opment. Mr. Hartmann objected to using residential dwel-
lings, as a buffer or ;transition.*,, he suggested that trees and
the natural amenities would provide for a better buffer.
The Commissioners requested that staff review the two areas
and distinguish the reconciliation needs of each. Director
r mere explained that Area C .had been guided'LA- for a
number `of years,, and contained yet vacant land including a
small pilece uhich several years agcy had been zoned R -1B to
allow for a duplex,. The recommendation, in accordance with
the and, Use Guide plan, is to rezone the property to R-2.
Area D has been guided LA -4 fora number of years, and
st- uld be either zoned to R-4, or: perhaps,.to FRD ending
submittal of actual development plans by the owner). Both
Areas C and 0 are south of the railroad tracks, and together
represent a staged transition. from -494 to 'the ' slIngle
family residential areas; along, ,and to the west of Harbor
Lane.
Bette Prudlo, 405 Harbor Lane,, stated that she lives south
of the railroad tracks, on the west side of ` Harbor Lame, and
noted that there were many .lame lots, of approximately one
acre, In this area., She requested that the character of the
area be retained. She suggested that both Areas C and D
should he guided A-1. She stated that the entire area was
being impacted with much development, and she questioned
whether the utilities in the area could, support higher
density, development. She also stated she was concerned
about ".he impact upon her taxes.
Chairwoman Vasiliou reiterated the purpose of the h a >n s,
and Commissioner plufka stated that the utilities h,-- yen
designed based upon the Land Use Guide Plan, and it would be
the develop is responsibility to connect to the utllit
systems
Craig Hamilton, 1135 Harbor Lane, 'stated his concerns with
density, and he noted that single family dwellings could be
devel,opoxlt along the freeway; he cited developments alone
1-494 south of Highway 12 in Minnetonka. He stated, tie sup-
ported the position of the area residents north of the rail-
road track.
Page 81
Planning Commission Minutes
April 41 1984
P. 6 ldU 143 l lml n forth, stayed he vvas
Opposed the extension of ` rnhrook Lane throoqh the area
between County Road 6 and County Road 15. He questioned
whetherher 1.t would he possible to cross the railroad right -d -
wa which he understood was will: _ retained y the railroad.
He recommended that the zoning and guidinq changed to
assure the area adjacent o tete freewayay woul.d be a pare and
w ildlife refuge, providing a statural buffer to the r l-
dehces to the west. He suggested that the landowner, of the
property adjacent to the' freeway could dedicate the land to,
the City* but that apparently he City did not want the land
but favored cash payments instead. Commissioner, lu ka
responded that the City's park acqu s ioa programs were
based upon 4opted plans and that the Clay could not
acquire land at every point where neighborhoods wanted to
ser e na - ral: areas he stated the Parks and Recreation
vy C= is ion considered the needs of all neighbcr-
ho dst and advised the City Council accordingly. He stated
that it was net true that the City only wanted cash in -lieu
of .hand.
Mr.. Schmidt`continued by, inquiring as to the purpose of the
meeting, and as to how mu^,h height Commissioners placed upon
his cow-ments and the comments of his neighbors. Cha:lrwo an
asiliou reiterated the purpose of the meeting and hearl;ng,
and she and Commissioner Plufka stated that all r sideh s
e'er welcome to express their views before the Commissionn
deliberated the matter. Chairwoman Vasil iou stated that the
Commtsslon would develop a recommendation to the Clay Coln-
ell: who had the final decision. Commissioner Plufka Indi-
cated, that the Commission, would be taking action on this
Item yet this evening; fol ow' tiq the public hears q.
Mr.. Schmidt asked about the status of _ a futuro interchange
at County Road 6 and 1-494. Planning Director Tremere
reviewed the City's Thoroughfare Guide, Plan and confirmed
that such att int rch nqe was anticipated.
Chairwoman Vasil,iou. then recognized Pyr. Harvey Freund, 3041
ouglas Dr., who represents the ownership of property ' at
a510 R Xenium Lane (Area ). He requested an explanation of
the proposed rezoning to R-24- and: following comments by the
Planning Director, he stated he supported the rezoning.
Sack 3ohnso , 3535 Rosewood Lane,: stated he sought Informa-
tion since the notice he received was not specific as to
proposed rezoninq or reguiding actions. He stated he Ives
not in favor of rezoninq the' property due to concern with
existing vacant lots In the area which i zoned R-2, could
be eligible ' for two-family dwellings. He suggested that the
Land Use `",uide Plan be changed to -1
Pace 82
Planning Commission Flinutes
April 4. 1964
Charles Hutchinson, 13215 34th Avenue North, stated he
agreed with Mfr. 3ohnson.. He>statd he was -concerned about
the Impact upon tars, ac ne ,led ing he had heard earlier
remarks that tapes were based upon actual ,use of property
and assessed value. He stated that the Commission should
account for the existing development in the area and change
the Guide Plan to retain it.
