Loading...
1980 05 21 - e - ~ Chanhassen Planning Commission - May 21, 1980 The issues were separated as the outline was discussed. With each issue, we should discuss whether we feel this issue would be the same for all of the developments or is an issue that has differences with the Lake Ann and Lake Susan West. If the issue is consistent with all three developments, we will go ahead and apply to all three developments. Clark Horn: If we make a decision on it, then we feel that the issue is equally applied to all three developments. We will not act on that particular issue again when we give our final approval on the other development so that we don't have to go three times through the list. If we agree that they are the same kind, we will take our action retro-active, when we make our final approval. Tom Hamilton: Before we get started, and for the record, I don't approve. I don't think that is the way the motion was intended to read or intended to have it done. Clark Horn: The minutes of the meeting and the methods indicate this is the consensus of the group and this is the way we should attack it. We will address the item and then we will give the relative comments from staff. And, then we will go around and poll each of the commissioners as to his feeling on that particular issue and then we will try to come to some type of consensus on that particular issue. Bob Waibel: Many items have been picked up in previous reports, with varying degrees of detail and I had planned on commenting on some of these areas in even greater detail also in my wrap up report next Wednesday night. There may be some changes or add-ons to some of these comments before the final recommendations. We are discussing housing types of Lake Susan West and Lake Ann. Types as noted in the previous planners reports are permitted uses within the P-I district. Working with the preamble of the P-I district, they are not found to be in violation of such and there is also reservation that certain portions of this, such as the town-home apartments and the areas other than the first phases of each of these developments have to be certain of large reservation or a fair amount of reservation as to the realisticness of a safe plan that is being submitted when it is probably a year from construction. The types involve single family. We have the architectural renderings of the possible builders in the first phase. As far as the archi- tecture goes, the Planning Commission should see fit to have tha~ also as an it~m to be brought back when the subsequent phases come in. -2- - Chanhassen Planning Commission - May 21, 1980 And have that written into the Development Contract. As the next phases are brought in for their Sight-Plan Review or their preliminary plats, that the perspective builders submit architectural renderings. Clark Horn: Is it your impression, Bob, that at this point, we will be acting on the architectural renderings we have reviewed so far as part of our recommendation or should it be limited to only a type? Bob Waibel: The types are too involved; it is part of it. The part of the Preamble thing. The possibilities of the market housing. The provision of Market Housing which comes back into the ratio and mix thing. Clark Horn: For our recommendation coming up with tonight and next Wednesday, do you feel that we are to deal with the specific architectural renderings that we have submitted or are we supposed to be giving our recommendation based on that type of housing whether on these renderings or other renderings? e Bob Waibel: The renderings only pertain to the first phases. The first phases like Susan West and Lake Ann, those are the only two for sure committed builders we have at this time. The layout of the lot doesn't have a bearing. Density doesn't have a bearing on architect unless cluster versus row house versus some other sort of architect. Clark Horn: Is our recommendation tonight supposed to take in Phase I of Lake Ann or any of the phases that have quadrominiums? Are we to consider quadrominium type that is being proposed for that phase or a quadrominium in general? Bob Waibel: There isn't any difference in looking at it. The ordi- nance does request it and we've seen and heard comments about it. Architecture relates to the Planning Commission and we are to discuss whether that is in fact an issue. I don't know why the ordinance has it in there1: or whether it is beneficial. We are dealing with the layout of the land, street patterns. Art Partrige: I have reservations about the idea quads as being a concept. Quads are a better usage of land. Quadrominiums are a better use of land than a big box on a small square with two big driveways with it and leave nothing left. The proposal is to plat these things as 4 separate lots. In the proposed preliminary drawings that is the way they are layed out. I trnink the space given to a quad could probably be better served by linear or - -3- e something that would bring the houses together. Basically, the average of the quad lot is about 18,000 sq. ft. Granted, they are a