Loading...
PC 2012 04 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Bill Colopoulos MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson and Kelsey Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeff & Ann Sanville 442 Mission Hills Way East OATH OF OFFICE: Lisa Hokkanen read the Oath of Office. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: ARBORETUM VILLAGE, HIGHLANDS AT BLUFF CREEK, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, AND MISSION HILLS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-04. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. A little background on this. As you’re aware, as staff has been reviewing the planned unit developments for the residential projects within the community to determine whether or not they adequately address city code requirements as well as provide sufficient standards for people to understand how and why their property may develop as it is. Before we go any further, we’ve divided the planned unit developments in the community into six different groups. We’ll be bringing them to you in those batches and we try to organize them geographically so people that are in the similar areas will be together. This is the first public hearing that we have. We will have the other ones in May, June, July and the last one will be done in August hopefully. This group is coming forward because it’s, we believe it’s the easiest one. The majority of the standards were in place as a part of the development and were included in the original ordinance. As you are aware that sometimes the ordinance didn’t reference city code adequately and so we want to make sure that we can reference the city code and control such issues as home occupations which are regulated under the supplemental regulations in city code. It provides standards that allows people to use their homes for an office but it limits the size and the people who can live, the number of visitors they have and the number of employees and things like that. Without these references to city code there is some discussion or whether or not we can adequately protect the community. We believe these amendments will actually be beneficial to the property owners because we will provide the minimum standards for the lots within the developments, especially within the townhouse projects, but as you see some of the future single family ones, they’re all over the range in the setback requirements, the minimum lot sizes and other standards that were very specific to those units. Each planned unit development is very unique. It was based on the proposal. We have before you 4 planned unit developments. Aanenson: Bob, if I could just interrupt for one second. I just want to point out too. While we’ve got them grouped we’re also going to have neighborhood meetings. As Bob indicated, the ones that you’re seeing tonight are the less complex ones so they weren’t, so we’re notifying each person in those Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 subdivisions. Some of those go back, as Bob says like in the 1980’s so while we’ve got, broken into a series of meetings before the Planning Commission, we’re also having a meeting with those associations because some of the HOA’s may or may not be as active as some of the attached product ones. We are putting together maps for each neighborhood. What we know about their association. What definitions were put into a development contract. How they were assembled and what the rules are now and the benefits of what we’re trying to do so those meetings will be held before they come to Planning Commission. And also I wanted to let you know that we have set up a website so everybody gets a postcard. They’re either contacting Bob directly and then they’re also being directed to go to the website. It gives a little bit more background of what we’re going to be talking about tonight but I just want to make sure that that’s on air tonight for our residents too if they want additional information. We keep, when we get frequently asked questions we’re trying to add to that too so if we get questions or if you generate some questions tonight that we think might be, someone else might be asking, we’ll put that out on the website too to help people understand the process that we’re going through so I just wanted to make sure that our residents at home that may be watching too are also aware of that. That they’ll, they have an opportunity to meet before the public hearing. Aller: Great, thank you very much and the viewers at home are reminded that everything that we do is on the website. The minutes of previous meetings are found there as well as agendas for upcoming meetings so keep your eyes there and you’ll see everything that we’re performing and what tasks were coming before us so, Bob. Generous: Okay, thank you. The four planned unit developments we’re reviewing today are Arboretum Village, Highlands at Bluff Creek, Liberty on Bluff Creek and Mission Hills. I should point out that one of the property owners in the Mission Hills development who owns a commercial piece has requested that th we table his item until the June 5 public hearing. He wants his attorney to have the opportunity to look at the proposed changes and it’s implications on his land. And so while he requested that, because there was a residential component to that I did want to at least bring it forward so that residents could see th what’s being proposed now and then like I said we’ll request that it be tabled to the June 5 Planning Commission meeting. So with that the first project that we’re looking at is Arboretum Village. This was originally approved in 2001 and it provided for 342 dwelling units. It consists of twin units and then different styles of townhouse developments. It’s located at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41 and unfortunately my map didn’t show but this is not part of the development area. That’s actually Highlands at Bluff Creek which is the next one that we’re reviewing because it was in this location my map showed when I made this to show the location. As you can see the lot sizes are very varied in this and so it’s a very specific development. However these condominium units are the smallest ones and that’s where we base the minimum standards