Loading...
1980 05 28 f. - I I I I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION The Chanhassen Planning Commission held its meeting at Chanhassen City Hall, 7610 Laredo, Chanhassen, M;innesota on May 28, 1980. Present Were: Chairman Clark Horn Walter Thompson Art Partridge Torn Hamilton Mike Thompson Bill Johnson Jim Thompson Also present were: Bob Waibel, Staff Mark Koegler, Staff Craig Mertz, Asst. Attorney Ed Dunn, Dul'l.n & Curry Bruce Patterson, Suburban Engineering After brief review of. the previous meeting the Planning Commission continued to address their concerns with the developments. There was discussion on low and moderate income housing. Chairman Horn requested comments from the Commission Members. Jim Thompson: III certainly think we should provide some in terms of housing types and price range." Art Partridge: llIt is not a City responsipility at this time. Should there be a requirement to provide it I think it should go into these developments since they do take up such a large portion of our developable land. . . " Torn Hamilton: III think I agree mostly with Art. I also think housing of this nature is probably one of the most difficult questions we have to wrestle with at this time. I hope the developer would be able to discuss the problem if anything needed to be worked out..." Walter Thompson: "It appears to me that we are operating under direction to provide not necessarily low, but moderate income housing. What I am hearing up here is that if we get low income housing whoever goes next store to it is going to get depreciated property value. I'm not so sure that is a 100~ positive statement. There's also an article in the Herald about agricultural land outside the MUSA line area that can be reserved for certain pluses.. . for. eight years. I feel that some- place in this area we're going to have to make provisions for not necessarily low, but medium housing of some kind." e Bill Johnson: "It seems we're making this an issue right now perhaps based on this project and the source of the opportunities to increase the population. I think we should put into the proposal something to provide for x number of houses at the same time we're providing for other housing.ll Mike Thompson: "The question in my mind is whether the developer is going to comply, what the City is going to ask him to comply with. It doesn't make any difference what we think." Chairman Horn: "I tend to disagree with Walter to some extent that placing low income housing adjacent to other housing won't lower the property values. I think it will. I do have a problem when its a surprise to someone that its corning in. I do have a little difficulty with the allocation of low cost housing. I feel that the suburbs just don't provide an adequate place for it. Generally, the employment picture isn't as great and it seems to me that as part of an urban redevelopment plan they would encourage these in the inter-city... Another thing thats important is that it be somewhat close to the central core area of the city. That's what makes me think that we consider it with these developments. I think it would be inappropriate to place it in the Lake Ann and Lake Susan South area because of the residential areas. I think it would be appropriate to put it in the Lake Susan West area because of the up front approach." e Ed Dunn expressed that the developer needs to work with the City/ community. He has no specific plans for the production of subsidized housing at this time.. He feels that subsidized residents have the same needs as other residents, therefore each area could make available a reasonable amount. ** Timing Relative to Comprehensive Plan Bob Waibel explained the comprehensive plan and project timing. Chairman Horn requested comments from the Commission Members. Art Partridge: "I view it until it is adopted as being in a state of plux. I don't think it should be taken that our comprehensive plan in its draft form is an endorsement of this project." Jim Thompson: III don't have anything to add." Tom Hamilton: fl. ..1 realy think that the comprehensive plan could be a very useful tool to the City, Planning Commission, City Council and developers. Unfortunately I think it's still in the infant stage, just needs to be developed further. It needs to be completed prior to almost anything else being done in the City. There's a conflict here between the development and the comprehensive plan going on at the same time. I feel strongly that the comprehensive plan should be a guide for the Planning Commission, .City Council etc. to follow." e 2 e Walter Thompson: llThere's been many hours put into this planning process up to this point, I would hate to think that we'd have to start over again.ll Bill Johnson: III will look at this plan saying that this is probably what should occur in 10 years from now but I would fall back on our housing discussion-housing mix. The proposed plan is a guide for how it should end up, not how it should start.ll Mike Thompson: "I would agree with Tom. The comprehensive plan is a plan that should be done. In the community the citizens haven't had an opportunity to have any input. If we were in a post tion to approve a comprehensive plan, I think it should be back to the public so that they can insert their ideas. We're being forced into urbanization based on plans made by a council and planning commission some years ago. Ordinances and standards need updating. My feeling is we should have a moratorium on the development until we get our comprehensive plan done. e Chairman Horn: III think there are 2 ways to look at this. You can look at it in the way that it would have been nice to have developed our comprehensive plan, or, that we had the opportunity to develop our plan with an actual subject to work with. I feel that we are compelled to live out what has been generated so far in the comprehensive plan. .. The efforts and recommendations we are putting towards this development are going to form the basis for what we ultimately arrive at as a comprehensive plan.ll Torn Hamilton feels the comprehensive plan should be developed first as a guideline-not developed based on this development. There was further discussion on this matter. ** Residential Impact. Ed Dunn illustrated the residential type areas. Mike Thompson: (Asked to be shown the contiguous neighborhoods). III guess the only people that have any impact are the ones on the lake." Bill Johnson: "The impact on the area would fall right back to the housing types.ll Walter Thompson: "I don't know that I have any comments at the moment." 3 . .. - Chairman Horn: III think existing issues would be the visual effect on the west of Lake Susan." There was discussion on the architectual and visible design structures. Ed Dunn illustrated a display on the utility service, distance from CBD and distance from collector routes. ** There was discussion onthe storm sewer and kind of ponding. Bruce Patterson explained the run-off at Lake Susan West. He also stated that quite a bit of the salt on the roads would run into Lake Susan. Ed Dunn informed that they have contracted with professional engineers who will monitor the lake. In the agricultural land change aspect for run-off, the figures are about 15-20 tons per acre per year, in a suburban development its about 3-6 tons per acre. Chairman Horn feels that these studies should be made available to the Lake Study Committee. Chairman Horn requested comments from the Commission Members: e Art Partridge: "The proposed preliminary plan does not have .any specified use other than Outlot D (stretch ct,;Lc:::m,9' '",rest.'si,devof#17). . I am concerned that there is no sewer service at this point provided down #17." Ed Dunn informed this subject will be in the preliminary plat