Loading...
1980 10 22 APPROVED ON //-/;< -J>{) - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD OCTOBER 22, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AMENDED ON -., II-/~-t /) Members Present: Chairman Horn, J. Thompson, W. Johnson, T. Hamilton, W. Thompson, A. Partridge, and M. Thompson. Staff Present: B. Waibel, C. Mertz, J. Orr, and N. Rust. e Approval of Minutes: September 17, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes: Mr. Johnson indicated the word "assured" on the first line of page 5 should be changed to read "insured." Mr. Partridge moved to approve the September 17, 1980, minutes with the word change requested by Mr. Johnson on page 5. Mr. W. Thompson seconded. All voted aye, with the exception of the following abstentions: W. Thompson, M. Thompson, and J. Thompson. Motion passed. September 24, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes: Mr. Partridge indicated that the first line of the sixth paragraph of page 5 should read "I-III zoning rather than "R-l11 zoning and moved the minutes be approved with this amendment. Mr. Johnson seconded. A 11 voted aye wi th the exception of Mr. Hamilton, who abstained. Motion passed. October 1, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes: Chairman Horn indicated he felt the third paragraph of page 2 should be amended to read "It was felt the industrial park as it developed was a prime determinant of low and moderate housing needs for the community. II Mr. J. Thompson moved the minutes be approved with the proposed amendment of page 2. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the moti on. A 11 voted aye wi th the exception of Mr. Partridge, who abstained. Motion passed. September 8, 1980, City Council Minutes: Mr. Partridge moved to note the September 8, 1980, minutes. Mr. W. Thompson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. September 15, 1980, City Council Minutes: Mr. Partridge moved to note the September 15, 1980, City Council minutes. Mr. J. Thompson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. September 22, 1980, City Council Minutes: Mr. Hamilton moved to note the September 22, 1980, City Council minutes. Mr. Partridge seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. -- - e 10-22-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 Sketch Plan Review, Lots 6 and 8, Block 1, TeraraAcres, Koehnen Circle, Harlan Koehnen: The applicant, Mr. Harlan Koehnen, was not present. Mr. Waibel explained the proposal saying the applicant is requesting permission to subdivide Lot 8, Block 1, into two 15,840 square foot single family residential lots and Lot 6, Block 1, into two approximately 17,500 square foot single family residential lots. Mr. Partridge noted the lot which would be difficult to subdivide was currently being assessed water and sewer for two units and the one which was simpler to subdivide was being assessed for only one unit. He felt that because the applicant was not present to discuss his reaction to this that the matter should be tabled. Mr. Partridge moved to table the request for a subdivision of Lots 6 and 8, Block 1, Terara Acres, until November 12, 1980, when the applicant could be present. Mr. Hamilton seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Rezoning Request from R-IA, Agricultural Residential District, to I - 1, I n d u s t ria 1 D i s t r i c t, 8470 Gal pin B 0 u 1 e v a r d , Me rl e Vol k : Mr. Waibel reported that it was staff's recommendation that, before a public hearing was scheduled for this rezoning request, a review by the City Council take place after an informal review by the Planning Commission. This was recommended in order to decrease any unnecessary time and money expenditures of the applicant. Mr. Waibel indicated that staff felt this request constituted spot-zoning and was a significant departure from the comprehensive plan update and the City policies and ordinances. He asked the Commission to state individually their concerns and opinions on this request. Mr. A. H. Michals, representative for Mr. Volk, said they were there through staff's request and have submitted a formal application for rezoning. He and the applicant wished to have a public hearing scheduled for the request. Following brief discussion, Mr. Hamilton moved that a public hearing date be set for the rezoning. Mr. Partridge seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Preliminary Plat Review, Lake Susan West P.R.D., Dunn and Curry _ Real Estate Management, Inc.: 10-22-80 Planning Commission Minutes _ Page 3 Mr. Mertz explained that there was some confusion on where the Planning Commission was in the platting procedure because the paths in which the City ~ouncil and Planning Commission followed deviated from each other. He explained the steps involved and said the Planning Commission was now completed with the fourth of five steps which was approval of the preli- minary development plan. They had three options available to them that evening: 1. Table the matter until the City Council had approved the preliminary development plan. At this time, they have approved that plan in concept only. 2. Re-confirm their approval of the preliminary development plan, and, in that re-confirmation, set forth any additional problems or items that the Commission wished to go on record. 3. Give final development plan approval which in- cludes the preliminary plat review. He indicated the agenda was labeled for this option. e Mr. Mertz reported that staff would recommend the Commission re-confirm their former approval of the preliminary development plan (option 2) and note valid engineering comments which should be incorporated into the plan. I n response to C h ai r man Horn, Mr. Mertz s aid there could be one development contract which would cover both Lake Susan South and Lake Susan West. The developer could be asked to identify in his drawings the site of each component plat as outlots because there will be many additions to each of these larger developments. Each of these outlots could then contain the density for that addition to the development. A chronological order of development could occur within this development contract. -- Mr. Partridge stated that it was his recollection of this situation that the Planning Commission rejected the proposed preliminary development plan for Lake Susan West and the developer then went to the City Council without any recommendation but some comments from the Commission. He said the City Council had then approved the preliminary develop- ment concept giving only density guidelines and general per- centage guidelines for land use. Following discussion of the