Loren Schiebe, 13405 34th Avenue North, stated the Commis-
sion should recognize existing development wh eh had been
there virtually 20 years, and not unnecessarily liberalize
the zoning. He stated he 'supported sound planning in the
communIty,, and he recognized the purpose of the steed t
reconcile the guiding and zoning* He staffed the existing
development should be taken into consideration however, and
therefore, perhaps the guiding should be changed rather than
the zoning.
Chairwoman Vasil iou then recognized Mr. Wayne Carretson.*
14020 a9th Avenue North, who stated he lived in -the Fox Glen
Area east of Fernbrook:ane Area He asked questions
about the zoning and guiding classifications, and expressed
concern that he and some neighbors had been required to pay
for certain utility expensessooner than they felt 'they,
should have to ,pay them,, due to actions by the ori4inal
developer of Fox Glen. lie acknowledged that he understood
the purpose` of the hearing and supported retaining the
single family oharacter of the area..
Donna taus, 14130 40th Avenue North, stated she had sent a
letter to the Planning Commissioners (directly) and strongly
urged that the guiding be changed to LA -1, rather than re-
zoning the property to - She stated the: neighborhood was
concerned with vacant lots at the east end of the develop-
ment,. and the potential for t woo-fomi.ly,or multiple family
dwellings if the zoning were changed. She commented that
future upgrading of County Road 9 would have an impact upon
their neighborhood, and It seemed that this established
neighborhood was being impacted unduly with zoning and
guiding changes.
Chairwo arwas%. lou and Commissioner Pluf a explained the
purpose of the 1wearings and indicated, that the ' recommenda-
tion to rezone was based ; upon the criteria' of the Land Use
Guide Plan for the LA -Z category-, the Commission could gust
as well consider r guiding the property as she had sug-
gested, and that there was not an intent to create 'a nega-
tive impact on the neighborhood
MOTION by Commissioner Pluf a, seconded Commissioner
Pauba q take a inn on this i'em at this meeting. MOTION
passed unanimously.
Chairwoman Vasilnu suggested that a Notion d velopIng< a
recommendation to the Citi' Council should account fnr the
various areas in alphabetical order.
AREA A'
MOTION by Commissioner Plufkat seconded by Commissiane*v Wire RECO DAT1OHa
o :recommend an amendmt-nt to the sand Use Guide Paan Clas- l s -
sl ica on ' rom LA -2 to LA --1. sification
MOTION passed unanimously. VOTE - AREA A
AREA B..
CTIO Commissioner Wiref, seconded by Commissioner Pauba,
to recommend an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan Clas- assificasificaeonfromLA -3 to LA -1.
MOTION passed unanimously., VOTE - AREA B-
INAREA .
p4 e 65
Planning Commission nut s
April 1 1964
d un
AREA D,
MOTH-0- by Cnmm .ssioiter Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to-reeemmend rezoning from R-1A to FRO.
MOTION p-assed unanimous VOTE - AREA D
AREA E
MOTION by Cow.Iss over Magnus, seconded by Commissioner
to berg to recommend an amendmeut to the L and Use Guide
Plan Classification from CN to L -L
MOTION passed unanimously. VOA' - AREA E
AREA F
MOTION by Commissioner Stulber , seconded by Commissioner
Plufka to recommend amendment of ; the Land Use Guide plan
ClaSSifteation f ron LA-1 to CS.
NOTION passed unanimously. VOTE -- AREA F
ARE
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Plufka to recommend rezoning from R-3 to R-2.
MOT-ION y Comtlsioner Wire, seconded by Comrnilssioner Plu kd MOTION TO
to ` AMEND the MOTION to , elude the R-1A zoned lots in the
southwest corner which are not part of the Chelsea Woods
development
Extensive discussion ensued, and the Planning irect€ar and
Commiss:tones Plufka stated that the entire area should be
guided and zoned as a unit,. noting that any future develop-
on the parcels which are not part ' of the Chelsea Woods
project, would require a Conditional Use permit and Site
Flan review. The guiding Is currently LA-
Commissioner Plufka reiterated that re rninq to, i3-2 could
result in the e ass f"-eaten of 10ertain buildings as grand-
fathered, or non-oonfw-ming uses.
Dura nq further disot4,sion, Commissioners Wire and Plufka MOTION TO AMEND
determined that the i4otion to An end should be withdrawn. WITHDRA1*
14
Page 86
Planning C rmiss on Minutes
April1984
40by Comml s on r Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire C0 DATIONS
to recommend rezoning from R-4 to R-3.
RiTIOH Passed unanimously. VOTE - AREA H
AREA I
NOTION by comm ssioner Magnus,, _v.,,c ended by Commissioner
tulberc to recommend an amendment to thv Land Use Guide
Plan Classification from LA-Z to LA-1.
NOTION p4ss d unanimously. VOTE - AREA I
AREA 3
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba seconded by Commissioner Wire
to recommend an amendment to the Land Usc Guide Paan Clas- las-
sificationsifZation from LA-Z to A-1
MOTION passed unaiiimously. V$77tE - AREA 3
Chairwarian Vaszliou reviewed the recommendations and con-
firmed that those persons remaining in the aud.e ce under-
stood them She explained the recommendations wot,, d be
forwarded to the City Council
3 Y A t T
The meeting adjourned at 10;A,15 P.M.