design. Further discussion on the Lake Ann interceptor impact. ** Design Features Bob Waibel reported that is is his understanding the street widths will be 28 feet, with exception that in quad areas they will be 32 feet and collector streets within a development will be 36 feet. Chairman Horn requested comments from Commission Members: Art Partridge: "In all honosty I don't particularly care to overpave them. I'd rather see the streets now and the @)nstreet parking." Tom Hamilton: "I think I agree with staff on the street widths, I would like to see concrete curb and gutter." Walter Thompson: "I agree with the proposed street widths. However, in looking over this section, I see nothing in regard to sidewalks and whether there should be sidewalks or not." There was discussion on street policy. Craig Mertz explained the restrictions. e Bill Johnson: "I think somebody ought to look at the street policies for this level." Chairman Horn: "I think we should keep th~ overall development costs as low as possible, we shouldn't pave the whole area, it increases 4 e e e run-off and maintenance. I think its safe to say there should be some type of pedestrian and bicycle ways on the final development plat review." There was discussion on possible trail linkages and pedestrian ways. The Planning Commission feels that these systems are a part of the PUD process. ** Phasing - Lake Susan West Ed Dunn explained the phases and what they include. Chairman Horn requested comments from the Commission Members on maintaining the ratios. Bill Johnson: "It is an intrical part of it. Phase I looks like a large proposal to Chaparral. I don't believe thats in concert with what we want to recommend. It should be a mix. On density ratio we want to have a little more control of multiple housing with the single family housing being built." Tom Hamilton: "I made some comments last week relative to phasing within the MUSA line. I feel strongly about it, I think perhaps its a concept thats been overlooked. The Metropolitan Council has suggested that as a good way to develop it, give the city the oppor- tunity to do some phasing within the total development of the area. Phase within the MUSA line, sections, areas, whatever. The MUSA line is somewhat an arbitrary line. The lines move after so many years, It's just an option, something that could be used by the City to control the developing... The ,.rest of the phasing I have a problem with, I would prefer to see phase III first. On ratios, the mix should be maintained on each phase. Art Partridge: "Of the three, the phasing in this particular one is probably the best. It addresses initially a desire that I see amongst us for some single family. In neither Lake Susan South or Lake Ann is that true.ll Ed Dunn stated for therecord that there is an approximate count of 15 duplexes, 31 quads, and 149 single family detached dwellings in the first phase. He furthered on the ratio and the mix,~nd his reasoning for such. Jim Thompson: n.Concerned about maintaining a ratio. There is a need to assure that the developer always realizes that the City is concerned about the ratio and the mix. . To me <phase Jf.II, III, IV doesn't make economic sense. We, maybe, should digress alittle bit from a pun and have some sort of design plan th~t these ratios are intact and still have a single family type of orientation in the developments and still allow for pratical alternatives." Mike Thompson: "It seems to me that if we had an imaginative pun ordinance we wouldn't have to talk about phasing because no matter what we say, the economics in the situation would, for instance, bring the cost of the service and what is available and next the 5 e demand on the market, which we have already discussed, is going to determine what the phasing is. Whether we see or don't see, when it finally gets approval he is going to go with what the market demands at the time and what he has available is what he is going to build." Ed Dunn: "We have had Orrin-Thompson express an interest in developing phase I as it is presented to you.. .That, of course, is predicated on our writing, and feasable cost for developea lots. We do the development, we would not build the houses. We would develop the lots under this proposal. We have not signed anything yet." Chairman Horn: llAs far as phasing goes, I guess on this particular development I feel that phasing is not so much, of what I perceive that it could be, a potential problem. I don't think we'll have any problem providing an unfavorable ratio for any particular phase of this development. I think I would only be concerned about main- taining ratio with phase when we got into unfavorable balance of the multiple dwelling vs. single family. That would be my concern in Lake Ann. I think the phasing in this development pretty much takes care of the concern of creating an imbalance in ratio." ** Out lots Bob Waibel addressed the outlot situation with his recommendation. There was brief discussion on this matter. e ** Evironmental Worksheet Jim Thompson: "I feel that an outside group should prepare it. I would like to see it done prior to development. Realistically, that may not be possible." Art Partridge: "I agree with Jim." Tom Hamilton: "Also agree with Jim." Walter Thompson: "I disagree~ I think the developer ought to develop the worksheet. Th;:;,i; gives Staff and the Planning Commission an.oppor- tunity to be critical of it. If the Staff makes the worksheet I don't think we'll get all of the input. Bill Johnson: "I tend to agree with Walter. Maybe have a consultant review it.ll Chairman Horn: "I think it might be appropriate if the City decides who the outside consultant is." Ed Dunn: "I think if it's to be done at our expense and it's our project, we should choose the consultant." e ** Amendment Proposal Ed Dunn illustrated the changes (density, mix, lots) in the plan. Jim Thompson feels that the concepts the Planning Commission were 6 trying to convey in this proposal previously are no different in the amended plan. Ie RECOMMENDATION FORMULATION - LAKE SUSAN WEST PRD \, Tom Hamilton: "By concern is not other communities. It is sensible we~l-planned growth of Chanhassen. The developer has had about 12 years to plan the property. For some reason, the developer has chosen not to follow the established development trends in Chanhassen during the past several years. Residents in Chanhassen do not want to live in another West Bloomington, Richfield or Apple Valley. We currently have a quality tOWll with quality housing, good planning that can be preserved. My reconunendations, specifically, are 1) Lake Susan West which represents the proposed acreage and densltiescontains ambiguities that must be clarified. Total buildable acres will then be reduced, which will also change all net and gross density figures. My point was, that you can't have that acreage. I still think those figures should be redone. The following guidelines should be used when determining units per acre: RIA would like to see one unit for 2.5 acres. Rl, 1 to 2.9 units, which would be single family detached, R2 - 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre which would be duplexes. R3 is 2.9 to 5.8.units per acre, which would represent quads and townhouses. R4 5.8 to 9 units per acre, which would apartments. '. The'developer must maintain the single family detached unit lot size. Single family detached lots must be net 15,000 sq. ft per lot, not an average of all lots. 4) Economists and mortgage bankers I have talked with/~H~tethe single family detached unit will be the dominant type of housing thru the' t 8,0' s. Chanhassen has about 85% detached family housing now and the comprehensive plan projects 65% single family detached by 1990. The developer is proposing 27% single family detached and 73% multiple and apartment. Lake Susan West must have between 60% and 65% single family detached, no more than 28% multiple and no more than 6% apartments. The developer has apparently agreed to build only single family detached units on Lake Susan. This has been agreed to with the Lake Susan Association. It should be presented to the Planning Commission (which it was tonight) ,for review. 