on. So like I said these are, we believe these are minimum amendments to the PUD’s. First we’re amending the intent portion and it’s really the last sentence that says, except as modified by the standards that are currently in the ordinance for the mixed density residential development. They should comply with the R-8, Mixed Medium Density Residential District, which is our standard zoning for townhouse developments. And one issue with leaving it at that is if we use that as our standard the minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet per unit for a townhouse development. As you can see later in this PUD, the minimum lot area that we discovered within this project was 835 square feet. This is because what they did is they just platted the lot around the unit and they have large areas of common open space so they were able to maintain the overall density that’s required under our comprehensive plan for that smaller lots that individuals would purchase so there’s a lot of common space within this development. The other, the change for the interior lot lines within the development, there are no setback requirements. It’s only from the perimeter of the development that we generally have setbacks or from public streets. The hard surface, the rest of this was in there. The lot requirements, the minimum lot width that we discovered is, in reviewing this development was 26 feet in width and the minimum lot depth that we found was 45 so those would be the minimum standards that would be approved within this project. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 Aanenson: So one of the frequently asked questions is why would you be referencing the R-8 zoning district and I think Bob touched on it but I think it might be helpful just to dove into that a little bit. The R-8 also talks about parking standards, which is what we look at when we review a project. We always provide additional guest parking and some of those sort of things. Any other thing that would be in the residential R-8 district, what might be some other things like. Generous: Well potentially accessory structures could be an issue that’s addressed in the R-8 district regulations. There are some uses, home occupation is a big one that we run into where we have standards for the development. Those are generally. Aanenson: Those are probably the main ones that ties it back to now. With a lot of these associations then would also have their own covenants that the City doesn’t enforce. So if they’re silent on that, the covenants, then they might call the City to say can I have a daycare in my, can I teach piano lessons? Those are the things that the City ordinance would allow if the homeowners associations by-laws are silent on that issue then someone may want to do piano lessons or something like that. So this is what we’re trying to tie that back to, if that makes sense. Generous: And attached to, at the back of the report are the Findings for the recommendation as well as the individual ordinance for that development that contains all the design standards if you will for, that were approved for the project including the proposed amendments that we have. So that’s, as far as Arboretum Village those were the only changes that we saw. Just an update to that. Aanenson: Just a minute, Chair did you want to go, have us go through all of them or see if there’s any questions as we go or? Aller: I was just going to suggest that we go ahead and take them one at a time if we could so that way we can finish up with each one and then we can deal with either a motion or motions after we’re. Aanenson: Yeah. Generous: Well staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amendment for the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Residential. Aanenson: And again I want to emphasize, I think the main difference between all these PUD’s when they come through the process is, they have architectural standards. Then that’s what the City would have the regulatory control over. As far as the HOA by-laws, those are all different too but we wouldn’t enforce those so when Bob was talking about the ordinance that’s attached, that’s a lot of what our language is, would be specific to architectural standards for that district. Any other preservation of a natural feature. Some wetland things. That would be kind of parochial to that project, but otherwise that would just be referenced then by the R-8. Aller: Okay. Any of the commissioners have questions regarding this particular project? Thomas: No, I do not. Hokkanen: Do not. Aller: Okay. Commissioners, do you want to go ahead and open a public hearing on this particular project first and have them one by one? Probably sound appropriate? 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 Thomas: Sure. Aller: So at this point I’m going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Arboretum Village zoning standards. Anyone having anything to discuss regarding Arboretum Village, if you wish to come forward, now is the time to do so. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one come forward, I’m going to close that portion of the public hearing and then open for discussion. Does anybody have any questions subject to the earlier discussion? We’ve had opportunities to read it. It makes sense to me. Brings everything into line and so with that I’d entertain a motion with regards to this particular project. Or do you want to do that? Aanenson: Do you have a motion Bob? Generous: Well I do but it was. Aller: We’ll do that at the end. Thomas: At the end. Aller: We’ll do that at the end so Bob, why don’t we go ahead and do Highlands. Generous: Okay. The next development is Highlands at Bluff Creek. It’s located at the northeast corner th of West 78 Street and Highway 41. It’s just north of the Arboretum Village development. It was approved and I believe it was a 2004 development for 16 townhouse units. There are 3 and 4 unit buildings that were approved as part of the development. One of the interesting things about this one is it was one of the first developments that we had the Bluff Creek Overlay District so the area, this is part of the subdivision. It’s the primary zone. It was preserved. It’s being preserved as permanent open space and the City became the