marketable commodity. I have reservations with the Lake Ann proposal because of the way it starts out with nothing but quads. Jim Thompson: For the type of housing, Lake Ann PUD and also Lake Susan South PUD, they should both be changed to the concept of PRD. The downtown area will be sufficient for any commerciali- zation. I agree, you need a plan development concept of various housing. Single family, duplexes, apartments, townhouses. I agree with Art that I would much rather see clustered townhouses or linear townhouses rather than quads and eight plexes. What is an eight-plex? My understanding is that an eight plex is two quads back to back or side to side. e Tom Hamilton: The developer has apparently contacted New Horizon, Chaparral, Orrin Thompson and Sacks about building all or part of the PRD. These buildings are not of the quality that have made Chanhassen the quality community it is today. Many of the homes in Chanhassen have been built by H & K, Scholer Madsom, mostly independent builders who construct ~uality and diversified imagin- ative homes. The spaciousness and rural atmosphere has been preserved in the past and must be in the future. As has been expresses, by the many residents who attend the public hearings and took the time to write the commission and/or council, the type of housing being proposed is not what the residents of Chanhassen want to see built in their community. Unless the three or any other proposed builders can be more creative than they have been in the past in other communities, and in one case in Chanhassen, they should not be allowed to build their homes in this community. That is what the housing portion for Lake Susan West shows. ~ e Bill Johnson: The housing is more specific. The items to be addressed are types, mix in each of the particular units and the buffer zones. Especially address buffer zones to existing home owners in the surrounding area. Address both the developers and existing land use to owners. Address the right to reserve approval. Bob addressed, that we will have another shot at the type of homes being built. Particular developers, the process probably allows that, but we want to at least have that right plus to approve a homeowners association. As far as land use versus building, it seems that we could d~vise a method of ratio. We are all concerned about density. We should have a better under- standing of PUD. Have some flexibility. Perhaps a ratio of single family to the multiple housing. I agree with everyone, especially Tom. We don't want to create another Chaparral, yet we don't want -4- e to prohibit somebody to be creative or allow somebody else to come in. Address by saying there be a certain mix of multiple family. End result of mix a higher cost quad or a higher cost of quality townhouses. A mix ratio of single family to this multiple family. Then voiding out apartment land... Clark Horn: Are you suggesting that we should delay our decision on the particular concepts for the architecture that we reviewed and defer that to a later point and pick a type now that is accep- table but not an architectural styling? Bill Johnson: It's too difficult to dictate an architectural styling this early in the process. It's appropriate to use land use ratio. Saying that we would like the denisty dictated by the x number of most families, we need to have single family involved. Clark Horn: As far as the particular types of things that make up that ratio, do you have any feelings about the type of quad? Do you prefer the row house to the current style that is being proposed? e Bill Johnson: I think it would be more appropriate to use the style that I see growing in Chanhassen to utilize more green area. Within an x number of homes, maybe a grouping of ten and then a green area around that. I like the cluster concept. Please leave latitude for developer to move around in the PUD and still maintain the high quality. Clark Horn: Do you have a feeling on deplexes as they were proposed on the architectural renderings? Bill Johnson: The same concept applies all the way through. Specifically, strive to get a higher quality than has been proposed by the perspective builders who would come to Chanhassen. Clark Horn: I don't like the current proposal of quad type of housing. I think a quad in a row type area would be much more appro- priate use. I see the four-plex or quad as being somewhat a compro- mise of trying to get the visual impact of ownership of a piece of property without the benefits of ownership of a piece of property which too many people are doing the yard work and that which are now done by the group. The group maintains the lawns. This tends to be somewhat of a compromise you can use both ways. The row type house can be put together and clustered more effeciently in types of road systems and leave open spaces around it. The PUD concept is that you cluster things. Maybe the lot sizes are smaller than We are used to, but compensate by that and your gross densities don't change. PUD doesn't mean higher density. PUD is a different concept of