7 - rezoning of Lake Susan Hills West PRD from RIA to PI be denied until such time as the following: Completion and approval of the comprehensive plan, and corresponding revision of zoning ordinance #47." Art Partridge: "No c.omment." Jim Thompson: "My feeling is that we approve the rezoning. I disapprove aIot of the design features of this type of development. Walter Thompson: "I have no problems with rezoning." Bill Johnson: "I don't either. We should work through some of the major issues.1t e Mike Thompson: "1 have some comments. Lake Susan West will have a greater impact on Chanhassen than any other proposal the City has passed. These developments, as proposed,wlll set the type of housing, set the density, eliminate the rural character~establish the quality of life for our area and increase the public services and more or less the population. Once these decisions are~made,'there is no turning the clock back. The community is a rural community bordering on a metropoli ta,n area and forced into development by policies and decisions that were made some years ago by the planning commission and city council. These policies and decisions th~y ~ade now lead us into our present predicament. If you would put these proposals before the City electorate at this time I believei t would be turned down... Presently our zoning ordinances are disaray and need to be updated to present day standards. Along with this we have not completed our comprehensive plan nor have we received any input from the public. I recommend that we place a six month moratorium on the development so that we may complete these items." Chairman Horn: "I think one of the key things we have to separate in our minds is basic~lly we have heard in the public hearings that they were asking for a no growth situation with regards to rezoning. I think we have to carefully separate what we are seeing on the charts vs. development as such." Torn Hamilton moved, Mike Thompson second, that the request for rezoning from R1A to P1 be allowed at such time as the comprehensive plan is reviewed and approved and ordinance #47 is revised. Voted in favor: Art Partridge, Mike Thompson, Tom Hamilton. Negative votes: Bill Johnson, Walter Thompson, Clark Horn, Jim Thompson. Motion denied. Jim Thompson moved, Walter Thompson second, to recommend the request for rezoning from RiA to P1 be approved. Voted in favor: Clark Horn, Walter Thompson, Jim Thompson, Bill Johnson. Negative votes: Torn Hamilton, Art Partridge and Mike Thompson. e Jim Thompson moved, Mike Thompson second, to disapprove the preliminary plan as proposed by Dunn & Curry at this time, in that it does not meet the quality of housing type and sty,le that is consistent with the 8 -- e e the wishes of the citizens of Chanhassen as I read what they'are saying, I propose that they come back with another proposal. Discussion on Motion. Craig Mertz informed that the Motion can be withdrawn if the second agrees. Jim Thompson withdrew his Motion. There was further discussion on the format for the approval or dis- approval of the Motion. Craig Mertz: "I actually think the ordinance says that you have to approve, disapprove, or a variation of the two with conditions. There is no Motion on the record at this time other than for the rezoning." Chairman Horn: "We would then have to a Motion for each particular issue we expressed last week, which means we are going to have this volume one way or another. We want our formal recommendations incor- porated and passed on to the City Council." They further discussed the various ideas and concepts of each ,individual member. Jim Thompson sites his comments. Craig Mertz: "If that is Mr. Thompsons feelings I suggest that he frame ~t either in terms of a motion that says: I recommend approval of the preliminary development plan within the fOllowing modofications' and then detail such statements as the single family houses shall be atleast..., or I recommend disapproval of the preliminary development plan because, and then detail his various statements. If you are going to disapprove I definitely recommend that you state your reasons specifically why you are disapproving the development. It could be as part of the discussion, or as you announce your votes you could state on record why each of you individually voted yes on the motion to disapprove the development. If you feel that it could be approved subject to conditions, maybe you want to go through a series of motions on density, single family, etc." Bill Johnson moved, Art Partridge second, that the Planning Commission reject the preliminary development plan as it is presented which includes the Lake Susan West Illustrative Site Plan dated February 4, 1980, revised May 27, 1980 and further stipulating that each Commissioner as he votes outlines his reasoning. Chairman Horn called for a poll: Jim Thompson: I vote yes because it does not meet the housing type, style, and ratio mix. It does not provide for a certain number of lower income, the density is too high. Art Partridge: I vote yes to disapprove the preliminary plan. I feel the proposal is not in the spirit of the preamble to our PUD ordinance. It does not show creative or innovative use of space. It is not keeping with the kind of housing we have now. It does not provide for low-moderate income housing opportunities, it does not provide for common open areas. -9- . . - e e Tom Hamilton: I reject the preliminary plan for the following reasons: There should be no less than 60-65% single family detached units, the~e should be no more than 28% multiple dwelling and no more than 6% apartment buildings in the entire development. I feel the developer should be able to maintain the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for single family detached units per lot, not an average lot size. ,There are also no plans for schools, churchs, or pUblic amenities within the development area. Also the recreation area that has been given to the City by Dunn and Curry is mostly swamp. It has not been significantly addressed by Cunn and Curry as to what assistance they will give the City in developing that area. It's not a good piece of land.' Those reasons along with recommendations # 2 and #12 from Staff. j Walter Thompson: I will vote to reject the preliminary plan on criteria from last week. I would be willing to go to 2.9 density. We have had pressure on 15,000 ft lot sizes-I will go along with that. The one point I object to on Jim Thompson's statement is density of 2.4, that is too low. Bill Johnson: III vote yes to reject it. The Lake Susan West proposals mixes single family, duplexes and 4 plexes all to be built South of business Park. I would propose to'r.ecommend to, the developer to concentrate his planning process on multiple use of the neighborhood. The effect of this type of planning should allow for some cost reduc- tions in development of the land through some efficiencies in streets and utilities. I propose the duplexes and fourplexes represent a more efficient land use than is presently desired by the City of Chanhassen at the present time. Therefore, I would ask the developer to keep in mind in his future planning a more appropriate land utilization would be an 18,000 sq. ft. lot size for duplexes and 21,000 sq. ft. minimum for fourplexes... I propose to the developer that he delete eightplex from his future plans. I