Loading...
1982 03 11 e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS APPROVED ON ,~-X~ Members Present: Ladd Conrad, Bill Swearengin, Carol Watson Jim Thompson, Howard Noziska, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent: Art partridge Staff Present: Bob Waibel, and Becky Foreman Vice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Interviews for Environmental protection Committee: - . . - -.- The Planning Commission interviewed Samuel Miller and Richard Vogel for the Environmental Protection Committee. Sketch Plan Review, Lotus Lake Estates 2nd and 3rd Phases, 140 Sing-Ie F'amily Attached Dni ts : e Present: Rick Murray, Representative of B-T Land Company Georgette Sosin Susan Conrad Frank Kurvers Conrad stated that this is a sketch plan review and that Murray is looking for the Planning Commissions comments before they continue planning this development. Murray indicated that they have concerns because of the housing market in general. In the last three years there has only been 100 permits have been issued in the City of Chanhassen. He wants to look into how they can better use this site. Murray presented a map to the Planning Commission showing the original plan. The first phase has 38 homes constructed in it and the second phase was planned to have 94 lots. With the concerns regarding the lake and the intensity of use, he expressed concern for preservation of the sensitive areas especially the northeast corner of the lake. e Murray explained that the improvements for the Conditional Use Permit will all be on dry ground. Outlot B is pretty much marsh. The wetlands in the center would not be altered. He has taken the units that were proposed to be developed in this area and clustered them on the northern area of the development. The overall density is still within the low density guidance that this property has. It is zoned as part of the planned unit development. The units that we are proposing have been built in Edina and Bloomington and they have done well in the market because they look like large single family homes. The roof lines give the impression Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 2 e of a 3-car garage with a single entrance. This is not unlike a lot of the homes in the area at this time. Ilurray indicated that he is trying to preserve the natural swale and drainage of the property. This plat has 40% less hard cover than the concept proposed before. Hard cover being the roof-tops and driveways. Water should be flowing a lot slower with the new proposal. There are 140 units represented with an overall density of 2.2 which is within your overall low density guidelines. Waibel stated that not all the units fall within the 150 foot setback of the propos:ed draft wetland ordinance. One unit is 95' back and the other is about 140 feet. Murray indicated that the approximately 70-75 feet. or to make sure that each the wetlands. distance between buildings is There is plenty of room to massage building get beyond 150 feet of M. Thompson asked how many units were in each phase as proposed before. This 1st phase had 44 units, 2nd phase had 45 units and the 3rd phase (which was still in concept) was 49 units. This sketch plan is a combination between the 2nd and 3rd phases. e M. Thompson asked what the average size of the single family homes were planned to be. Murray answered they would have been 1800 to 2500 square feet. M. Thompson asked what the average size of the 4-plex or 8-plex units? Murray stated that the average would be about 1150 square feet. This will be less square foot of housing than the 1st proposal. The reason for this proposed change is that the average income in Minnesota is $25,000 annually. This last week the FHA ratings went down and a FHA loan is available at 16% at a median income of $25,000 per family. Those folks can't afford to build the same quality that we built in the first phase. Housing is going to get smaller. If we would develop single family housing, the houses would be much smaller than the 1st phase. Murray stated that he wants to build something that people can afford. Watson stated that these can't be compared to New Horizons Homes. This is a very attractive concept. J. Thompson stated that he commended Murray for what he is trying to do. The type of buildings are very nice. I don't like the 8-plexes closest to the wetlands. How do you plan to massage this as you mentioned before. e Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 3 e Murray stated that there is enough room for them to move the 8-plexes farther away from the wetlands so that they can maintain a 150' buffer. M Thompson asked if Murray has talked with the neighbors in the 1st Addition yet. Murray indicated that they have circulated a petition and have all but 11 signatures yet to get. That would make it 100% approval. M. Thompson asked how this concept ties into the park. Murray stated as far as roadways, the road goes through the park to Pleasant View Road. Waibel sta.ted that they should, have a secondary access. Conrad asked what the Park and Recreation Committee will say about this road. Will they want a road through the park? Waibel stated that a secondary road is desirable in the case of emergencies should the only access be blocked and for overall traffic circulation. The major park traffic will probably come back onto Pleasant View Road. The Department of Transportation will only allow 1 access onto highway 101. Murray stated that going through the Lotus Lake development will be a lot shorter for the park traffic to get back onto 101. He doesn't like that idea. Conrad asked how far is the access from Pleasant View Road. Hurray stated 550'. e Murray indicated that they~e proposing 2~ parking spaces per unit. There will be a one car garage and l~ outside. Waibel stated that ordinance 47 calls for 2 off street parking spaces per unit in an R-l District; however, no requireIrent exists in the p-District~ Murray explained the floor plan for the 4-plex. The garages have a common hallway that goes to their homes. There are 2 units upstairs and 2 units down. There will be no base- ments. They will be built on slabs. The footings have to be 42" into the ground. Adding basements would add $4-5,000 per unit. M. Thompson asked if the 8-plex has the garages on the ends. Murray stated yes, that way there will not be 8 garages in a row. Conrad asked if there will be a homeowners association? He expressed concern about storage of boats, etc. Conrad suggested that Murray be very restrictive regarding storage of recreational equipment. This could become very junky. Murray stated that they are considering having detached garages in the back to hold storage. The area is there to do it. It might be near- sighted not to. e Waibel stated that there is an ordinance stating recreational equipment has to be stored along the rear lot. The Chaparral, development contract states that no outside storage shall be allowed. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 4 e Waibel explained about the road into the park. When the park was purchased there were 10. sewer hook-ups along Pleasant View Road. The City couldn't put 10. homes on the parkland. We felt we didn't need all the acreage that was there to buy in order to put the park together. Waibel stated that he came up with 3 concept plans for this area so 10. lots could be platted so the City wouldn't have to pay all the assessments. Conrad asked if anyone from the audience had any comments. Frank Kurvers indicated that he doesn't like the traffic that will be created by the road through the park. He suggested that Murray work something out with Mrs. Klingelhutz to gain access through her property. Georgette Sosin asked if the Planning Commission is going to set a precedent for the other larger pieces of land to be developed around Lotus Lake regarding the 4 & 8-plexes. Maybe they are good for now, but what about in the future. Are we going to be stuck with something that later we won't want. Swearengin asked Sosin how she views open space? He feels that this is saving the wetlands and giving more open space. e Murray stated that this property is different from the other parcels around Lotus Lake in that this property was rezoned in 1978. They also have permits from the DNR. The other parcels will have to come in and go through the whole process to get their property rezoned. This parcel is already zoned for a planned unit development. J. Thompson stated that the philosophy of the Planning Commission is that we would like to keep Chanhassen in the rural atmosphere that it is today. However, we realize that there are housing needs and that the market is not going to be the same at all periods of time. We realize that there is a need for 8-plexes, but the difficulty with the Dunn & Curry project was very exasperating because that was not the way I wanted to see Chanhassen to go; it looks like a barracks. But I feel that if we can create a plan development with more open space and still be attractive rather than barracks it would be a good move. Times are tough now and we have to take that into account. J. Thompson stated that 2.2 units is a guide, we are not saying that you can have 2.2 units. What effect would it create in costs if you were to get 12-20. less units? Would you say - no way, or would it still be possible. Murray stated that he has not looked into this; he doesn't know. e Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 5 e Murray indicated that when he started to look into this concept, he knew what type of units he was interested in and what type of quality. He knew what type of community he didn't want to create. We came from 165 units down to 140 units. J. Thompson stated that traffic will be increased by about 50%. He stated concern about that. Murray stated that condominiums generally generate less traffic. Most of the people who live there will be families with no children or single people. Murray indicated that there is a lot of open space on the top side of this plat because they are interested in preserving the hill. On the original plat there was a 40' cut to make the roads work with the city maximum grade, we were going to take the top of the hill off and move the dirt down hill. Murray stated that they are wrapping the hill with the road now. There will be substantially less grading than the original plan. There was a greater impact of the runoff with the 1st plan. e Conrad stated that there were some points that he would like to bring up. He likes this plan. As far as the design of the housing and design of the footprints and overview, he really liked that too. There is not a great deal of changes that he would ask for. He is concerned about how close some of the units are to the wetlands; the Planning Commission would like you to try to solve that problem. Murray has done a good job on the impervious part of the plan. One other concern is about density. We don't have a net density ordinance, just gross density. We don't have a very good guideline as far as density transfer. He would like to see if possible, the density reduced by changing 4 of the 8-plex to 4-plexes to take the density down to about 124 units. This is going to set a precedent for a lot of new developments. The layout is good. Swearengin stated that Murray should be given credit for wetlands as far as density goes. Conrad stated that he likes how Murray is trying to preserve the wetlands. Conrad stated that you can only give so much credit for transfering density, the Planning Commission needs to have a guideline. Noziska asked if Murray has looked into incorporating some solar ideas into the homes. Murray stated that he hadn't looked that far yet. Conrad asked for the Planning Commission to each state their feelings on this proposal. e Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 6 e J. Thompson stated that he is concerned about the increased traffic, slightly concerned about the density even though he likes what Murray has come up with. J. Thompson stated that Murray has done a good job. Swearengin stated that he sees no problems with it at all. He feels that the traffic will probably be less than with single family homes. Watson stated that she thinks this concept looks good. The units are large but they are very attractive. The only concern is that they stay 150 feet from the wetlands. She stated that she did not like the road into the park. If they start with a problem like that it will create a problem neighborhood. Conard asked if the Planning Commission cared to discuss the road situation. M. Thompson stated that he feel that sOmeone has to make a determination regarding the road. He doesn't like it connected with the park. There should be a secondary access but he doesn't know where to suggest. There should be some study done on where to put it. Waibel stated that they have looked into this and that is the only place. e Con~ad asked if the Planning Commission could have a copy of the Park and Recreation Committee's minutes on the subject when it comes before them regarding the access. Murray stated that he would prefer two accesses. Conrad asked