1c. Zoning Ordinance to Create an R-16 High Density Residential District ■
1 , \ . ,
CITYOF I es,
___---
I ,.
0
_ CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I 7 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739.
Action by City Adenlstretcll
Endors:=_ �'- A-
11 MEMORANDUM Mod e—.t....-----._—
Reject2?-
es
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager pat - - .,
Y g pate Su!•'nted to f.o^m ssiot:
I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Date S nvned to Cr t?cit
DATE: March 7, 1990 �a7-..
IISUBJ: Final Reading of an Ordinance Amendment Creating an R-16,
High Density Residential District
1 On February 26, 1990, the City Council approved the first reading
of an ordinance creating an R-16 zoning district. The purpose of
II the district is to allow multi-family housing at densities up to 16
units per acre, with the requirement that each dwelling be provided
with at least one parking stall located in an underground garage.
Staff had also proposed greater setback requirements that are
II currently applied in the R-12 District in recognition of the fact
that development such as being proposed is an intensive land use.
I The City Council basically supported the draft as proposed but
raised questions regarding the allowance of home occupations in
this district. Concerns were raised that home occupations would be
IIinappropriate in such a high density setting.
As is often the case, there are two sides to this issue. On the
one hand, there is a desire to treat residents in the R-16 District
the same as residents of any other area of the city and not
diminish their rights. On the other hand, there would be
recognition of the fact that the R-16 District permits development
II at densities which are simply not seen elsewhere in the city. This
item was discussed when the ordinance was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and it was their determination that it should stand as
currently drafted. Upon further review based upon the comments of
II the City Council and review of the home occupation ordinance, staff
would like to propose a modification. After reviewing the home
occupation ordinance, we are recommending that home occupations
II continue to be allowed in the R-16 District, however, they should
not be allowed to have a non-resident employee as is allowed
elsewhere in the city. This should help to further limit the
II potential for any impacts. We also note that whether it is a
rental or owner occupied property that is to be constructed in the
R-16 District, residents would be governed by restrictive covenants
or by owner policies that would also tend to limit the potential
II
1
1
Don Ashworth
March 7, 1990
Page 2
for any unusual impacts stemming from home occupations. The
current draft of the ordinance has been amended accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
11 Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final reading of
the ordinance to create an R-16, High Density Residential District
' and approve an ordinance summary for publication purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised ordinance amendment.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
IS
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 '
OF THE CHANHASSSEN CITY CODE
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains: I'
SECTION 1. Article XV, shall be amended by adding Section
20-680 - Section 20-684, R-16, High Density Residential District I
as follows:
Section 20-680. Intent.
The intent of the R-16 District is to provide for multi-
family residential structures at a maximum net density of sixteen
( 16) dwelling units per acre on land guided for High Density
Residential uses by the City Comprehensive Plan.
Section 20-681. Permitted Uses. I
The following uses are permitted in an R-16 District:
( 1) Multi-family dwellings. I
( 2) Public and private parks and open space.
( 3) Utility services.
Section 20-682. Permitted accessory uses. '
The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-16
District:
(1) Garage.
( 2) Storage building. I
( 3) Swimming pool.
( 4) Tennis court. 1
(5) Signs as per allowed in R-12 District.
( 6) Home occupations without any outside employees.
( 7) One (1) dock. I
Section 20-683. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an R-16 District: 1
( 1) Health care facilities.
I
Ir ' ( 2 ) Day care center.
( 3) Group home serving from seven ( 7) to sixteen ( 16) persons.
( 4) Recreational beach lots.
( 5) Temporary real estate office and model home.
( 6) Churches.
Section 20-684. Lot requirements and setbacks.
11 The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an R-16
District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifi-
cations set forth in this chapter:
1 (1) The minimum lot area is as follows:
a. Two thousand seven hundred ( 2 ,700) square feet per
dwelling unit.
( 2) The maximum lot coverage is fifty ( 50) percent.
' ( 3) The building setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
c. For side yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
( 4 ) Parking setbacks shall be twenty-five ( 25) feet from all
property lines.
( 5) The maximum height is as follows:
' a. For the principal structure, three ( 3) stories/forty
( 40) feet.
' b. For accessory structures, one (1) story/fifteen (15)
feet.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be come effective immediately upon its
passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Chanhassen this day of
, 1990.
ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
( Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. )
Of
11
ORDINANCE NO. I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The intent of the ordinance amendment is to create an R-16, High
Density Residential Zoning District. The District will allow the
construction of multi-family housing at densities up to 16 units
per acre. Underground parking for at least one car per dwelling is
also required.
Enforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance in in full force commencing
on the date of publication of this summary.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on ) t
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
§20-959 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
I
provided that this section shall not apply to the storage or use of liquefied petroleum or
natural gas for normal residential or business purposes.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 1(6-1-9), 12-15-86)
*Secs. 20-960-20.975. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. HOME OCCUPATIONS •
Sec. 20-976. Compliance.
IA home occupation may be established and conducted only in accordance with this
division.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.VI, § 8, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-977. Subordinate use.