propose a density calculation based on the fOllowing: the larger minimum lot size for duplexes and fourplexes.a~ ou~lined above, elimination of the eightplex acreage and th~ ~tll~zatlon of the 17 acres into a single family development and elImInatIon of the outlots from the density calculation and the reduction of the apartment density from 12.8 to 10 units per acre. The overall density would be 2.8 units per acre. Clark Horn: "I would vote yes. Many of the reasons have already been outlined. I don't disapprove of the quad concept, but I feel the only type of structure appropriate for that is a low type of townhouse. I think I would not lock into lot sizes. I would stick 'Yith what I feel is the Pun concept and give the developer flexibility In that area. I would require an overall density figure of 2.5 units p~r acre, 'Yithout any individual lot size restrictions. I would agre~ wIth the mIxtures and ratios that have been established. I'd also support the permit for any tree removal over 6 inches in diameter I t~ink there be economi~ally no increased tax burden placed on e~isting resIdents, and I would lIke to see more creativity. ADJOURNMENT Tom Hamilton moved, Jim Thompson second, to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. Motion unanimously carried. -10- - - . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 Lake Susan West: Comments on Lake Susan West The storm sewer would be within the development. They would have to provide some kind of ponding. They discuss the well location. Walter: Comment on Looping the water system in the South area and whether that would require assessment. ~: As memtioned in report, the preliminary plan review of Lake Susan Hills South. Jim Orr did elaborate a little bit on this last week and include the possibility that looping of water would be conducted on 101. I feel that conversation should be elaborated upon. ai.ll. : We have heard from all our engineers that the proposal as it stands now and information has been presented is adequate within the standards tha.t we want. No questicms right now. Clar}~ Horn: Concerning the run-off water, is i'l: going to be storm sewered and is it goinS to someplace. Where is it going. :6.l:.w;:.e: Lake Susan West divides off into 2 separate districts. ~rThis district is where the pergatory district. This is outside the legal jurisdiction Watershed district itself. But still within a drainage district. We propose, the plans read are far along and we can state with certainty exactly what is happening in the ponds on Lake Susan West The Watershed District regulations say that we have -to control the rate of run-off to the point that which is no greater than in the ""~(,, undeveloped state. We have cut it down to.i20 to 30% in this area. ,'l This drainage does run South-west and doesn't bother the Lake Susan The drainage from the Easternly portion of Lake Susa~ould run into Lake Susan through a pond here another pond here, into a creek and down. The rate would be substantialy less. About 40% of what it is now. Q. What percentage of salt on the roads would make it into Lake Susan? A. Quite a bit of it. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -2- e Q. Are those holding ponds or are there going to be ponds there? A. We are designing drawing ponds. Q. vmuld the water be improved because of the chemicals going into the farm land. Is there something in the process that would prove that out? A. That is more a principal that is accepted in urbanization. The principal sedimentation deposits we have been using in Chanhassen based on the principal that they are carrying out. this pond in Wayzata as being one of the premier cases of working sedimentation pond that sedimentation filtering out inorganic and organic into Lake Minnetonka. It is extremely effect working into the 90%. , It is not specifically mentioned in each development, it is just an accepted principal. However, that can be a part of the individual record for any of the development plans. Comments on Dunn and Curry e Entered into a contract with Dick who are professional engineers, they are hydrologists, work for a number of water- sheds around the area and will have on-going program of monitoring the lake at our own expense.,indefinitely in the future. We want to be certain that representation being made, the water quality, of either of these lakes should not be d by reason of these developments but rather they should improve slightly. The change over from agricultural land to urban, suburban land. The general run-off figure for soil loss for agricultural land is about 15 to 20 tons per acre per year. A lot of loss of soil. That is water erosion and wind erosion. A typical suburban devel- opment such as you have in the town from 3 to 6 tons per acre. That in fact in development you are cutting down erosion loss. If there are any reports especially from the studies, they should be brought to the Lake Study meeting. Art The proposed preliminary doesn't have any specified use other than outlock Longview 17 on the West side. The proposed preliminary sewer plan goes with it doesn't show any sewer service on 17 to that area. e We are concern about there is no document agreement given on sewer service provided down 17. Jim Thompson: We have to be consistant and done by professionals. e e e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -3- Clark Horn: The Lake Ann interceptor, as they call it, is actually where that Lake Susan Hills trough was put in last year. That is more like Lake Ann Interceptor II. Only called Lake Susan since no metropolitan: interceptor involved. It's got design of what Lake Ann original interceptor was suppose to be. 60". \ Q. Would this come in, and disrupt this develpmen:t.? ~_1r-' ,<~?' A. Clark Horn: No,""'''the only disruption would be the industrial park as it exists now. If they chose not to use the existing facility and they might do that, they would build probably right next to the existing facility. Q. A. Then all of the lands lying North-west of existing Lake Ann Park. So it wouldn't touch Lake Ann nor either of the Lake Susan developments. Answered by Clark Horn. Tom Hamilton: New construction\has to have new tests that have to be done on Hook-ups to reduce the"Yflow and infiltration. The new sewer lines, we should more efficient collection as disposal which may have a correcting effect on any problems that we have on the foreign infiltration on the sewer rates that the metropolitan waste control commission charge. Because of new standards of installation and new equipment and new types of intra structure. Bob Waibel: On reviewing the street widths the last l~to 2 years, has proven to be a very parts of the pros and cons. Thepresent statis of this issue, the local streets will be 28ft. width with the exception that in a quadrominum area will be 32ft. width. recommend 36ft. width. Walter, Thompson: No argue with street width. However, in looking over this section, I see no mention and in regards to sidewalks and various recommendation on various properties on whether there should be sidewalks. Bill Johnson: What is the street policy? Clark Horn: "I don't think we have a policy." Craiq Mertz: "Close to the little neighborhood parks, we have parking restrictions in most cases. Other than that, the only restrictions noted is the winter parking restrictions. Clark Horn: It is usually the policy, where we do require ~wo off- street parking areas for each residential unit with the exception of different types like apartments~Yp~Townhomes, we have had no CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -4- - proposals and haven't developed any policies. A single family residential has been 2 off-street parking. The mention of Ordinance 33, and what it is. It is a sub-division ordinance. The