owner of that property so and then there are setbacks. There was a variance as part of this to allow them closer to the primary zone so, because it was really unique. This was once a farm site. The proposed amendments are to provide the reference to city code again to the R-8 district regulations as an underlying zoning except as modified within the PUD ordinance for Highlands at Bluff Creek. We established the minimum lot size based on 3,000 square feet. Again the difference between the R-8 district and this district is that the minimum lot size for a townhouse development is 7,500 square feet. Again we used the PUD to preserve common open area, or in this case the Bluff Creek primary zone and got it in under City control and protection, which is a very important corridor within our community both for, it’s natural value and the open space that it provides us. Minimum lot width is 36 feet and minimum lot depth is 85 feet. And those are the only changes that we’re proposing as part of the Highlands at Bluff Creek development. Aller: Okay, so very similar to the first one. The only changes are we’re adopting as part of our code the minimums that are present there now. Okay. Any questions from commissioners? Colopoulos: I have one regarding the R-8 definition itself under Section 20-655. Water requirements and setbacks. Under Section 1 it says (a), for a two family dwelling 7,500 square feet which is I assume what you got your number from Bob but then underneath that in (b) it says for townhouse or multi-family dwelling 5,500 square feet so kind of wondering why that doesn’t apply in the case of a townhome development. Aanenson: Well that’s why you did a PUD. You can create whatever minimum lot size you want and the reason the PUD was applied is that the extraction of the Bluff Creek corridor. Bob didn’t necessarily the project before, Arboretum Village also dedicated everything north of that as part of the preservation area and actually that preservation area also went across on 41. The trees and wetland complex that’s in front 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 of Westwood Church so the City has to evaluate when we talk about that and when we looked at the PUD ordinance, that you’re trying to get a higher quality. Better design by preservation of some natural feature so to get the, you wouldn’t have gotten those small lots but for there was an area of preservation to tie into that corridor. Colopoulos: Thank you. Aller: And I think the commissioner is pointing out too that, are we I guess the question is, are we reducing that 5,500 square foot minimum then. Generous: To the 3,000. Aanenson: Right. Aller: And that, to clarify that it’s a 3,000 foot minimum. Not 5,500 at this… Generous: Right. Otherwise we, if we could just reference the underlying zoning we would create non- conforming lots out of all of these parcels through… Aller: Inbetween 3,000 and 5,500. Aanenson: And that’s really the heart of the issue. If it’s silent then it goes to the R-8 unless it’s specifically called out and that’s why we’re trying to make sure it’s clear what that lot size is. Yeah, so and this is what we’ve, Bob’s been going through all these. If someone was calling on a piece of property that wanted to list their house for sale and someone wanted to buy it, they’re trying to figure out what legitimately is my lot size. What’s my minimum so this is trying to clarify all those going back to the 1980’s. Aller: Okay. We then need to open then a public hearing regarding the Highlands at Bluff Creek. And if anyone wants to come forward, they may do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. Commissioners. Thomas: No, none from me. Aller: Okay. And then Bob we’ll go ahead and move forward with the. Generous: With the next planned unit development is Liberty on Bluff Creek. It’s located at Bluff Creek Boulevard and Audubon Road or County Road 15 I believe it is. Again this is a development within the Bluff Creek corridor and we preserved large areas of the, you can just see a part of it in the northeast corner of this site and this extends actually up further north and there’s a trail system that goes down and connects to Bluff Creek Boulevard and then this is a tributary to Bluff Creek on the south side. It’s again we’re having common open space as part of the development. Allow the individual lots to be smaller but you keep the same density as permitted within the comprehensive plan. This is a, I didn’t highlight this one but again we reference the R-8 district regulations as the underlying zoning category so we tie it back into all the city code requirements except as we have in here. The interior lot line setbacks is zero feet within the project. Again setbacks are from the public street or right-of-ways. The hard surface coverage in this case, we wanted to note that it’s over the entire development because we have these large areas of upland that are preserved rather than you know sometimes we have wetlands and those really don’t earn as good a trade off for hard surface coverage because they don’t contribute to percolation in the ground. The one, the unique thing about this we’re adding the minimum 20 foot driveway length as part of this development. It was approved as part of the review but it was never codified anywhere and so we wanted 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 to make sure that it was included in there. Again we look at the minimum lot area in this and this was based on a per unit because of the number of condominium units that they have within this development. We took that area of the, because they platted large lots and common ground but individual units are owned by persons. And then we looked at the smallest townhouse lot which was 25 feet and the smallest depth which is 50 feet for a townhouse so that’s it. And then this one has extensive residential development standards. They were based on the plan prepared by Westwood Professional Services and there were changes that were approved and listed here in October of 2010, August of 2011 and October of 2011. And we go through it’s just the bottom elements of those design standards are the revisions that were added to the design standards because it was through trial and error with marketing of the individual units that what people wanted and also the early designs had some unique roof structures that were eliminated in later models so, and so they have the Premiere units, the Regency units, the Chateau units that have changes that have been adopted and so staff is recommending approval of these amendments to the PUD standards or PUD zoning for the Liberty at Bluff Creek. On Bluff Creek, I’m sorry. Aller: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? And again we’re looking to modify only as the lowest common denominator so it’ll be all inclusive and so we’re going to reduce problems in the sale or future use of the homes. Generous: Yes, when they call the City and they ask for the zoning of the property we will actually have something that contains all the unique standards if you will for that development. Aller: Great. Okay. So now I open the public hearing on Liberty on Bluff Creek. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I will close the public hearing. Again questions, comments. Then we’ll move on to Mission Hills. Generous: Mission Hills is located just north of Highway 212 and 101. There are three components to this development. The most easterly is a standard single family residential development, detached housing off Mission Hill Lane I believe the street name is. Then you have fourplex units and other townhouse units within the development. There are actually two phases. I believe the southern ones are nd the villas and the Mission Hills 2 Addition are the fourplexes. The most easterly outlot was part of the original planned unit development was specified for a neighborhood type commercial uses but it didn’t specify what the standards were for that. There were some about signage and lighting and things like that but not minimum lot size or anything. For the commercial portion we are referencing the BN district regulations as a standard for that. Right now, as part of the original approval they would be limited to the one parcel so in the future they could come in and do a subdivision if they comply with the BN district regulations. And then for the residential component, for the mixed density housing we’re looking at the R-8 again and for the single family detached we’re looking at the RSF district regulations as the fall back regulations for the standards within the development. Again as I told you earlier the property owner for the commercial portion of this requested that we not act on this one and that we table any decision until th the June 5 Planning Commission meeting so again there’s no real timeline on this. We’re trying to get through all of them by the end of the summer or early fall with the council meeting so. th Aller: And we’re expecting to hear several others on the 5? Generous: Yes, we’ll have a whole new group. Aller: Okay. Generous: And with that, we can go into that later. Again here we adopted the interior lot line standards. There’s zero setback required within the development. However we did want a commercial parking setback especially from the residential and under the comprehensive plan there’s a buffering requirement 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 between commercial and residential developments so if along that eastern edge it does eventually, it develops as commercial we’ll see additional green space in there. The development standards, just as you unique then, I referenced the underlying subdivision for the minimum lots for the Mission Hills portion of the development. That means if anyone wants to change any lot lines in the future they’re going to have to do an amendment but these were all, and then they further took those subdivided lots and create a condominium unit so we reference all of that. We don’t anticipate there’ll be any changes but if it is they’re going to do, need more than just the code amendment and they’re going to have to get everyone to nd agree to something. And then for the Mission Hills 2 Addition again rather, the R-8 district regulations are more stringent than what was approved as a part of this development. They’re down to 2,100 square feet per unit with a 46 foot width and 47 foot depth were the smallest lot dimensions. The one additional change we recommended is because this referenced lighting, the City has amended our code to reference the LED lighting for the area lighting and we’d like to give this development that same opportunity. With that, that’s. Aanenson: Bob, can you go back to the original map? That one. Mission Hills Lane. Are you showing that as part of this subdivision? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Isn’t that a separate phase? Generous: That’s the RSF district and it complied with single family residential. Aanenson: So we didn’t touch on that but because that, we might want to make note of that when it goes to council that, that it complies with the RSF. Generous: The RSF. Aanenson: So I just want to make sure when you’re looking at that, maybe you can point to that area Bob. That’s part of Mission Hills but it is in compliance with our Residential Single Family zoning district so there’s, you can take that out of the PUD per se because it would reference, it meets all the criteria of the Residential Single Family zoning district anyway. In those circumstances were, when we’re going through these, if we could find just a standard zoning district instead of a PUD because sometimes that’s onerous for residents to try to navigate through that when they’re transferring property, we’re going to try to do that and this is a circumstance I think we kind of brushed over that. That it meets an underlying zoning district so it’s less encumbered if that makes sense. Aller: Will that fall out then on it’s own or will we need to take action on that in order to make it easier on those homeowners? Generous: You could direct us to take the single family portion out of that and rezoning that to RSF. The last group that I’m actually proposing to bring to you are all things that we’re proposing to go from planned unit development to straight zoning so we could take that phase. Aanenson: Yeah, I guess I didn’t quite catch that in our report and I’m sorry for the ambiguity but I just want to make sure that if it’s part of the Mission Hills, if we want to capture it now, or if we want to do it later. Aller: Well I would assume we want to do it later to give the homeowners an opportunity, if there was a reason. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 Aanenson: If they haven’t been noticed, correct. Aller: For them to come forward to do that. Aanenson: Correct. They haven’t been noticed with this but we’ll take about it, make not of that, that that will circle back to that one. Aller: Let’s do that. It makes sense to do something for the residents in that community so. Aanenson: Right. Because it wasn’t noted in this report because that minimum standard would be nd different than the reason I bring up that minimum standard when you’re looking at that, the 2 Addition would be greater than the minimum 2,100, correct Bob? Generous: Right. But those standards were only adopted for the mixed density. The townhouse portion. We reference again the RSF. We could have pulled it out. Aanenson: We could. I’m just saying that there is another phase here that we didn’t talk about and I just want to make sure for anybody watching this, well what happened to my piece of property. That we’re still tracking that one and that will come up with all those that we’re doing in the future. Generous: That we’ll do the straight zoning for because those, well it’s Mission Hills. It’s, I can list the lots and blocks specifically on that and you’ll see some of the future ones we have based on the lot and block, there’s different setbacks. It’s quite unique. Aller: Okay. Any questions? Other questions? Thomas: No. Aller: Okay, we’ll open up the public hearing portion for Mission Hills. Anyone wishing to come forward? No? Okay. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing portion and comments. The only comment I have is we might want to desire to go ahead and honor the request to table Mission Hills to give us a second opportunity to look at this area as well. Maybe we can clear up the report and take that out and then we can deal with that at that time as well as honor the residents an opportunity and request. Colopoulos: Do we need a motion? Aller: I do. Colopoulos: So moved. Thomas: No, you have to read it. Colopoulos: I have to read it. Thomas: You have to read it. Aller: And then modify with the. Colopoulos: How about staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Planned Unit Development Residential zoning ordinance amendments (rezonings) for Arboretum Village, Highlands at Bluff Creek, Liberty on Bluff Creek and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 Aller: And recommendations. Colopoulos: And recommendations. Generous: That’s it. Colopoulos: That’s it, alright. Aller: Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: I second it. Colopoulos moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning ordinance amendments (rezonings) for Arboretum Village, Highlands at Bluff Creek, and Liberty on Bluff Creek and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: And then, why don’t we have a separate and second motion to table. Aanenson: Yeah. Generous: Yes. Thomas: Yeah, I recommend that Planning Commission recommends that we table the Mission Hills PUD until we have a chance to review it and check it out. Aller: Okay there is a motion to table. Do we have a second? Did I hear a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Thank you. Thomas moved, Undestad seconded to table the Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning ordinance amendment for Mission Hills. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 3, 2012 amended to change Allers to Aller on page 5. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aller: There were no matters before the City Council? Aanenson: Yeah, there was no planning items actually. We do have some things going. Aller: Alright. And then I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Aanenson: Before we do that Chair, if I may just kind of give an update on planning items coming before you, if I may. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 17, 2012 Aller: Oh, okay. Aanenson: So next Monday in the Fountain conference room we’ll have our joint meeting with the City Council. 5:30. The Environmental Commission’s also on. They’ll be at that meeting. Its Arbor Day so they’ll be doing poster contest winners so we’ll be first and I did hand out the report of the packet that we’ve seen before so I just wanted you, if you can remember to bring that. I’ll have extra copies in case somebody forgets but that will kind of be the genesis of the discussion. As of right now we do not have st any items scheduled for May 1. We’re feverishly working on the PUD. Having some neighborhood meetings so I don’t feel like there’s anything at this point that we need to discuss with you so we’ll not stth have a meeting on May 1. May Day, but we do have some projects coming in for June 15. We have a variance. We also have some other hearings on the PUDs and potentially the T-Mobile resolution of some easements so it would require an amendment to the Conditional Use. We also are expecting an application in for the expansion of the Canine Club so we’ll have some applications coming forward. So with that, that’s all I had. And we do have enough, there’s consensus on a nomination so I’ll pass that on. Thank you. Aller: Nomination, great. Aanenson: Oh, I did have one other thing. I just wanted to announce for Camp Tanadoona that you are st all welcome to go. They are having kind of an open house on April 21 from 1:00 to 4:00 and I’ll make sure that I email this to you too. They’re going to show their master plan so they’d welcome anybody st from the City that would want to attend over at Camp Tanadoona. Again April 21, 1:00 to 4:00. They certainly want community leaders to feel welcome to see their site. It’s a great site and we were thinking that that might be a place that we could tour too this fall when we talk about our joint tour. That might be a great opportunity to go out there and see their facilities. Aller: Great. Always looking forward to seeing more of Chanhassen. Aanenson: There you go. Aller: Motion to adjourn anyone? Thomas moved, Undestad 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 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10