arranging land. Another thtng that didn't look appropriate was, e -5~ e especially on cul-de-sac. Multiple housing looks out of place. More of an architectural issue with both the quads and the duplexes. It figures more of an architectural thing and I don't favor the whole thing....Chaparral or Orrin-Thompson type of quads. Jim Thompson: 1 think you could have duplexes and quads in the same area and clustered together and be very attractive. I think the total number of quad units in the proposed: area would be just too expensive. And, would not be what I want for Chanhassen. I am concerned that all of the quads are basically the same building. Just different shades of earth tones. They look like a box. Jim Thompson: There is something you can do, though. If you have less land to work with then your basic cost goes up. You have to build a more expensive quad to recapture the land cost. What we looked at is basically all the same price range and that means the land basically - starting price range - so, it seems we can control the quality a little bit and ranges of requirements of a...... e Clark Horn: Can we separate the housing types from the mix? Can we come up with some kind of consensus that would either combine types with ratio and mix or separate them? Can we come to a consensus? The current figures are 21.5% of the land is single family. The rest is all multiple. I think that is abominable. It is a density issue. If you solve the density problem, you are going to solve the mix. Our density figure is a very important number for us to arrive at. As far as mixes and ratios, there are many different ways you could put that ratio together to get that density. Unless we have a strong feeling about one particular type, that should be more or less up to the developer to incorporate his PUD as he sees it. It is the developers job to develop what the ratio is going to be. But, we still need to approve that. I have examples of what I see as ratios. I did them for myself. If we can put together, at a minimum, an acceptable building type that we can accept a density figure at least be giving ball park figures to shoot at. If we want to, we can also mix a ratio in with that. We can, up to our descretion, dictate a.......or we can say that as long as we stick by the housing type. e The second option may create a problem. For a fact, at some point in time, multiple family develop will be more lucrative. Be it quads, apartments whatever. Maintain quality of single family and provide alternative housing. Make sure the r~tios are a proper mix in Chanhassen. e e e -6- Clark Horn: How do we see transitions from one housing type to another? The current proposal has it very much segregated. Single family is in one area, duplex, quads. Some of the previous planning commissioners believe there should be a mix of housing types within each area. Up until I took the tour, I was very much against that. What I've seen, is that when you get too many of one housing all together, it gets boring. I wouldn't wan to mix housing types in an established neighborhood. But, on a PUD concept, it might be much more imaginative and appealing if some of these were mixed. Change the concept and say, a little better quality. Demand a little higher quality. If we give the people a little higher quality in housing, a lot of the problems will be solved. It was stated that we were philosophizing and need to get down to some type of particulars on the type of development. It is needed to get to the specifics on this development. How do you define "density"? No problem in mixing types. We can address density and types. We don't have the biggest problem with types (quads) called fourplex, as we do with particular architecture view of that as presented in what we have seen. It isn't quality as much as style. $80,000 or $90,000 for 1200 sq. ft unit in a quad would indicate poor quality. We rleed to decide on how to control it. What will we recommend? Two people recommend that it be a row type four unit building rather than one on each corner type. We don't want redunduncy. There you get into esthetics. Our concern is that the initial step is to rezone this property from ROI-A to PI to anything and in effect and rezoning sections within there. Individual rezoning of blocks within the property. Therefore, saying this area is forever multiple, this area is forever single, based on lot size. The only way to change it, is for someone to buy a quad and bulldoze so they ~ould have an 18,000 sq. ft. lot. So, what I am concerned with is that you are setting aside areas where you are basically saying this....this is the way the proposal is as I enterpret it. e e e -7- On a quad lot, the proposal is to divide it into four single segments whatever size. Some of the plots are considerably larger than 18,000 sq ft. Basically, they are four lots. There are two basic concepts. Draw an X through the middle of the sight which would be in effect down the common wall of each unit, to the property boundary. The maintenance of all of the lawn is done by the association, but