next stage is final development plan stage and the applicant is to prepare preliminary plat in accordance with sections 7 & 8 of that ordinance of 33. It specifies standards for street widths. The data that has to be provided. It is a technical ordinance. It contains data that you would ordinarly need to review the physical feasibility of an actualy development. Portions of it may need up-date. : Q. For Craig Mertz, 801-D of Ordinance 33. read: on page 13, above 802. "Sub-divisions indicating~unplanted portions of land or usage controlling access to public ways, shall not be Will private approved." e Craig Mertz: "It means that if there is private, unplanted land in between the sub-division and the nearest public road you are not to approve sub-division." It is meant to avoid any necessitiy to condem a public road to get to a plot that was approved. Clark Horn: In regard to sidewalks, for the records, for a reminde~ Need b~cycle ways and pedestrian ways along road 17 and Creek Drive. e We need to talk to the county about it. I mentioned in one of the other hearings that half of that width 150 right- of-way through there and the county has built half of it. On the order of 75 -50 ft. unused right-of-way is unavailable. The county might even welcome having something of nature of maintainance, and modest improvement on it,with the appropriate paper work. It is good for about 40 years. That could be a very valuable asset to connect your link there and the North and the North end to the South end between those 2~ar~5uld be a major connector Part of a loop, of a type. . Is there any trail-system that will be linking those togethe~? A. In general terms, The south development potentially rWeve looked at trail linkages via that rout~ng s~nce tnat woula tie up to the Northernstretch there on Lake Susan on south side of Industrial Park. Concern should be addressed in the near future, in regard to the interrior circulation. When you get on the Western part of the single family, for instance, how will they get to one of these trail nodes? CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -5- e Q. Are there going to be 2 Parks? A. On up North and one South. Clark Horn: The Planning Commission really had the most significant role in establishing the transportation ways of Western. ways of South The 5 min. into tape. Comments on development proposals as how these different parks can be linked together. In addition, as to what will be proposed to as part of the initial trail system. liThe Parks Committee, however, rejected that having those small park areas and the trailways being presented. The reasoning was to avoid many small, mini-parks, so-called tot lots of this nature and these trails because they are security problems, main- tainance problems." The Planning Commission feels that this is definately part of the PUD process to have this type of community available. e Phasing Issue. (Within the development and in the community)., Phasing described: Phase I, II, III, IV, V. Lake Susan West Phase I. Becomes Duck Creek Drive in the future. It includes single family in yellow, 4 plexes, and duplexes. The east line would be new 17. Contemplated to start, if we can get into the ground this year. Starting date in phase IV. in 1982, 1983 and we feel this phasing runs 5-6 years. Certainly beyond 1985. Comment on how we maintain the ratio with respect to phasing. It is an intrical part of it. Phase I looks like a large proposal to Chaparral. On density ratio, we want to have a little more control of multiple family with the single family being built. Tom Hamilton: The metropolitan council has recommended to me, and a good way to develop it, gives the city the opportunity to do some phasing in the total development of the area. Phase within the Musal line, sections, areas. The musal line is an arbitrary line. (The line moves after so many years~ They discuss the number of lines. Just presenting an option.. 11'1 would prefer to see phase III. first~ Yes, density should be'maintained in each phase. Art Partriqe: The phasing in this particular in Lake Susan West is probably the best. It address some family housing. In neither Lake Ann or Lake Susan is that true. e For the record: There is a count in our first phase that there is 15 duplexes, 31 quads, and 149 single family detached dwellings. That is in Phase I. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -6- e Jim Thompson: Phase I will not be completed before Phase II. starts, ~s that correct? A. liThe builders today that are operating are building only pre- sold. They don't start building until they have a signed purchase agreement on the house. So, start Phase I and you will be there for 2 years. The marketing effort would make it apparent to you, if you had marketing in the 3rd year, probably start. It takes a whole year, if lucky, and maybe 2 construction seasons to develop a phase. In that case, you are working ahead from 1 to 2 years all the time, your physical development ahead of your marketing activities. However, your marketing activities is telling whether you want to keep going or stop. So, yes, you could be overlapping and I think that phasing charts indicate that. One of these phase takes 3 to 4 years. When it starts in 1982, obviously it is overlapping by 2 years. But it is not far to build houses in there at the same time. You might have a few lots left in the first phase." eoncerned about maintaining a ratio. There is a need to assure that the developer always realizes that the city is concerned about the ratio and the mix. liTo me Phase I, II, III, IV, doesn't make economic sense." "We, maybe, should digress a little bit from a PUD and have some sort of design plan that these ratios are in tact and still have a single family type of orientation in the developments e and still allow practical terms. II Michael Thompson: It seems to me that if we had an imaginative PUD Ordinance we wouldn't have to talk about phasing because no matter wha t we say, the economic s i tua tion would ""for ins tance, br ing the cost of the service and what is available. Next the demand on the market, which we have already discussed, seem to determine what the phase is. Whether we see or don't see, when it finally gets approval he is go what the market demands at that time and what he has available is what he is going to build. We own the land. We have Orrin-Thompson express an -interest in developing phase I as it is presented to you. He has indicated an interest in it. That, of course, is predicated on our writing, feasable cost for developed lots. We would do the development. We would not build the houses. We would develop the lotscunder this proposal. We have not signed anything. e The general design the fact we built along the arterial with a higher density for access purpose ....... The terain being what it is goes through a valley/so those with higher density building will impact the other development at least, and in particularly the lake visually. It is also a timing thing, which I have indicated. We are not inclined to come in and develop the lake shore first. That is poor value building. e I ,~'L ", ",} " 4- \\", (.