next step in this develop- ment process, Chairman Horn said what they should do is put it in the context of the developments which were approved and re-confirm them. He felt the Commission could go one step 10-22-80 Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page 4 further by requlrlng a phasing plan with the number of housing types and the total number of units. The applicant then pro- ceeded to explain his proposal. He explained the general location of the subject property, which was west and south of Lake Susan. e In response to Mr. Partridge, Mr. Dunn said it was their intention to retain three plan developments because that was consistent with what they had been doing. He then showed a map describing the phasing of the developments, with Lake Susan West, Phase I, being the topic of discussion. Mr. Dunn stated the request included 321 units with a gross acreag~ including park, of 125 acres and a density yielding 2.57 du/ac. He recalled the Commission did not wish to set minimum or maximum lot sizes for this development and he felt they were consistent with all the Commission's desires. Mr. J. Thompson responded the reason they did not want to lock the developer into particular lot sizes was that they wanted to encourage creativity of lot lay-out and configurations. Mr. Bob Hoffman, representative from Orrin Thompson Homes, was present and explained that they had an interest in purchasing those lots in the Lake Susan West Addition from the owner, Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management. Mr. Furkey, from the marketing division of Orrin Thompson Homes, then proceeded to show a slide presentation of the housing options available with Orrin Thompson Homes. These slides included single detached housing, attached housing, and existing developments of Orrin Thompson Homes. Mr. Waibel said Mr. Jim Orr, City Engineer, had indicated concern about information included with preliminary plats submitted in the past and felt they should be reviewed more closely. He noted the EAW review was currently underway. Mr. Waibel said that the following are changes from the site plan viewed at the May 28, 1980, Planning Commission meeting: 1. Removal of a cul-de-sac in the vicinity of Lots 6 through 8 of Block 4 with the subsequent enlarge- ment of the area previously depicted as a 7.1 acre townhouse area. 2. Removal of a cul-de-sac in the area indicated as Block 7 and 8 on the proposed plat detail lot layout for townhouse model 82 and the subsequent change of land use from duplex to town home in this area. e 10-22-80 Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page 5 3. A change of townhouse structures proposed for the area shown in the proposed plat detail lot layout for townhome model 82 from the type shown on Lots 1 through 12 of Block 3 to the model 82. 4. An increase of seven townhome structures, 28 units. Mr. Waibel said the reason the applicant clustered lots with slightly less frontage in a concentrated area was to create a visual balance on the narrower lots because there are cert~in model homes which have lower ground floor areas and are mo~e elongated than wide. He continued that regarding the construction of pedestrian facilities along New County Road 17, the applicant felt that was of regional benefit and funding for that should not be born directly by the development but rather funded by the state. Mr. Waibel then explained what staff recommends for an interior pedestrian system for the development. e Mr. Waibel said staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills West First A,ddi,tfon with the applicable condi- tions stated i'n the planning reports of October 17, 1980, and May 27, 1980. In resoonse to Chairman Horn, Mr. Mertz said the goal for combining ~he South and W~st Lake Susan development contracts is to arrive at some method whereby the City will know that Lake Susan West develops prior to Lake Susan South. Mr. Jim Orr said the reason for this involved the staging of transporta- tion and the water trunk extensions into the development area. Mr. Dunn expressed concern about the possibility of limiting development of Lake Susan South until Lake Susan lest was developed Becaus'e there was a possiBility that at some time in the future, ownership of the property known as Lake Susan South may change. He said they we~e there to gain preliminary p 1 a tap pro val for L a k e S usa n W'e s tan d wis h e d toe x c 1 u d ere fer e n c e s to the other related developments in the discussion. Discussion occurred on the design lay-out of the town- homes in the development and the layout of the individual lots. The Commission indicated they wished to see a more innovative clustered series of IIrow' houses."Mr. J. Thompson noted the Commission had originally rejected the land usage in this development, and requested Mr. Dunn return with a new plan addressing their concerns with housing styles and land _ use, etc. - 10-22-80 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Mr. W. Thompson said he felt the townhomes were a good transition between the industrial park north of the site and the residential area; Discussion occurred regarding the parkland dedication and streets within the proposed development. Mr. W. Johnson moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat development for Lake Susan West, Phase I, SUbject to the conditions that the Planning Commission will reserve the right to make future recommendations on the style of the multiple housing and that staff recommenda- tions and conditions contained in the planning reports of May 27, 1980, and October 17, 1980, and the city engineer's recommendations of October 3, 1980, be included in the development agreement. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. The following voted: Ayes: Mr. W. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. M. Thompson, and Mr. W. Thompson, Chairman Horn. - Nays: Mr. J. Thompson and Mr. Partridge. Chairman Horn asked that a poll be conducted of each Commission member's reason for his vote: Mr. J. Thompson: There should be more innovative design of the housing. Mr. W. Johnson: He felt in favor as was stated in the motion. Mr. Hamilton: He felt the development was within ordinance requirements. Chairman Horn: He felt the development was within ordinance requirements. Mr. W. Thompson: He felt in favor as was stated in the motion. Mr. Partridge: He disliked the multiple style housing found in the quadraminiums. Mr. M. Thompson: He felt there could be better housing design but it was within the ordinance requirements. e Adjournment: The October 22, 1980, Planning Commission adjourned at 1:15 a.m.