privately owned. There has been another development of involving ownership which the person owns the actual segment or quadrant that their house occupies. All of the land then is jointly owned by the association. It simplifies easments, getting of easments for in the various houses for utilities and driveways. That particular concept, however, is one that you look at, I think, properly when you are looking at a sight plan associated with a preliminary plat. Are we in a position to being asked to propose a preliminary plat which specifically delineates boundaries or quadrants? The proposal, before us, defines land-uses and density is general and is not sight-specific at all. That is another process entirely. That will follow this. That process follows the general rule land-use concept and den~ity. In the land-use concept, are we not talking about such things as the proposed homeowners association, covenants, development contracts, with yourself and other items, on what Art is asking? Craig Mertz: At the very tail-end of the process, we would be doing the development contract with the developer. It would require some sort of guarantee that streets were going to be constructed in accordance with the plan and that they were going to in fact establish the homeowners association and properly incorporate the homeowners association. We could specify that there is a mix of types and also a mix of architectural styling of those types. It was originally the intent, Lake Ann was that the single family would be the furthest away from the main road. The minimum traffic flow would be taken place through the intermediate areas. The current proposal is 42% quads in Lake Ann. What particular density for what particular phase? -8- e There are two things that we can separate. Low and moderate income type. And transportation doesn't apply. Maybe land-use issue is what we want to address with the exclusion of transportation. Land use included housing, density, MUSA, commercial development recreation and open space and phasing within the development and within the outline. Community Impacts which include many of the other items we have on here. Art: Lake Ann with a limited number of bodies needs a small commercial area and Lake Susan needs one. Then I should think Lake Susan West needs one also. Lake Ann commercial corner isn't needed. It is a 12 acre parcel. It is at an intersection of four major roads and not conducive for housing. e The Lake Susan Hills West area is being requested zoned PI, PRD, is not allowed commercial development. Thus, this issue is not applica- ble, since none will be allowed in the Lake Susan Hills West area. The Lake Ann PUD has a commercial area proposed on the corner of Highway 17 and Highway 5. Proposed area within 1/2 mile of the proposed CBD, which in my opinion is a conflict of good developing sense of logic. I propose that Lake Ann area sa defined by the developer be allowed PI, PRD, status only. No commercial development be allowed within the bounds of this district. We have seen only one proposal for that piece of land. If a commercial building can be built there, a residential building can be built there. The busyness of that corner won't create a problem. We owe it to the developer to say what our opinion is at this time, so they can make a counter proposal if they wish. Clark Horn: is density. One of the big things we really haven't discussed yet I'd like to get some comments at this time. Bob Waibel: Density I had in my report. As far as ratio or mix, I had planned on getting that in my next report. The communities I have reported on are Burnsville, Eagan, Woodbury and Maple Grove. I would like to have more research done on the ratio and mix. e Jim Thompson: I think the density proposed should be lowered. As far as density at Lake Ann, I think it should be a maximum of 2.2 units gross density. Lake Susan West, maximum 2.4 units gross density. For Lake Susan South, a maximum of 2.0 units gross density. -9- e Bill Johnson: I favor changing the PUD concept somewhat by approaching the density as a grid system with a mix of single family including the multiple family or saying each particular area we're going to have a density ratio for the multiple family and density ratio for single family with X number of green area within a big grid. Clark Horn: If you felt you put it together in your concept and you looked at each of these in a total, what do you think would be a ball park figure? Bill Johnson: 2.75 to a range of 3. Three, you're going to have more green area. My total proposal is what they're wanting to do is not bad, it's just that we need to have a little more control. Tom Hamilton: Lake Susan West. The density is one of the most critical issues that have to be answered. The developer's have not presented any alternative plans. The Dunn and Curry proposal calls for 27% of the units to be single family detached in the Lake Susan West addition. e I have two proposals. I have allowed a minimum of 60% single family detached. Proposal Two would be most desireable to me. To