- "'f e - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -7- The Out-lots. The only outlots portion on the proposed plan are the recently proposed state areas in Lake Susan West. The overall predevelopment Land swell, drainage swell, between the cOlnmercail area and the apartment area could go one way or the other. At one time it was an outlot. Likewise, the drainage swell between phases II and III of Lake Susan South, that has been by the developer. A'~Ruple months ago that it's, plan to be put into private ownershif'S\lrainage easements over it. We didn't come to any recommendation to those who were not here last week. We discussed all the land-use issue of the community impact issues through Item #4. We can to some, fairly reasonable concensus on most of these issues. Walter Hobbs: On transportation, Item 3, propose 212 according to the paper tonight, we might as well forget about it. The article states that: Murphy is requesting that they identify where you'll go so that we can work around it. But, it seems to me that we aren't going to get any answer on that. I request information on public facilities Item 3 in this community thing Item B, please inquire what would be the concensus of the commission on. WaltAr Hobbs . "We are going to have to face up to the fact that we are going to have our own police department very shortly". Particularly on the basis of the quads that is beginning to occur from the Sheriff Department. I believe that after we absorb the initial costs, our police protection isn't going to be any more than what the Sheriff Department is going to be. And, we are going to have a better repor between the Police Department and our city than we do presently have between the Sheriff Department and city". Bob Waibel: Time to put together the introductory senarial about the actual document which back up our policies and plans and direc- tions upon which the planning commission and staff has been going to this date. And also point out, that we are going to mandatory planning act, which is a plan up-date and renewal. Walter Hobbs: The planning commission should review any of those contracts before final action is taken by the city. Lately, the final legal document has been between the attorney and the council. Final Development Plan Review: basically for them (developer) ,to prepare the actual substance of the preliminary plat data to have before final plat. Final plat follows. The approving of preliminary plat is to hand out approval of a plat. So, that is the last stop . J ~... there. Speaker: i:~>" Ii 2"/~",,('/.,iL,,. "i' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -8- e COMMUNITY IMPACT PORTION We will discuss the Metropolitan Council Policies and how we regarded them to respect to this particular . Jim Thompson: In agreement with Metropolitan Council. I propose that there would be a certain number of low-income housing in each of the three. ArtP I do not necessarily agree with the council. - ~om Hamilton Agree with Art. I don't agree with the Metropolitan Council forcing upon the city to have to supply so many low to moderate income units. The Metro Council would like to see normal growth within the community. They would also like to see if pos- sible, if the community wants to, a refinement of the Musel Line to fit the community and their growth and growth pattern and what they feel their needs are going to be in the next several years. Walter Hobbs : Also, in today's Herald there is an article in re- gards to Agricultural land outside the ____ land can be reserved with certain pluses to the farmer who doesn't for a period of 8 years. But, if not cast in concrete it can be changed by the village. "I really feel that some place in this area that we are going to have to make provisions for, not necessarily low but in this day and age of economics, low, medium housing provision of some kind". Bill Johnson: What Metropolitan is doing is our long range plan. They are saying that the next lO years you have to provide these opportunities. Michael Thompson: I don't agree, but the problem is, that we have to comply. Will the developer comply? What is he going to comply to? What is the city going to/ask him to' comply? Doesn't make any difference in what we think. rhinks Lake Susan West would be appropriate for low-income housing. Bob Waibel I have mentioned in my report, the preamble of Ordinance 47 does set out for general areas for purpose of intent of the and one of them is covers Item 2-C and affordability and also, not at the expense of the health, safety, welfare and environment of the community. e Art Partrige: While basically the development is proposed might be in conformance with the authority of the Metropolitan policies, you find the development framework, that the development, the Metro- politan Council itself really has no force of either approving or disapproving these plans. It is a local decision. Certainly some of the power that they suggest to us do have an impact we have to bear in mind. - e -- CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - May 28, 1980 -9- Ed Dunn: What we need is a developer working with the city. With the community. To address themselves to this problem. I have no plans for to construct any low~cost , subsidized housing. We are talking about a period of 10 years and will be discussing with the city. It is a joint responsibility, because we own the land and we control to some degree this development. The city on the other hand controls many of the elements of this and we need to work it out together. Do you have any comments about location? Ed Dunn: When I look at the map, I guess I see in connection, close to the core area, I'm not sure whether we'll level valid two years from now or not. I think these people have all the same reisidential needs that any resident has. People like to have open space, recreational areas, etc. Probably I would think there will be some balance in each area and if there is anything that is proscribed in the experience where it's been tried, it's a heavy concentration of this thing in anyone area. If we took all of these planned developments and we developed all as subsidized housing, we would not have the kind of concentration that you've seen in major cities where these major problems develope. :The thing that concerns me is I hate to leave addressing this thing until a later phase in the project. I feel we would have a respon- sibility to the first people who would move into this development also. We should not deprive them at some later point. Ed Dunn: Another area we probably do have is demand building and that's the elderly that prefer to move into less expensive, less maintenance, etc. The need is very great for housing for the elderly too. I'm not talking about a rest home, I'm talking about living quarters. I think in about ten years we'll see in the city of Chanhassen, a significantly aging population trend. : Would there be a senior citizen, moderate income, higher density possibility in that area that would satisfy a portion of our requirement? Ed Dunn: I think those areas we have identified as apartments might be this kind of a thing. If there are no further comments from the Planning Commission, let's move on the comprehensive plan. Bob Waibel: May I mention page 5 of my report. about things is comprehensive I think we have a tendancy in this group to talk I don't think the comprehensive plan is adopted. I have serious reservations about the plan in its current form. ---,.' -10- e The comprehensive plan is causing me great consternation over the last several weeks. I really feel the comprehensive could be a very useful tool. Unfortunately, I feel it is still in the infancy stage and needs to be developed further. It has a good start, but it also needs to be completed. It's unfortunate there is a conflict here between a major developer and the comprehensive plan at the same time. I feel very strongly the comprehensive plan should be a guide for us to follow, the City Council to follow and the City Staff to follow. Walter: There have been a lot of hours put in to this planning process up to this point. I hate to think we're going to have to start over again on this process. Bill: I guess I thought it was The comprehensive plan is a on the project first. plan. e Mike: The comprehensive plan is a plan that should be done. The citizens haven't had the opportunity