Loading...
1982 09 09 e e - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Howard Noziska, Jim Thompson, Mike Thompson, and Bill Swearengin. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Scott Martin, Russell Larson and Becky Foreman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing, Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Design Standards for Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Buildings in R-lA, R-lB, R-l, R-2, P-l, and P-2 Districts: Present: Reed Beckler, MobileHome Minnesota Chuck and Helen Lawson, 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior Thomas L. Moore, #1 Northdale, Montevideo Moduline Industries, Inc. Mr. Beckler gave a slide presentation showing the different styles of manufactured housing and a brief explanation of the construction tech- niques used the manufactured housing industry. Martin said that adoption of specific design criteria for Residential buildings would not only restrict the style of manufactured housing in the City, but would also limit creativity in the architectural design of conventionally built homes. Martin recommended that the Planning Commission consider only subsections a and b from the proposed design standard ordinance for residential buildings. He added that these design criteria could also be included in the Proposed R-IMH District Ordinance. Partridge said that if design standards are too restrictive, there would likely be variance requests for every different type of roof design or siding. He felt that that would be an unnecessary burden for the City to take on. Watson said that the City should be careful not to unnecessarily restrict design creativity. Noziska expressed concern that manufactured homes could not be inspected as well as site-built homes because the City Building Official could not inspect manufactured homes at the time of construc- tion. Noziska also was concerned about the City being assured that the manufactured homes have adequate insulation and will be energy effe- cient. Thomas Moore, a manufacturer of manufactured homes, explained that all manufactured homes are built to the HUD building code. He explained that there are three different building code zones nationally, the Hurricane zone, the Middle zone and the Northern zone. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1982 Page 2 e He stated that a company which builds manufactured housing has a third party inspection system established and monitored according to HUD regulations. He added that quality control and inspection is much better in the controlled environment of a manufacturing plant, and that the only substantial difference between various building code zones are the energy and snow-load requirements. Noziska asked how the City could be assured that mobile homes from other zones, such as the hurricane zone, would not be moved into Chanhassen. Moore replied that an inspection certification seal must be affixed to each manufactured home which certifies the zone for which it is manufactured. Watson expressed concern that manufactured homes are prone to damage from high winds. Beckler indicated that they can be tied down to eli- minate most movement or damage from high winds. Conrad moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. It was asked what the maximum width is for manufactured homes being transported on public highways. Moore said that 16 feet is the maximum width allowed in Minnesota. Martin stated that the proposed 20 foot wide minimum was the most com- monly used restriction found in those zoning ordinances, used as a reference, and that it is designed to eliminate single-wide mobile homes from residential neighborhoods. e Russ Larson said that he has reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and has no legal problem with it. Conrad moved, seconded by Partridge, to recommend that the City Council amend Zoning Ordinance #47 by adopting the following Design Standards for residential buildings constructed in any R-1A, R-1B, R-I, R-2, P-l, and P-2 zoning district: a. The minimum dimension of any part of the basic dwelling shall be twenty (20 feet). This shall not be construed to prohibit smaller or narrower individual room additions or to restrict the use of architectural features not otherwise prohibited or restricted by this ordiance. b. The dwelling shall be placed on and firmly secured to a permanent foundation or concrete slab which complies with the State Building Code. In the case of residential buildings placed on concrete slabs, the exterior walls of the building shall extend to within six (6") inches of the ground surface and shall comple- tely enclose the circumference of the building. e The following voted in favor: J. Thompson, Swearengin, Watson, Partridge, and Conrad. M. Thompson voted nay, Noziska abstained. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1982 Page 3 e M. Thompson said that he believes the City should have some building design standards, however, he did not agree that the recommended stan- dards have been given adequate study. He stated that when the City develops design standards they should be more comprehensive than what was considered and be based on a great deal more thought. He added that he feels the Planning Commission is not being fair to citizens, potential builders and homeowners of the City by passing this ordinance in this manner. Partridge said that the ordinance is basically being recommended to protect the City against possible legal challenges should someone attempt to move a manufactured home into a conventional zoning district. He said that it should be very clear to all that this ordi- nance is not intended to permit manufactured homes on scattered sites in all R-Districts. Manufactured homes will only be permitted in the proposed R-lMH zoning district, if adopted by the City Council. Noziska stated that he was not sure if this is what the City would want in the future. He also stated that by allowing homes that are not built to UBC standards, the City is reducing its standards for one spe- cific segment of the construction industry. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing the R-lMH, Single Family Manufactured Housing District: e Partridge asked if a manufactured housing district would hold up in court. Larson indicated that this issue has not yet been tested in Minnesota. Martin recommended that the proposed ordinance be modified to include a Section in specifically stating that all hmes in all zoning districts other than the proposed R-lMH District must be constructed in accor- dance with the Uniform Building Code. Larson concurred with this recommendation. Swearengin felt that if the Supreme Court rules that a manufactured housing district is unconstitutional, the City would have design stan- dards to fall back on which would not allow single-wide mobile homes. Beckler indicated that there is a great demand for manufactured home developments in the Minneapolis area, but that he knew of no proposals pending for Chanhassen. Beckler stated that by restricting manufactured housing to a manufac- tured home district, the City will not be complying with what he feels the State legislature enacted. He added that he understood the State law to mean that a City could not deny any person a permit to place a manufactured