clarify my position on units per acre, my proposal is as follows: RIA wnuld be one unit 2.5 acres, Rl as 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre, single familY detached only; R2 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre duplexes; R3 is 2.9 to 5.8 units per acre quads, eights and townhouses; and R4 would 5.8 to 9.0 units per acre which would be apartments. Single family detached homes to be built 15,000 sq. ft. lot net acreage. On Lake Ann proposal, density and this is the most critical of all issues to be resolved. There must be hundreds of developing schemes. Until the developer submits at least two separate alternatives, a of possible configurations cannot be made. 65% of single family detached (new construction), 28% could be multiple, 1% stayed and 6% apartments. The Dunn & Curry proposal for Lake Ann PUD calls for 21.5% single family detached, 5% duplex 41.5% quads and 32% apartments. I have attached a copy of Dunn & Curry's proposed units by using a minimum of 60% single family detached facilities. The proposal is much more reasonable, but still not what I would consider a final solution. I challenge Dunn & Curry to submit other proposals meeting my guidelines which I h~p~ will be adopted by the city. My proposed densities are as follows: the same as I just read a moment ago. Single family homes to be built on lots of not less than 15,000 sq. ft. net acreage. The lake Ann Development which backs on to e the Greenwood Shores Development, which consists all of 3/4 acre -10- e lots, should have no less than 21,780 sq. ft. or 1/2 acre lots on the northern most lots of the development. This would also be desireable for lots along Lake Ann, but not mandatory. All of these lots have to be for single family detached units. This could conform to Section 14 P-l, 1401 paragraph 1. Clark Horn: I see you have outlined a square foot for single family, but basically what your proposal is, is that the PUD concept then would apply more to the multiple housing rather than single family. If you took the ratio that you are suggesting along with the density that you're suggesting, have you done that to find out what an average would be? Tom Hamilton: The Lake Ann PRD as proposed by Dunn & Curry was 4.73 net density, 3.66 gross. I have one proposal applying my figures which comes up with 3.42 density and 2.59 gross (Lake Ann). On Lake Susan West ...~..........the maximum which I would allow, their net density would be 3.6 and gross would be 2.64. Applying the percentages they had and using my figures, their density would be 3.41 net and 2.50 gross. e Art Partridge: Basically, I realize you have to establish a minimum lot size at some time. If you simply divide it into 15,000 sq. ft lots, you'll still get 438 houses, which is not a significant decrease in units. I guess I would like to stick with at least 15,000 sq. ft. minimum for single family. Again, we have a significant problem, which we haven't addressed, which is low and moderate income. Clark Horn: What I hear both of your proposals saying is you are basically taking single f~mily out of the PUD and put on a minimum 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Then you have maintained the same density figure for multiple housing, but the configuration might be on different lot sizes, more traditional PUD concept. If no other comments about density, I guess some of the other things we need to talk about are, Tom brought up the issue of outlots. We still have the issue of doing the things we are talking about and how that ties into phas.ing. I think we should come up with some kind of a consensus on how we feel that can be accomplished. Control mechanism is basically what we're talking about. e Jim There was some inpropriety in the MUSA line that inc lude d all of the Dunn & Curr y De ve lopme nt. That's one phase of the work in Chanhassen that I am very familiar with. Essentially, the desire on the part of the Staff and Council throughout the entire establishment of the MUSA line is one of attempting to get as much of the entire community into the urban services as possible. The primary reason for this is it establishes local control here. What e -11- we're really talking about here is sewer service. Bob Waibel: Since January, 1978 when the City did submit its last interum comprehensive plan, Chanhassen has been the MUSA line in all planning and efforts as you have seen it. Previous Planning Commissions have also endorsed that as being a line. More discussion followed. Bill Johnson: I guess I don't have any real comments on the MUSA Line. Art Partridge: (cannot understand because it is too soft) Mark Koeqler: I'd like to make a general comment before we get too far away from a couple points you touched on. Your consensus is that the MUSA Line is not a problem, perhaps, it's how the City chooses to grow within the framework of the MUSA that we have to operate under. e Currently, we are required in five year increments that we will be extending sanitary sewer within the MUSA line area. We have maps, it is in draft form