Loading...
07-16-24 PC item minutes Planning Commission Minutes —July 16, 2024 Commissioner Soller asked if the additional stormwater management system could have a potential net positive for the site. Mr. Maass responded that it was a fair assumption. He added that there is a buffer between the new lots and the existing lots to the north. Commissioner Soller asked if any development was planned for Outlot A or Outlot B. Mr. Maass answered that the outlots are not large enough to have a beach lot for the lake. Outlot A and Outlot B could not be sold independently. Commissioner Soller questioned if it was a net increase of four homes, and asked about the traffic impact and if there was a need to assess this traffic impact. Mr. Maass answered that it would be a negligible addition. There is a handful of utility stubs out to this property in anticipation it would develop. He commented that adding the access to Stratford Lane was a net positive because it removed the access to a collector roadway. Commissioner Goff asked if the house would be removed. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend the approval of the requested preliminary plat for the 3.02-acre property located at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. CONSIDER ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDMENT TO THE PUDR FOR THE CHAPARRAL, CHAPARRAL 2ND ADDITION AND CHAPARRAL 3RD ADDITION. Associate Planner Rachel Arsenault reviewed information about the Proposed Minor PUD Amendment. She summarized the zoning overview. Commissioner Soller asked if the quad units would still have the width and depth requirements. These would be eliminated for the single-family units and the duplexes. Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information. She stated that the quads have additional regulations for screened-in patios and porches. She commented that a majority of the installed decks are within regulation. Commissioner Goff asked if they could be smaller since they are at the maximum depth and width. Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information. 4 Planning Commission Minutes —July 16, 2024 Mr. Maass stated that the depth for the porches is the current requirement. He commented that the quad units were not a part of the initial land use application. Commissioner Goff asked if the quad units were a part of the homeowners' association (HOA). Ms. Arsenault answered that the HOA only manages the duplexes, but it made sense for the staff to modify the regulations for the single-family housing as well. Commissioner Soller asked if there were existing bylaws within the HOA that offer additional restrictions on the topic. Ms. Arsenault responded that she was not aware of any HOA bylaws due to the fact staff does not enforce them. They will still be limited by the setbacks for each parcel that currently apply. Commissioner Soller asked if this was one resident's request, or a request provided by the HOA. Mr. Maass said he would have the applicant respond to that question. Vice Chair Jobe opened the public hearing. Loren Jensen, 820 Pontiac Lane, commented that the decks within the HOA were very different. It would be appropriate to have an 8-foot by 10-foot deck based on the size of the home. They considered the size of the decks to help alleviate financial burdens for the residents and the association. Commissioner Soller asked if decks were required. Mr. Jensen responded that decks are not required,which made it difficult to justify the expense for homeowners without decks. Commissioner Soller asked what the HOA is financially responsible for regarding the decks. Mr. Jensen answered that the HOA was responsible for lawn care, snow removal, siding, roofing, sidewalks, and trees. They are trying to keep the HOA financially sound. Commissioner Soller questioned that they requested the city to regulate to a maximum size. The city is leaving the sizing to the HOA. Mr. Jensen responded that the HOA has bylaws that would maintain the rules and regulations for these specific houses. They are encouraging homeowners to take better care of their decks to help prevent costly maintenance. Patrick Banas, 6881 Chaparral Lane, reviewed concerns about the original construction of the deck on his home. He provided an overview of the options provided for updating his deck. He stated that many of the single-family homes within this area are zoned into the PUDR and do not 5 Planning Commission Minutes —July 16, 2024 match the characteristics of the duplexes and quad units. Nearby homes not in the PUDR do not have size limits on deck size. Charles Patrick Zecco, 830 and 840 Pontiac Lane, commented that the 10-foot by 20-foot deck size was not a requirement, but was a cap. He voiced concerns with the value of the home being impacted by the requirement to downsize the decks. A smaller size deck would be a sacrifice of the quality of life. Sheila McSherry, 841 Pontiac Lane, stated that she understood the restraints of the HOA to fund a smaller deck size. She voiced favor for the city stepping away and the HOA taking care of the issue. Ron Talbot, 8991 Pima Lane, reviewed the history of the construction of his deck. He voiced additional costs that would be included if the deck were downsized. He asked if the homeowner could pay an extra cost to maintain the large deck. He commented that the HOA should work with the residents. Vice Chair Jobe closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff asked if the city was saying the setbacks should match the City Code for the PUD. Ms. Arsenault stated that the setbacks are already in place and decks should meet these requirements. There are no city-specific maximum or minimum regulations for the size of a deck. Commissioner Goff questioned if a resident met the setbacks,they could rebuild a large deck. Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information. If a resident applied for a building permit that met setback regulations, it would be approved. Commissioner Goff commented that there is a difference between what the city does and what the HOA does. A resident should work with the HOA if they would like a larger deck. Commissioner Trevena stated that the HOA is determining the size of the setback. Vice Chair Jobe asked if this amendment was a cleanup of existing rules. Mr. Maass commented that a PUD is to get flexibility in the planning process. This development is unique since it has a variety of house styles. The city would like to only focus on the setbacks. Commissioner Goff asked if all could be removed, and the language could just state that it must follow setbacks. Mr. Maass answered that the upper section is related to the homes, but the setbacks are integral to the overall PUD. 6 Planning Commission Minutes —July 16, 2024 Commissioner Soller asked if an HOA could override a rule in the PUD. Mr. Maass answered that the city would review any permit requests based on the PUD zoning ordinance. If there is a private dispute between a private property owner and a private HOA, that is between those two groups. Commissioner Soller voiced appreciation for this stance on the issue. Commissioner Goff asked about the 30-foot setback. Mr. Mass clarified that the 30-foot setback was for the homes. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance XXX: Amending the Chaparral Planned Unit Development Residential, subject to the following conditions and adoption of Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, ESTABLISHING DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND WAYFINDING PLANNING STUDY Community Development Director Maass summarized the changes to the downtown design guidelines and design standards. He provided an overview of the site design and the building design. He noted that the primary revision from the last time the Planning Commission reviewed the documents was the removal of the conceptual street sections. Commissioner Rosengren asked how the removed street section files would be saved for future reference. Mr. Maass stated it was saved in the city files for future reference. Vice Chair Jobe asked when W 78 h Street was estimated to be rebuilt. Mr. Maass responded that it was not currently within the five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Johnson asked how well the new Civic Campus building met these design standards. Mr. Maass responded that he had not run the numbers officially, but the Civic Campus project incorporates high quality materials including brick, stone, and large amounts of glass windows. 7