Loading...
PC 07.16.2024CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 16, 2024 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Jobe called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Steve Jobe, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Katie Trevena, Jeremy Rosengren. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Perry Schwartz. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: Ron Talbot 6991 Pima Lane Laura Schuerman 6991 Pima Lane Steve Schwieters 6117 Blue Circle Drive David Maloney 970 Pontiac Lane Brad Fischer 3990 Country Oaks Drive Deena Werkmeister 831 Pontiac Lane Mark Werkmeister 831 Pontiac Lane Heather Schumacher 762 Buckingwood Court C. Patrick Zecco 830 and 840 Pontiac Lane Patrick Banas 6881 Chaparral Lane John Mueller 6850 Stratford Boulevard Terry Lynn Hayes 6850 Stratford Boulevard Meghan Brown 3920 Stratford Ridge Sue Dann 851 Pontiac Lane Matt and Emily Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Sheila McSherry 841 Pontiac Lane Pam Prinsen 4040 Glendale Drive Bob Molstad 1400 25th Avenue Suite 120 Katie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge Matt Moran 3981 Stratford Ridge Linda Paulson 7603 Frontier Trail Loren Jensen 820 Pontiac Lane PUBLIC HEARINGS: Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 2 1. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR WATERVIEW, A PROPOSED 5-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 6870 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY Planner Rachel Jeske reviewed the preliminary plat approval information for 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. She presented an overview of the community engagement for the project, the site location, existing conditions, and the proposal for the site. Commissioner Goff asked if there was a discrepancy in the zoning. Ms. Jeske answered that the development as proposed aligned with the property’s current zoning designation and no rezoning would be necessary. Vice Chair Jobe opened the public hearing. Bob Molstad, Project Engineer and Surveyor, 1400 25th Avenue, Suite 120, reviewed the project's progress and stated that a few changes had been submitted to the city today. Steve Schwieters, Owner of Wooddale Builders at 6117 Blue Circle Drive, reviewed the plan to create custom houses on these lots. Meghan Brown, 3920 Stratford Ridge, stated concerns about having a driveway in the neighborhood connected to a house not a part of the association and asked why it could not go with the other driveways. She commented that the association works to maintain properties and benefit home values. Jason Watt, 3961 Stratford Ridge, voiced concerns about five additional homes being constructed at this location because of the topography issues and insufficient water run-off management. He referenced Ordinance Chapter 20, Subsection 110, Paragraph F, that reviewed water run-off. He commented that he can view the lake at certain times of the year, but with the new construction his view might be obstructed. Matt Moran, 3981 Stratford Ridge, agreed with Mr. Watt about the run-off being a current issue. He stated that their backyard often floods from rain and snow. He voiced appreciation for the privacy experienced in their backyard. Terry Lynn Hayes, 6850 Stratford Boulevard, agreed with the other residents about the water run-off. Linda Paulson, 7603 Frontier Trail, commented that she lived next to five homes designed by Streeter Design and complimented the design of those iconic homes. Vice Chair Jobe closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Maass about the city’s jurisdiction with public roads and associations. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 3 Mr. Maass commented that Stratford Lane is a public road, and a driveway serving Lot 5 is permissible. A homeowners’ association would be required for this development for ongoing ownership and maintenance of the private stormwater features and basins. The current proposal removes the access point on Minnewashta Parkway, which will be an improvement to that collector roadway. Commissioner Goff asked for information about the water runoff mentioned. Mr. Maass stated that there are two stormwater basins. The Water Resources Department has reviewed the plans and will be required to sign off on them before construction. The watershed district would also need to approve the plans. Commissioner Goff asked about the low points and if the water would drain into backyards. Mr. Maass stated that the development would be required to manage and mitigate added impervious surfaces within the development. Commissioner Goff asked if the brown areas on the map show the ponds. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Ms. Jeske clarified that a stormwater pipe would run between the stormwater basins and be piped to a stormwater catch basin on the curb. Commissioner Goff stated that most of the trees were on Minnewashta Parkway. He asked if there were options to plant trees in the backyard for privacy. Mr. Maass answered that the heavy landscaping on the Minnewashta Parkway was for a buffer yard requirement for residential development adjacent to a collector roadway. Staff have suggested relocating some of the trees to maintain viewpoints of the lake while maintaining the buffer. Commissioner Soller commented that there is a heavy tree line in the northern area, and asked if it would remain for this development. Mr. Maass responded that a tree inventory was provided and that the trees on the north side of lots one, two, and three would be saved. He showed an image of the currently existing trees that would be saved. Commissioner Soller asked if the existing water issue would not be made worse for the current residents adjacent to the subdivision. Mr. Maass answered that the development would add stormwater management. There is no current stormwater management associated with the site. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 4 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. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 5 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 Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 6 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. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 7 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 78th 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. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 8 Commissioner Goff asked for the reasoning behind the flat roof requirements. Mr. Maass answered that the flat roof provides more of a commercial feel rather than a residential one. He stated the internal gutters can help manage the water. The flat roofs allow for valuable building height. Vice Chair Jobe questioned why tinted glass was prohibited. Mr. Maass indicated that the prohibition of tinted glass is for aesthetics as it would not allow for visibility into building spaces which is important in a downtown area. Mr. Maass indicated that there had been a discussion about having bird-safe glass requirements however after talking with architects about that possibility it was indicated that the zoning restricted the building height enough that bird safe glass would not be appropriate or necessary. Commissioner Soller asked if building height maximums were addressed. Mr. Maass answered that they are in the base zoning district. This document does not change height or setback requirements. Commissioner Soller asked if this ordinance was brand new and if it did not replace anything. Mr. Maass responded that the city has design standards for commercial, industrial, and multi- family buildings. This project focuses solely on buildings constructed downtown that go beyond the base requirements. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending chapter 20 of the City Code, establishing Downtown Design Standards and approve the Downtown Design Guidelines and Wayfinding Planning Study. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 18, 2024 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated June 18, 2024 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES DATED JULY 2, 2024 Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated July 2, 2024 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024 9 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goff asked if there was any update on the requested name change for the Central Business District. Mr. Maass noted that this concern was still being addressed. Commissioner Goff asked if what was addressed during the work session would move to an amendment. Mr. Maass answered that Mayor Ryan is out of the country and it will be discussed when she returns. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Planning Director