Loading...
PC 05.07.2024CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 7, 2024 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Katie Trevena, Jeremy Rosengren. MEMBERS ABSENT: Perry Schwartz. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 16, 2024 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated April 16, 2024 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1. REVIEW R-8 AND R-12 ZONING DISTRICT LOT STANDARDS Eric Maass, Community Development Director, presented background information on the R-8 Zoning District and the R-12 Zoning District. He reviewed the current standards for each zoning district for the minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot depth. He provided example projects to demonstrate the planned unit development and the current base R-8 zoning. He explained the draft revised standards for the R-8 Zoning District and the R-12 Zoning District. Chairman Noyes asked if there were two R-8 areas and how developed they currently were or if there was an expected redevelopment. Mr. Maass answered that there were two R-8 areas and that he did not expect any redevelopment, Planning Commission Minutes – May 7, 2024 2 but there could be areas eligible for the R-8 district in the comprehensive plan that are not currently zoned in this way. Chairman Noyes asked if the examples provided meet the draft revised standards for the R-8 Zoning District. Mr. Maass answered that the example projects would be short on the lot depth but explained that the lot depth is impacted by how deep and long the buildings are. Chairman Noyes stated that it would be helpful for the examples to meet the draft revised standards. He asked if there would be a tax difference between zoning of planned unit development, R-8 zoning district, or R-12 zoning district. Mr. Maass responded that there would still be the same number of units, but it reserves planned unit development as a specific tool to utilize when appropriate, rather than to do away with the minimum lot areas. Chairman Noyes suggested if there was real planned unit development data to show how they could exist as R-8 zoning district or R-12 zoning district. Mr. Maass stated that the intention was to not rezone existing planned unit developments but limit more in the future. Commissioner Jobe asked for clarification about the square footage for the R-12 zoning area. Mr. Maass answered that the square footage is the lot area rather than the home being built. Currently the minimum lot width is 150 feet which would then require that for an attached townhome that the townhome be 150 feet wide. This is not realistic and should be amended. Commissioner Soller asked if the intention is to zone more land as an R-8 in the near future to conform with the comprehensive plan and what the immediate action would be from these two changes. Mr. Maass answered that they are not looking to rezone additional property to R-8 or R-12. The immediate action would be to amend the ordinance so that properties which are currently guided and eligible for R-8 zoning could be developed without the need for variances or to be rezoned into a Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Soller asked if the rezoning happens when there is an attached proposal along with it. Mr. Maass confirmed this information and provided an example of the lot south of Trouvaille Memory Care Suites. Commissioner Soller asked if the rezoning requests come before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes – May 7, 2024 3 Mr. Maass confirmed this information and that they require a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Soller asked if there have been instances of rezoning land in the city over the last two years. Mr. Maass explained that if the Planning Commission has approved a planned unit development, there has been a rezoning. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the West Park Project had been R-8 zoning district and the lot depth was not a minimum of 50 feet, if there would have been a need to change the design or a variance. Mr. Maass stated that if they had not come through a planned unit development, they would have needed to seek a variance and explain what is unique about the property that does not allow them to meet the standard. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the proposed changes to the R-8 and the R-12 zones did not match the provided examples and would there be continued difficulties. He encouraged creating a change that would be easier for projects to fit. Commissioner Soller questioned if the burden to rezone a land is different if the end point is an R-8 zoning district or a planned unit development. He asked if it would lower the scrutiny of these project approvals. Mr. Maass answered that it would not be difficult but would rather be more straightforward. A planned unit development would still be available if someone had a unique property development and the city saw the benefit. Commissioner Soller asked if there was a conflict with the comprehensive plan, it would be a barrier. The comprehensive plan would have to change before the zoning could change. Mr. Maass commented that they are not looking to change the density for the R-8 or R-12 zoning districts. Chairman Noyes asked if other zoning definitions needed to be considered further. Mr. Maass answered that there were likely additional parts of the city code requiring review but at this time staff is only suggesting revisions to the R-8 and R-12 zoning districts. Commissioner Trevena commented that it would be helpful in future presentations to utilize a map to graphically show what areas are zoned or guided for eligibility for R-8 or R-12 zoning. Commissioner Soller asked if this would be discussed further in June. He asked if the main high points of the conversation had been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes – May 7, 2024 4 Mr. Maass stated that it would be a scheduled public hearing for the June 4 meeting if the Planning Commission wanted to move forward. He answered that the request for diagram examples of the development proposals was helpful, and they can prepare this for the next meeting. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: Mr. Maass stated that the Planning Commission could cancel the regular meeting for May 21 and instead hold a work session to discuss items in the 2024 Planning Department Work Plan. Chairman Noyes stated that it would be helpful to meet and hold these discussions and requested to leave the agenda up to the staff. Commissioner Soller requested a draft agenda a week ahead of time so they can review it and be prepared. Mr. Maass stated that the city staff will provide the adequate information needed before the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Soller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director