to put any input into this thing. We were in a position right now to approve a comprehensive plan. I still think it should go back to the public so that they can input their ideas. We're being forced into urbanization based on that plans that were based on a Council some years, which I think Al Klingelhutz was mayor, and by a Planning Commission that was headed up by Dan Herbst who I think wrote the PUD ordinances and they made decisions at this time that put us in this particular predicament and yet, if we take a look at our zone ordinances in the City and if we take a look at the fact that we don't have a comprehensive plan, I think some or most of us would agree that the zoning ordinances need updating. The standards aren't current. We're working on a project when we should be working on a compre- hensive plan. It seems that we're doing this backwards. My feeling would be that we should have a moratorium on development until we get a comprehensive plan done. We should set a six month or three month deadline or whatever is reasonable and get it done. Walter: There still will be opportunity for citizen's input into the planning process from what I understand we're doing. There are two ways to look at this thing. We can look at it and say it would have been nice to develop our comprehensive plan from a theoretical point of view. I feel that we are compelled to live out what we have generated so far in the comprehensive plan. I guess it's my feeling the emphasis we are putting forth on this development and the recommendations we make on this development are going to form the basis for what we all arrive at as a comprehensive plan. I don't feel too compelled by what has been done in the past. I think we're looking at this thing from an objective point of view. I see us going forward and finalizing our comprehensive plan based on the conclusions we have reached from this development. e e e - -11- You are using a real live case to form your compre- hensive plan. I think the comprehensive plan should be developed so that you have a guide. I think that would be a problem if you felt constrained as it existed in the past. From what I have seen, most of us have considered a fairly open-minded viewpoint. Walter Hobbs: I will not endorse the comprehensive plan as we have it. If we were tailor the comprehensive plan to our recommendations that we will arrive at on this particular development, will that be more in line with what you will accept as the compre- hensive pla~? Walter Hobbs: I will endorse the comprehensive plan when I am satisfied that it meets the growth that I see. Clark: Let's go on then to Item #7, the residential impact. I don't really see how we can separate them. I think we can discuss all four of these sub-catagories The catagories are: the immediate project area,surrounding neighborhoods The yellow is single family, green is duplex, brown-gray is the 8-plex. Ed Dunn went over the drawings. Ed Dunn: We have made some revisions. Mike: What neighborhoods are you affecting? Bill: The impact in the area would fall back to the housing types. Perhaps a buffer of some sort. Walter: I don't have any comments at the moment. Tom: It's almost like developing a city within a city as far as I'm concerned. Discussion followed. Clark: I think it's safe to say the consensus will be extremely critical about the architectural renderings of the type of structures that were proposed, especially around the lakeshore area e e e -12- Clark: Let's move on. Walter: We've heard many times from the Shorewood people that their lift station is not adequate. There are another 50+or minus units going in there. The city should take care of it now. Bob Waibel: My recommendation on Lake Susan West, which qualifies the out-lots either the applicant agrees to place perpetual prohibition on these lots or adjust proposed density on the proposed data sheet of January 30, minus the acreage of these lots. : I would entertain recommendations at this time as to how we would obtain that data, who would obtain it. What would be your suggestions on that? Jim: An outside group should prepare it. I would like to see it done prior to development. Realistically, that may not be possible. Bob: State law states that they have to have environmental clearance before any final approval of the development plan. Art: I agree with Jim. Tom: Right on. Walter: I disagree. I think the developer ought to develop the work sheet. That gives Staff and Planning Commission an opportunity to be critical of it. If the Staff makes the worksheet, I don't think we'll get all of the input. Bill: I tend to agree with Walter. Mike: It's a major or minor project from what I understand. Ed, would you have a problem on having this statement prepared by someone we recommended? Ed Dunn: I think if it's to be done at our expense and it's our project, and it's not to be done by the City, we should choose the consultant. Clark: Let's move on into the amendment proposal. Ed Dunn: Phase I has not changed. Gross density of about 2.76. Last week when we made recommendations, I recall they ranged from 2.5 gross to 2.9 gross. So these were the ranges we were looking at. e -13- I have the feeling that Ed wasn't listening to what we were saying last week. The density is down a little, but the concept we were trying to convey is no different in this proposal. Either we did not speak clearly enough or Ed did not want to hear what we said. Is this a response on what you heard last week or from the Public Hearing? e Ed Dunn: I don't intend this to be a total response to everything I heard. I think it represents a realistic concession on our part in the direction of what we heard. I only attempted to display green areas. I think the plan is a good one. Frfm discussion I heard last session and this ,session','I don't think I'v hea,rd a valid challenge to the plan. I'm talking about Lake Susan est. Have you cut down lineal stree~ footage? I ' I Ed Dunn: We have not redesigned the streetr' I : The clustering types of things I we suggested to cut down street area are not appropriate to considerl at this poin:t.? I Bob Waibel: It can be taken out of the pre~iminary plan. It's at the developers own risk of expense. I Clark: I think it is appropriate, Bob, to ~ive us your recommendations on how we should proceed from here. r I Bob Waibel: This is the most realistic timt for everybody to do it. I imagine the next step would be to go intolthe development of the decision and the contingency of that decisi~n to approve the re- zoning, preliminary plan and what contingenfies that approval they decline. I I I know YOf are each going to have You may want to have discussion. some individual comments. Clark: I guess my concern is the format of the motion. Craig: I think the base decision is whether I or not you want to rezone the property from RIA and if you can t get a majority on that, there probably is not a great deal of merit in discussing the matter any further. Clark: What would be an acceptable use of ihat rezoning? I I I . , I i I -14- e My concern is not other communities. It is sensible well-planned growth of Chanhassen. The developer has had about 12 years to plan the property. For some reason, the developer has chosen not to follow the established development trends in Chanhassen during the past several years. Residents in Chanhassen do not want to live in another West Bloomington, Richfield or Apple Valley. We currently have a quality town with quality housing, good planning that can be preserved. My recommendations, specifically, are 1) Lake Susan West which represents the proposed acreage and denslties contains ambiguities that must be clarified. Total buildable acres will then be reduced, which will also change all net and gross density figures. My