Loading...
1986 03 12 - e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 1986 Vice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Ernmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ryan STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. Sketch Plan Review for Chanhassen Hills P.R.D. of 205 Single Family Lots and 107 Multiple Family Units on 191 Acres of Property Zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development and Located West of Highway 101, Just South of Lake Susan, Meritor Development Corporation. Olsen stated that the Planning Commission and City Council approved the preliminary development plan for Lake Susan South on June 25, 1980 and October 27, 1980 respectively. She stated that the plan proposed a total of 475 units including 283 single family units, 92 townhomes, 92 apartment units, 8 duplex units and a 5.8 acre commercial area at the intersection of T.H. 101 and Lyman Boulevard. She stated that upon approval of the preli- minary development plan, the area was rezoned to p-l, Planned Residential Development. She explained that the proposal did not receive preliminary or final plat approval and because of the lapse of time since original consideration, the subject proposal should be reviewed as a new application. She stated that in October, 1985, Northland Mortgage Company submitted a sketch plan for the Lake Susan South property with 420 units (306 single family, 120 rental townhomes and 4 twin homes); however, the sketch plan was withdrawn before it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. She stated that the applicant (now called Meritor) has submitted a new sketch plan which includes the proposed T.H. 212 alignment. Olsen stated that the 190.5 acres is bordered on the north by Lake Susan and a Class B wetlands and the westerly edge of the property is bordered by Class A and B wetlands. She also noted a Class A and B wetland in the eastern portion of the site. She explained that the site is split by a north/south alignment of Trunk Highway 101 and bordered to the south by Lyman Boulevard. She explained that Highway 212 is proposed to intersect the pro- perty with a northeast/southwest alignment and Highway 101 is proposed to be moved to the east. She stated that the applicant has included these proposed alignments on the sketch plan. e Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1986 Page 2 Olsen stated that the applicant had just informed staff to disre- gard the 32 lots in the lower southeastern corner of the plat. She stated that the property south of 212 will all remain as an outlot. Olsen noted that the 1990 Land Use Plan designates the northerly portion of the property as Residential Medium Density and the remaining portion as residential single family, and parks and open space. She stated that the Land Use plan reflects the pre- viously approved plan with apartments south of Lake Susan. She stated that the applicant is proposing the multiple family units in the southern portion where it is designated as Residential Low Density and if the sketch plan proceeds to the preliminary plat stage, the land use plan should be amended to reflect the rearrangement of the multiple family area. e Olsen stated that the applicant intends to initiate the major portion of single family development on the north side of T.H. 212. She noted that this area of the development contains double frontage lots along the western side of Highway 101 and along the proposed Highway 212 alignment. She stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires all double frontage lots to have an additional 10 feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot lines. She stated that the double frontage lots have an adequate length to meet the 30 foot front and rear setbacks with an addi- tional 10 feet at the rear for landscaping and staff recommends that the applicant submit a landscaping plan in conjunction with the preliminary plat showing berming and plantings along the rear of these lots. Olsen stated that the development is served by one access on Lyman Boulevard and one access on Highway 101 and limiting accesses to one on each collector is preferred by both the City and County. She noted that MnDOT has set January, 1987 as the date for adopting the Official Map for the Highway 212 Realignment. She stated that the applicant has worked closely with MnDOT to show the most recent alignment on the sketch plan and the applicant is hoping to help establish this portion of Highway 212 alignment by platting the lots directly to the north. - Olsen noted that phasing of the development in relation to the realignment of T.H. 101 needs to be further addressed by both the city and the applicant. She stated that the realignment of T.H. 101, with or without T.H. 212, is needed and at present, T.H. 101 is under MnDOT's jurisdiction. She noted that it is anticipated that the state will "turn back" jurisdiction to either the city or the county. She noted that participation in realignment costs will need to be addressed by the local governments involved as well as the developer. Olsen stated that sewer service is available to the property via existing mains along the south side of Lake Susan; however, e e - Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1986 Page 3 extension of watermains must be obtained from the Lake Susan park area to the north. She explained that this would require exten- sion of the watermain down Powers Boulevard and east at a point to be determined to serve the first phase of development. Olsen stated that the sketch plan does not designate any areas for on-site retention of drainage and storm sewers. She stated that drainage for the site will be directed towards the wetlands to the west. She stated that the wetlands currently receive the natural drainage of the site, which then flows into Lake Susan. She noted that sedimentation basins will be needed to contain the runoff from the development before it enters Lake Susan. She stated that the most likely area for these sedimentation basins will be within the wetland area and a wetland alteration permit will be required if this option is pursued. Olsen noted that the Land Use plan designates areas of Parks and Open Space just south of Lake Susan, along the western border and through the center of the site reflecting the previously approved plan. She noted that the Comprehensive plan defines this area of Chanhassen as park deficient. She stated that Lake Susan Park, on the northwest corner of Lake Susan, is a passive park without active facilities such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, etc. She stated that large residential areas are expected to occur in this area and therefore, there is a need for active neighborhood parks. She explained that the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed sketch plan on March 4, 1986 and moved to accept a strip along Lake Susan as passive parkland which can be used as part of a trailway to connect with Lake Susan Park. She stated that the Commission would not accept the wetland area to the west in lieu of park dedication fees. She stated that the Commission also moved to have the developer dedicate a piece of internal property to be used as an active park site and trail easements to connect Lyman Boulevard with Highway 101. She stated that the developer will be required to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet because all single family developments in excess of 100 units must be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Board before approval by the local com- munity. She stated that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be