as part of the comprehensive plan. It does show areas 85, 850t 90. Perhaps some of you don't agree with the way it is shaded at this time, that being the case, we should put it on the agenda immediately and further discuss that point. Ed Dunn: You have it in all of the documentation you have, we have provided as a part of the necessary documentation for these PUD's, a staging plan. Originally, it indicated that the plans would be developed over ~ t07 years and we modified that as I pointed out in our later documents to 5 - 10 years. This applies to each PUD being treated separately, so we think both as to...... Just to point out we have provided a staging plan. It does provide for a quarterly development with a logical extension of the utilities. Clark Horn: We've touched on about everything but recreation and open space as far as the breakdown on land use. We should keep this specific to the two developments we're discussing - Lake Susan West and Lake Ann. Tom Hamilton: Lake Susan West. Recreation and open space. I suggest Dunn and Curry completely build a park for the city or that being too expensive allow other more useable land for the park, it would not be a tax burden for the city to develop. e Lake Ann area. If anything, the Lake Ann PRD would impare or discourage opportunities for better recreation. The Planning Commission has in some of those cases asked for a better entrance to the park. The developer to this time has not shown viable alternatives to his e e e -12- to his proposal. The frontage road concept is a must for park entrance. It cannot wind through a commercial or residential area. It should access the park of the southern end of the park near Highway 5. The land for the addition to the park should extend from the frontage road north ,to the 80 foot path which will follow the lakeshore. A hedge of Russian Olive type shrub should be planted at the developer's expense along the path and around the Greenwood Shore's beach area. This development cannot be done without violating Ordinance #47, etc. Bill Johnson: My comments are quite similar to what Tom said. I would like to address more specifically, the more open spaces, recreational areas within the development. It is extremely important that some provision is made that all open space beyond what they've proposed here..........it seems we should have some sort of definity planned where either by a number of units or something that there will be recreational area within a reasonable walking distance. Jim Thompson: I'm pretty much in agreement. I have a change in the Lake Ann suggested park area. I feel that the topography of the land around Lake Ann is such that it would be more desireable to include the area up to the top of the hill, maybe decrease the area that is proposed now. I don't think houses can be built on the clip side very well and I think that area should be put into park. There could be wider trails or maybe two trails. I tend to extend that 80' around the lake to include the topographical nature of the area. The western edge of Lake Susan West should have a park area that could be suitable for ball parks, etc. Again, I think Lake Ann South should have an area on the eastern side. Art Partrigge: I would like to see the area on the north end of Lake Ann firmly be designated as some sort of conser- vation area. I'd like to see that it stays the same condition it is now. Ed Dunn: The parks we show are those which are the recommendation of the Park and Rec. Clark Horn: I think what we're looking for is an overall recommendation. I think we're in agreement on most of the issues. Let's go on with the transportation. Bob Waibel gave a report. e . ~ -13- It has always been intended that l7 is the access to Chanhassen off of Hwy 212. Bill Johnson: It is going to increase traffic, but there is nothing we can do about it. Tom Hamilton: I agree with Bill that it's going to aggravate the problem, however I don't feel that we can limit development based on that premise alone. Where do you draw a line on who can develop? Ed Dunn: I think we can work with the community to help improve even the existing level of service on that road. We will be building something like 100 units at a time. Clark Horn: We are ready to move on to the community impact. First section is environment. Bob Waibel: As far as the overall environment, it's been proven that actual census of wildlife does increase as human habitation does. Jim Thompson: I think it would be great if we could keep 100% of tree cover. I think we should look at homes that maximize energy efficiency. Art Partridge: I don't have anything. Clark Horn: How do you feel about single family by the lake? Art Partridge: I thought we had a verbal understanding with the Lake Susan homeowners. Jim Thompson: I don't see a need for single family units to be around every single lake. Bill Johnson: I agree. Clark Horn: Let's move into economics, tax base. Bob Waibel gave a brief report and discussion followed. Clark Horn: Are there any comments on anything? Motion to adjour. First and seconded.