point was, that you can't have that acreage. I still think those figures should be redone. The following guidelines should be used when determining units per acre: RIA would like to see one unit for 2.5 acres. Rl, 1 to 2.9 units, which would be single family detached, R2 - 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre which would be duplexes. R3 is 2.9 to 5.8 units per acre, which would represent quads and townhouses. R4 5.8 to 9 units per acre, which would apartments. e The developer must maintain the single family detached unit lot size. Single family detached lots must be net 15,000 sq. ft per lot, not an average of all lots. 4) Economists and mortgage bankers I have talked with/~H~~ethe single family detached unit will be the dominant type of housing thru the '80's. Chanhassen has about 85% detached family housing now and the comprehensive plan projects 65% single family detached by 1990. The developer is proposing 27% single family detached and 73% multiple and apartment. Lake Susan West must have between 60% and 65% single family detached, no more than 28% multiple and no more than 6% apartments. The developer has apparently agreed to build only single family detached units on Lake Susan. This has been agreed to with the Lake Susan Association. It should be presented to the Planning Commission (which it was tonight) ,for review. There has been no provisions for schools, churches or any other public amenity within the development. This should be accommodated. The development, as proposed, will in no way improve or enhance the quality of life of the current residents of Chanhassen. If anything, it will detract from the rural atmosphere that has prevailed in Chanhassen since the town was founded. 4It Based on this information, it is my opinion that the request for - e e -15- rezoning of Lake Susan Hills West PRD from RIA to PI be denied till such time as the following can be completed: Completion of and approval of the comprehensive plan, revision and approval of the zoning ordinance #47. Art: No comment. Jim: My feeling is that we alot of the design features. approve the rezoning. I disapprove Walter: I have no problems with rezoning. Bill: I don't either. We should work through some of the major issues. Mike: I have some comments. Lake Susan West will have a greater impact on Chanhassen than any other proposal the City has passed. These developments, as proposed, will set the type of housing, set the density, eliminate the rural character, establish the quality of life for our area and increase the public services and more or less the population. Once these decisions are made, there is no turning the clock back. The community is a rural community bordering on a metropolitan area and forced into development by policies and decisions that were made some years ago by the Planning Commission and City Council, then headed by Mr. Herbst and Mr. Klingelhutz. These policies and decisions they made now lead us into our present predicament. More comments followed. I recommend we place a six month moratorium on development. Clark: Other comments? Is someone ready for form a motio~? Denial of the rezoning recommendation at this time mean that the developer is free to go directly to the City Council with a full project without our recommendation? Craig: He can still go to the City Council for a final recommendation on the rezoning question. If you do rezone it to PI, you are in fact abandoning the 2~ acre lots. More discussion followed. I move the request for rezoning of Lake Susan Hills West area from RIA to PI be allowed as the comprehensive plan is revised and approved and until ordinance #47 is revised. Second. All in favor signify by saying Aye. Voting aye was Art Partridge, Tom Hamilton and Mike Thompson. Voting Nay Bill Johnson and Walt Thompson, Clark Horn and Jim Thompson. e e e -16- Two nay votes, Tom Hamilton and Bill Thompson. Correction on last, motion. Art Partridge also voted no. Ed Dunn: What I would look for, I guess, is the approval of the plan subject to your recommendations and modifications. Obviously, I would like to have the plan approved as presented. If that's not to be, then I would like to hear what your recommendations are. : We have no problem with that. My only concern is the format that, we say, what the modifications are that we'd like to see. Jim: I propose that we disapprove the preliminary plan as proposed by Dunn and Curry at this time, in that it does not meet the quality of housing type and style that is consistent with the wishes of the citizens of Chanhassen as I read what the citizens are saying. I propose that they come back to us with another proposal. Second. Discussion followed. Bill: The motion, I believe, is to reject the most recent proposal. I move that we reject the preliminary development plan as it is presented which includes the illustrative plan dated stipulating each commissioner as he votes outline Motion seconded by Art Partridge. Clark: No other discussion? If not, I will call for a poll. Jim: I vote yes because it does not meet the housing type and style, ratio mix. It does not provide for a certain number Art: I vote yes because it the preliminary plan. I do not feel the proposal is not in the spirit of the preamble to our ordinance. It does not show creative or innovative use of space. It is not in keeping with the kind of housing we now have. Tom: I to disagree with (reject) the preliminary plan for the following reasons. There should be a Lake Susan West development. There should be no less than 60%-65% single family detached units. There should be no more than 28% multiple and no more than 6% apart- ment buildings. I feel the developer should be able to maintain the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for single family detached units per lot, not an average lot size. There are also no plans for schools, churches or public amenities in the development area. . e e -17- Also, the recreation area that has been given to the City by Dunn and Curry is mostly a swamp. It has not been significantly addressed by Dunn and Curry. It's not a good piece of land. Walter: I will vote to reject primarily on criteria last week. I would be willing to go to 2.9 density. Bill: I will vote yes to reject it. Lake Susan West. I would propose to recommend to the developer to concentrate his planning process on multiple use of the neighborhood. I propose that duplexes and fourplexes represent a more efficient land use than is presently desired by the City of Chanhassen at the present time. Therefore, I would ask the developer to keep in mind in his future planning a more appropriate land utilization would be an 18,000 sq. ft. lot size for duplexes and 21,000 sq. ft. minimum for fourplexes. I propose to the developer that he delete eightplex from his future plans. I propose a density calculation based on the following: the larger minimun lot size for duplexes and fourplexes as outlined above, elimination of the eightplex acreage and utilitzation of the 17 acres into a single family development and elimination of the out lots from the density calculation and the reduction of the apartment density from 12.8 to 10 units per acre. The overall density would be 2.8 units per acre. : I would vote yes. Many of the reasons have already been outlined. I don't, disapprove of the quad concep't, but I feel the only type of structure appropriate for that is a low type of townhouse. I think I would not lock into lot sizes. I would stick with what I feel is the PUD concept and give the developer flex- ibility in that area. I would require an overall density figure of 2.5 units per acre, without any individual lot size restrictions. I would agree with the mixtures and ratios that have been established. I so move we adjourn.