Loading...
1980 06 11 REGULAR SESSION . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - The Chanhassen Planning Comnission held its. meeting at Chanhassen City Hall, 7610 Laredo, Chanhassen, Minnesota on June 11, 1980. Present were: Chairman Clark Horn Walter Thompson Art Partridge Tom Hamilton Mike Johnson Bill Johnson Jim Thompson Also present were: Bob Waibel, Staff Mark Koegler, Staff Craig Mertz, Asst. Attorney Ed Dunn, Dunn & Curry Chairman Horn called the Meeting to Order at 7: 30 p.m. e APPROVAL OF MINUTES Walter Thompson moved, Mike Thompson second, to note the City Council Minutes of May 12, 1980. Motion unanimously carried. Jim Thompson moved, Tom Hamilton second, to note the City Council Minutes of May 19, 1980. Motion unanimously carried. PRELIMINARY DEVEIDPMENT 'PLANREVIEW, RECOMMENDATIONFORMllLATION, LAKE ANN PUD There was discussion on the formulation of reconmendation for the development and the rezoning and density. Craig Mertz explained the legal aspect. Bob Waibel infonned of the reduction in apartment units, change in quads and the density tranfer. He then reported his conments and reconmendations. Clark Horn questioned the consistenty of this revised plan and the Lake Susan POD plan. Bob Waibel felt it was consistent with staff reconmendations previously made. Ed Dunn reported on the density and lot changes (decrease in total number of units, increase in duplexes, decrease in quads), and the transition of mixed housing. There was lengthy discussion on the issues of.. quad hones and terms of density and lot sizes. Chairman Horn requested conments from the Corrmission Members on density: Ie Jim Thompson: "If my math and remembrance of what each person said in their individual views on density from 2.9 (Walter) to 2.4 (myself), that wOl.lld range from 500-585 units, which .is approximately 240 units less than what is desired by Mr. Dunn at the present. I think it should be 2.4 to 2. 9 . I can I t see anything wrong with the original proposal." e e i re Tom Hamilton: "I think we had some consistency in this group that we would like to see rrnre single family, We don I t have" any guidelines to follow. . . I guess it bothers me some that we have mentioned that ro'1d mentioned that about the single family and the developer comes back tonight with less single family than what was there previously." Art Partridge: "I would like to see more single family. This also does not address the initial concern that some of us had, and I still do, that Phase I is still multiple... Overall, I'll give them 3." Bill Johnson: "In the spirit of what we I ve been saying I think quads are... I put nnre weight in the single family. Working backwards into his ratio, I came up with a ratio of 3.0. My rationale behind that was I tend to want to putalittle rrnre contraint on the duplexes and quads. (He then sited his process for ratio). Walter Thompson: "lId be satisfied with a 3, with a plus or a minus on either side, 2.95 - 3.05." Mike Thompson: "I guess if I had to go along with the density, I would. From my standpoint, you should have a minimum 101;. When you get into some of the other areas, I think there's a little more flexibility." Chairman Horn: "I guess I don't see anything wrong with the original, I think we've come up with a consistent view on density. On the ratio of housing types, Chanhassen now is about 7(jfb single family, we know thats not workable. I guess we would like to see 60-65% single family. II Walter Thompson: "I think 65% single family is a reasonable figu.re." Bill Johnson rrnved, Jim Thompson second, to reZQneLake AnnPID from R1 to P1. Motion carried. Negative vote: Mike Thompson Jim Thompson moved, Tom Hamilton second, to reconmend that the City Council approve a preliminary development plan encompaSsing the area. shown on Exhibit A contingent upon the following: l)Gross density of 2.9 + one-tenth contingent upon successful site plan review; 2) That it include staff recomnendations #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14, #16, #17 dated June 7, 1980; 3) Phase I would be approximately 25% of the total area; 4) No restrictions be placed on lot sizes at this time, so that to allow the developer an opportunity to develop a program of cost for streets, sewers, and to provide rnaxinnm1 opportunities for creative housing in style and design; 5) That the total development mix be approximately 65% single family, 20% multiple, and 6% apartments; and 7) That the developer address low and moderate income housing opportunities to be provided in various phases. Motion unanimously carried. ---. - - Planning Commission - June 11, 1980 Clark Horn: I think we have a slightly modified plan with us tonight. Bob Waibel: I have recently been approached by the developer saying that he added different plan proposed which included a reduction of the apartment units by 50 units and also changing the quads along Co. Rd. 17 north of the southerly access road of the development. I also note that as far as changing from quad to duplex he wanted a density transfer into portions of the single family area in the south central portion of the development. I just received the revised density sheet. Ed Dunn: One of the changes we have made is that we have decreased the lots on the north boundary, responding partially to the request that those lots be made larger. Bob Waibel: I still maintain the overall density of apartments and the commercial area should be relative to the sight plan review and the sight plan review should also include portions in step 4, actually Section 1405 Subsect~on 4 of Ordinance 47. e Clark Horn: Why don't you go through your report on an item by item basis? Bob Waibel read his report. Clark Horn: You have no recommendations then on the mix of the transition of the housing type? Bob WaibeJ: With or relative to the new plan? I believe we discussed that in March. I felt comfortable with the backyard facing of the transitory land use rather than the street front facing. I feel the transition is quite adequate. Clark Horn: I don't know if I didn't hear you two weeks ago, but it appears we're recommending a shift in plan here. We're delaying many of things we discussed up until now and the sight plan review. Is that consistent with our recommendation of the Lake Susan PUD? Bob Waibel: Are you referring to my points about future phases? Clark Horn: Yes. In effect, what I'm hearing you telling us is you are recommending that we defer density and types of issues........ Bob Waibel: condiminiums. For multiple areas such as apartments, townhomes, Those densities should definebely be deferred. 4It Clark Horn: Don't we have to treat those as an overall PUD density? Bob Waibel: In the preliminary review of each phase you could have a small amount of change. You may make a very minimal change. - e -2- We are accepting the fact that this seems to be an acceptable transition. There is still a lot more information to be reviewed. Walter Thompson: I see that we've got two problems our 60 day limit on June something and the other is these recommendations that have not yet been made. rate what we're doing. here. One is on the basis of We have to sepa- Clark Horn: What we may have to do is go through our old list and come to some kind of a consensus. Ed Dunn: We have new numbers of density on the sheets I handed you. The revised sheet shows you a total number 726 total units. The proposal was the last time we discussed it was 790 units. That's a reduction of approximately 7% or 8%. That's a partial response. With that then, the overall density calculation becomes. Before I comment on that it was indicated that the commercial should not be included within the overall density calculations. 216 was gross density and 203.3 without it. The density on the 203 acres is 3.57 units. If you put commercial back in it would be 3.35. The original calculation was 3.66 or related to this density calculation now was 3.18. Duplexes went up and the quads went down. We have moved from 328 units of quads to 252 units. That's 82 buildings compared to 63 buildings and that's a substantial reduction in quads. Clark Horn: I thought we had asked several meetings to mix the housing types, mixing duplexes with quads. Ed Dunn: I think you mean a single family, duplex, and a quad all mixed up? Bill Johnson: There would be a transitional mix rather than a block and a half of the same type of house. Ed Dunn: I think we've established a very effective transition from large lot single family...Functionally, and 1 think market wise, 1 think it's safe to say it doesn't work. I would have been more fortunate if I had come to you and said, "1 don't have any idea who's going to build these," then I wouldn't have to defend that. I think if 1 could revert to that position, I would. What I am asking you for is not build a quad, but 1 am asking you for is permission to build a density of about 7 units per acre. That's what this application is for. I do not ask you to judge even the street lay-outs. That is the thing that your 4It engineer will do. I don't ask you approve New Horizon quads. - e 4It -3- In my view, the question is zoning and density of land use. And, architectural style belongs with the plat timing. I have some thoughts on numbers of units that should be involved. It does work out that approximately 40% of our land use is devoted to single family. Clark Horn: We can tell you tonight what we probably won't accept. Let's try to define this thing in terms of what kind of density figure we would offer. I think it should be 2.4 to 2.9. I can't see anything wrong with the original proposal. Mike Thompson: I'm just catching up. Talk with the rest of them. Bill Johnson: I'll stick with my 3. Walter Thomp~ I'd be satisfied with a 3, with a + or - on either side of it. 2.95 to 3.05. Clark Horn: I guess 1 don't see anything wrong with the original. I think we've come up with a consistent view on density. What about the ratio of housing types? Mike Thompson:I guess if I had to go along with the density, 1 would. From my standpoint, you should have a minimum lot. When you get into some of the other areas, I think there's a little more flexibility. Bill Johnson: The land price goes into the price of the product. Walter Thompson: I think 65% single family is a reasonable figure. Jim Thompson: 1 move Development from Rl to Pl. change the Lake Ann Clark Horn: Is there a second to that motion? All signify by saying aye. Motion carried. Jim Hamilton I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend a density of 2.9 ~ one-tenth of a percent on maximum. I make a motion to the City Gouncil that we approve a preliminary development encompassing the area shown on Exhibit lA. Contingent upon the following: 1) Maximum density of 2.9 ~ one-tenth. e e e -4- Including the recommendations from the staff #3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17. This area. to Phase I would be approximately 25% of the total That we do not put restrictions on lot sizes at this time, so that we will allow the developer the opportunity to develop a program where he can have cost for street and sewers, provide maximum opportunities for creative housing in style and design. I would also like to propose the developer address low moderate income housing opportunities, provide these in the various phases. Clark Horn: Do I hear a second to this motion? Second. Walter Thompson: first phase 25%. I would like Jim to express himself again on that I'm not sure 1 understand that. Jim Thompson: That's what I estimate the approximate area to be that he has as his first phase at the present time. Clark Horn: All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carried.