about plantings. Waibel indicated that that would come with the Landscaping plan later. Noziska stated that he is slightly concerned about the density. He would like to see it lower. Solar should be utilized in the homes. The outside parking with trailers should be addressed. The basic idea is good. He likes the idea of keeping the wetlands free of development. Fire resistant flues rather than class A metals on the fire places should be used. e M. Thompson stated that access on Pleasant View Road is a problem. A study should be done regarding this problem. It should include how the other two pieces of property will be affected. Maybe through that another traffic pattern can be made. The blacktop areas might end up to be a lot. M. Thompson indicated he is not sure if he is for all the additional parking under blacktop. The Comprehensive Plan addresses this area as a single family detached. We ought to determine if this is going to be in conflict with our Comprehensive Plan, then we would have to have an amendment for this area. Another thing is the density transfer, before we consider a density transfer, staff should set up some standards for density trans- fers for us to go by. At this point we have no standards to work with. On the other hand, there will be more people in the area with less actual constructed housing on a square fOotage basis; this is favorable. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1982 Page 7 e Sign Ordinance Variance Request .by..ABC Millwork,. Tne: Waibel explained the request for variance from the Staff report. The signs are existing free-standing directional signs at the corner of West 78th Street and ABC/Lyman Lumber access drive. According tb the Sign Ordinance, this sign does not meet the technical definition of a directional sign and that is why it is before the Planning Commission to receive a variance. It was asked if the Ordinance should be changed. The Planning Commission indicated they have never seen the ordinance yet. Swearengin made a motion seconded by J. Thompson to table this item until the Planning Commission has had time to review the City Sign Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Conrad stated that he would like to review the ordinance and find out what the intent of the applicant is. This looks like a valid use for the sign. Maybe the ABC Millwork could be eliminated and just have the words shipping and receiving. Swearengin stated that this sign is not offensive and it serves the purpose that it is there for. e Watson asked if this could be on the next agenda? There is no need in making them wait too long for this. Discussion structure and Work Frogramofthe Environmental protect.ion Committee: Conrad and Watson were in attendance at the City Council meeting where they discussed this committee. Conrad explained the types of things that the City Council is looking for. They didn't like the 9 members, they requested a work plan,and the City Council tixmght that the Planning Commission had poor communication with the Lake Study Committee. The City Council made comments regarding having a farmer on the committee. Waibel stated that the are not available yet. they would like a full tonight? City Council minutes from that meeting He asked the Planning Commission if record before they made any decision M. Thompson made a motion to postpone this item until we can review the City Council minutes of that meeting. Motion died because of lack of a second. e J. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City council the people to be appointed to the Environmental Protection Committee and to have a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the organization. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 19B2 Page 8 e Conrad asked the Planning Commission if they want to disband the Lake Study Committee and start an Environmental Committee. Is there a valid reason for the change? Are there other reasons for the Lake Study to work on? Conrad stated that if there are no good reasons to keep the Lake Study Committee then we should not have one. J. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Lake Study Committee be disbanded for lack of a function. Second was made by Watson. The following voted in favor: Watson, Conrad, Swearengin, and J. Thompson. Noziska - Abstained and M. Thompson - voted nay. Motion carried. M. Thompson stated that he wants to wait for the City Council minutes of March 1, 1982. Swearengin made a motion to adopt a resolution that the Planning Commission shall set up an Environmental Protection Committee and that the Planning Commission shall adopt bylaws and a work program and set the number of people for their committee. Second was made by J. Thompson. The following voted in favor: J. Thompson, Watson, Swearengin, Conrad, and Noziska. M. Thompson voted nay. e M. Thompson stated that he voted nay for the same reasons as before. There was some discussion regarding setting up different groups rather than just one. Watson indicated that the staff has a limited amount of time. They would have to prepare and go to a lot of meetings if we make too many committees. Swearengin made a motion to appoint 7 members to the Environmental Protection Committee. Second by Watson. The following voted in favor: Watson, Swearengin, Conrad, and J. Thompson. Noziska and M. Thompson voted nay. Motion carried. Noziska stated that he feels 9 members is a better group. They have enough work to do to keep them busy. M. Thompson stated he voted nay for the same reason as before. Conrad stated that everyone they have interviewed has a lot to contribute to the committee. e Swearenqin made a motion seconded by J. Thompson torecQmmend to the City Council to appoint seveti members t.othe Environmental Protection Committee and upon their approval the Planning Commission set a joint meeting with the new committee members to establish the bylaws and to develop a work program. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Planning Commission Minutes .March 11, 1982 Page 9 e The following is a list of those applicants recommended to the City Council for appointment to the Environmental Protection Committee: Ellen Chilvers, Susan Conrad, Jack Mauritz, Rick Murray, Kathy Schwartz, Henry Sosin, and Richard vogel. Approval of Minutes J. Thompson made a motion seconded by Noziska to approve the Planning Commissio'n minutes of February 25, 1982. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. A motion was made by Watson seconded byJ. Thompson to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m. e e