Loading...
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.