submitted prior to preliminary plat application. Olsen noted that the Wetland Ordinance states that developments within 200 feet must have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and that any development within a Class A wetland requires a wetland alteration permit. She stated that the three wetland areas are just south of Lake Susan and on the western border and in the eastern area. She stated that the applicant must identify the ordinary high water mark of these protected wetlands to determine which lots are affected and if a wetland alteration Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1986 Page 4 e permit is required. She also explained that DNR must approve any development within the Shoreland District. She stated that the Shoreland Ordinance requires that all lots within the shoreland of Recreational Development Lakes must be at least 15,000 square feet in area and at least 75 feet in width. She stated that the applicant must provide a plan showing the OHWM of Lake Susan to determine the 1,000 foot setback. She noted that the most northerly tier of single family lots are allover 15,000 square feet and have over 75 feet in width; however, the next tier has lots under 15,000 square feet which could be subject to the DNR regulations. Olsen stated that the sketch plan review process is an oppor- tunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to identify concerns that should be addressed before making application for the preliminary plat. Concerns regarding density, lot size, traffic, land use and design should be conveyed to the developer. e Larry Frank, Meritor Development Corporation, stated that he looked at the concerns that the residents, county and city staff had with the subdivision. He stated that in response to the Park and Recreation Commission's request, he did a scale drawing showing a park area in the lower southwest corner next to the multiple area. He stated that he eliminated the multiple family lots and added five single family lots abutting the five acre park. He stated that another area that could be included for park area is the peninsula, which would be a passive area. He stated that the peninsula is a total of about 9 acres gross and about 3.2 acres of buildable usable area. He stated that they are willing to negotiate with the Park Commission about the park area. M. Thompson asked who would be developing the project? Larry Frank stated that Meritor develops the project and then they sell to builders. He stated that there would probably be six to eight builders in this project. He stated that they have a package deal that they offer the builders. He stated that they also market for their builders. He stated that they have found in the past that if you do not control them nothing is consistent and it is not a unified effort. He stated that the buyers do not have to bring the mortgage to them. He stated that the lot price ranges would be approximately $20,000 to $25,000 because the lots are large and attractive. M. Thompson asked about the projected traffic on 212? e Larry Frank stated that he did not know. He stated that the plans for 212 call for a bridge at Lyman, so 212 will be depressed when it goes under Lyman and it would also go under 101. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1986 Page 5 e Dacy stated that 212 is initially planned for two lane traffic and eventually four lanes. Jim Curry stated that MnDOT took approximate 20 acres from him for 212. M. Thompson asked if there should be some changes in land use considered for the area? Dacy stated that this proposal should initiate the Planning Commission and City Council to look at different types of uses in the area because of 212. M. Thompson stated that Mr. Curry did a very good job on this proposal. He stated that he liked it much better than the propo- sal from a few years ago. He stated that the double frontage lots should have more intense use instead of single family lots. Larry Frank stated that they looked at that and felt that it would be detrimental to the main part of the property. They felt that they preferred single family lots over duplex lots and felt that because of the size of the lots they will sell as single family lots. e M. Thompson asked the applicant if twenty years from now the freeway would have a detrimental affect? Larry Frank stated that the buyers of the lots will be aware of it and felt that with berming and landscaping he did not see a problem. Siegel stated that he was concerned about the traffic if there is going to be a full interchange on 101. Mr. Curry stated that there would not a be a full interchange, just a half diamond. He stated that 17 would have the big one. Siegel stated that it is not necessarily final that there might be a full interchange at new 101 and 212. Dacy stated that the type of interchange is being tested by the city's consultants. Siegel stated that it could have a very high impact on the traf- fic pattern and what it does to that intersection and also the requirement for a frontage road. Mr. Curry stated that he could not imagine another major interchange that close to the other major interchange at 17. e Larry Frank stated that they are talking about a major interchange at 17 and also at Dell Road. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1986 Page 6 e Siegel stated that the interchange is still a possibility and the applicant should be aware of that. Dacy stated that the Broadened Study Area report will be completed within the next two months. Noziska stated that maybe multiples would be better along the highway, but that is the applicant's decision. He liked the plan. Emmings felt that the proposed plan is a great improvement over what was presented last time. Larry Frank stated that the nine lots to the east of the project where 101 is will not get activated until 101 is vacated and the new 101 is aligned. Siegel asked if there would be a cul-de-sac in that area? Larry Frank stated that it would be vacated. Siegel asked if the 300 feet of right-of-way include any land use dedicated for a frontage road or is that strictly for four lanes? Ie Larry Frank stated that there would not be a need for a frontage road. He stated that when you have a plan that is already built and developed, the only reason there are frontage roads is to provide access to a piece of land that has become landlocked because of a freeway. Siegel stated that there may be a need for a frontage road depending on the usage of the adjacent land in southeast corner. Tim Erhart stated that possibly on the south side; however, there is not that great of distance around the property. Larry Frank stated that the only time you can get frontage roads is if there is a landlocked situation and an access problem is created. Conrad stated that it looks a lot better than what was previously proposed. He felt that multiple units next to 212 made sense. He stated that he does not like lots that are under 15,000 square feet. Mr. Curry stated that most of the smaller lots were in the southeast corner which have been taken out. e Conrad stated that he also likes the park along 212. He stated that he endorsed all of staff's comments and recommendations and encouraged the applicant to have the City Council review the sketch plan. . e e Planning Commission Minutesa March 12, 1986 Page 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Emmings moved, seconded by Siegel, to approve the February 26, 1986 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings moved, seconded by Siegel to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Vicki Churchill March 18, 1986