home on any lot that is buildable, if all setback, width, foundation, and other requirements are met. Larson explained that the State Statute is not that restrictive, and further explained that by developing a manufactured housing district, the City is not denying anyone an opportunity to place their manufactured home on a residential e Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1982 Page 4 e lot, but is rather providing for specific residential lots to accom- modate manufactured homes. Partridge stated that the League of Minnesota Cities suggested a manufactured home district as an alter- native to allowing manufactured home on scattered lots in established neighborhoods. J. Thompson felt that manufactured home park developers looking for areas in which to develop, would most likely look at those cities which have set up special districts for manufactured homes. J. Thompson suggested that the Planning Commission not recommend that the city Council establish an R-IMH district. Larson indicated that if the City does not set up a manufactured home district, manufactured homes would be allowed on scattered sites within the city. Partridge felt that the ordinance should state that manufactured homes must comply with all the same requirements as conventional homes, including minimum lot size, frontage, etc. Swearengin moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance as presented. e Conrad stated that he feels the proposed minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet is not in the best interests of the community because most people move to the City of Chanhassen because of the abundant openspace. Conrad added that he would like to see the minimum lot size reflect the low range of the Residential medium density land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan. This would allow for a maxi- mum denisty of 3.5 units per acre. Swearengin moved, seconded by Noziska, to amend the above motion to state that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for an R-IMH District having the same Development Standards as required for Conventional Housing devel- opment and restricting manufactured homes to the R-IMH District (prohibiting them from all existing R-Districts). Furthermore, the pro- posed ordinance should be modified to eliminate the requirement that R-IMH developments contain not less than 100 lots (Section 6.52). Only Medium Density areas shown on the adopted Land Use Plan shall be con- sidered for R-IMH zoning. The following voted in favor: Watson, Partridge, Swearengin, Noziska, and Conrad. J. Thompson and M. Thompson voted nay. Motion carried. J. Thompson stated that he is against the motion because he feels that the proposed ordinance is discriminatory, that mobile homes should per- mitted in any residential district, and that the ordinance is uncon- stitutional and will not hold up in court. M. Thompson explained that he feels that manufactured homes are good for the community, but by developing a special district the City is e Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1982 Page 5 e being discriminatory. He expressed concern that the use of conven- tional development standards for R-IMH developments provides for poten- tial manufactured housing developments in low-density residentail areas even though the ordinance attempts to prohibit them outside of medium- density areas. Minutes Watson moved, seconded by Conrad to approve of the August 26, 1982 Planning Commission minutes as presented. The following voted in favor: Watson, Conrad, Swearengin, M. Thompson, Partridge. J. Thompson and Noziska abstained. Conrad moved, seconded by Noziska to note the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 2, 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Partridge, to note the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 23, 1982. The following voted in favor: Watson, Partridge, Conrad, Noziska, M. Thompson, Swearengin. J. Thompson voted nay. J. Thompson stated that he is disappointed with the City Council's action regarding the zoning ordinance amendment and subdivision variance requested by Frank Stefonac,and that there was no mention in the Council minutes of the Planning Commission's recommendation. . Watson stated that she does not agree with J. Thompson's statement because the City Council has the option to disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendations and there were no Planning Commission members present at that meeting. Watson moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to note the Environmental Protection Committee minutes of July 13, July 27, and August 10, 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Status Report of Planning Commission Work Program Partridge reported on his meeting last week with Mayor Hamilton, the City Manager, and the Community Development Director concerning the current status of Planning Commission Progress on specific work ele- ments in the Work Program. He said that he had an opportunity for the first time to review the job description and the various respon- sibilities of the Community Development Director, and that he left the meeting with a much better understanding of the City's Organizational structure especially the relationship between the City Planner and Community Development Director positions. He explained that the Mayor and City Council are dissatisfied with the progress made on the Work Program to date. e Partridge recommended that the Planning Commission request that the City Council provide them with consultant assistance to prepare new zoning and subdivision ordinances, since it is apparent that City staff has too many day to day on-going responsibilities to effectively rewrite the City's land use control ordinances within the periods defined in the Planning Commission Work Program. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1982 Page 6 e As an alterative to this approach, he suggested revising the Work Program to reflect progress made to date and to establish more realistic project completion dates. Noziska and M. Thompson felt that the Commission has made reasonable progress on Work Program elements considering the fact that several unanticipated issues have come before the Commission since February that forced the Commission and Staff to redirect a substantial amount of time towards issues not specifically identified in the Work Program. He pointed out the fact that five or six meetings since early June have been required to discuss the Manufactured Home issue, which was necessary as a result of a State Legislative mandate, and that several other meetings were consumed by lengthy discussions concerning Agricultural Preserves zoning and the make-up and bylaws for the newly established Environmental Protection Committee. Conrad felt that providing adequate staffing for the Planning Commission was the responsibility of the City Manager, and that the Commission should take no action on the Chairman's recommendation to request consultant assistance from the City Counci. other Planning Commissioners concurred with Conrad's position that any request for consulting assistance be from the City Manager directly to the City Council. No specific action was taken on this item. Adjournment ~ The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. e