' The use of a dwelling unit for any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and
subordinate to its residential use. Not more than twenty-five(25)percent of the floor area of
one(1)floor of a dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation.No garage
or accessory buildings except accessory agricultural buildings existing on February 19, 1987
shall be used for any home occupation.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-978. Occupations permitted.
' The following home occupations are permitted:
(1) Professional services such as architects,engineers, attorneys,office,real estate agents,
insurance agents, and computer programmers, secretarial services,and manufactur-
er's representatives.
(2) Dressmaking,sewing,and tailoring.
i (3) Painting,sculpturing or writing.
(4) Home crafts such as model making,rug weaving,lapidary work,pottery and cabinet
making.
(5) Tutoring services(eg. piano teacher).
1 (Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-2), 12-15-86)
•
•
Sec. 20-979. Outside appearance.
The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within a fully enclosed building. No
change in the outside appearance of the building or land, or other visible evidence of the
conduct of the home occupation shall be permitted. Outdoor storage of anything is prohibited
in connection with a home occupation.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-3), 12-15-86)
1238
1
ZONING §20-1001 1
Sec. 20-980. Hours of operation.
The hours of operation for any home occupation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m.and
8:00 p.m.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-4),12-15-86) 1
Sec. 20-981. Use of equipment.
No mechanical or electrical equipment requiring the use of voltage in excess of two
hundred twenty(220)volts single phase shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-982. Traffic and parking.
No traffic shall be generated by any home occupation in greater volume than would
normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and no home occupation involving the
need for more than three(3)parking spaces for the occupants and visitors shall be permitted.
Adequate off-street parking facilities required to serve the home occupation shall be provided
on the premises,but no such parking facilities shall be established within any required front
or side yard,except upon an established driveway.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-6), 12-15-86) 1
Sec. 20-983. Retail and wholesale sales prohibited.
No commodities,merchandise or supplies shall be sold or offered for sale upon or from the
premises,whether at retail or wholesale.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-7), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-984. Nonresident employee. -
Only one (1)nonresident of the dwelling unit may be employed upon the premises of a
•
home occupation.
(Ord.No.80,Art.VI, § 8(6-8-8),12-15-86)
Secs. 20-985-20-1000. Reserved.
DIVISION 4.ANIMALS I
Sec. 20-1001. Beeping.
The following animals may be kept in the city: I
(1) Household pets are an allowed use in all zoning districts. '
(2) Horses in the A-1, A-2, RR and RSF zoning districts in accordance with chapter 5, 1
article III.
(3) Farm animals are an allowed use on all farm property. Farm animals may not be
confined in a pen,feed lot or building within one hundred(100)feet of any residential
dwelling not owned or leased by the farmer.
1239
I
r
I. . C ITY O F " P.C. DATE: Feb. 77,1990
R'
C H A 11 A E C.C. DATE: Feb. 26, 1990
II \*S1,(;: . . CASE NO: 90-2 ZOA
IIPrepared by: Krauss/v9
I STAFF REPORT
1
II PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create an R-16, High
Density Residential District
I- . Action by City Administratoll
I i Endorsed_._ 11--
Noc: :: _______.__--
VRejected_ --... —
I LOCATION: Datc 2_�Z 1`-;q_O
Date Subm,t.e 4 to i;.n_sion
Dec I < APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen ate Su::�:�.:�e to council
2-2.(0-410
I
IPRESENT ZONING: •
IACREAGE:
DENSITY:
tADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
IQ S
la E-
II W-
1 WATER AND SEWER:
II im75 PHYSICAL CHARAC. : '
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
II
T
IrR-16 District - ZOA
February 7, 1990
Page 2
' PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
On January 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final reading
for Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to parking standards.
The Planning Commission had reviewed and recommended approval of
this ordinance amendment late last year. As you may remember,
the most controversial aspect of this ordinance pertained to
multi-family parking standards with the City Council ultimately
deciding that the ordinance as drafted was acceptable with the
provision that residential dwellings built in the R-4, R-8 and
R-12 districts will be required to provide li enclosed stalls per
unit.
In discussions with representatives of the multi-family housing
1 industry and with staff, the City Council acted on several
related matters. The first is that the existing R-12 district
provided inadequate densities to support multi-family housing of
' the kind that is typically found in the southwest suburban area.
Staff had indicated that most developments have density ranges
between 12 and 20 units per acre. It was further indicated that
with architectural designs commonly used for high density develop-
1 ment, it is physically impossible to locate more than one parking
stall per dwelling unit in underground garages unless the
underground component is expanded well beyond the building walls
' of the upper structure. The Council agreed that free-standing
garage buildings might be utilized to meet enclosed parking stall
requirements but that this was an an unattractive solution. In
' further discussions, the Council also reached a concensus that
higher density development would support a reasonable parking
standard for one enclosed parking stall per dwelling with an
additional stall required per unit on the exterior plus one-
quarter stall per unit required on the exterior for visitor
parking. The last related matter that was discussed pertained to
hard surface coverage requirements. Staff indicated that the
maximum lot coverage of 35% that is found in the R-12 High
Residential District was probably too low to allow for the
development of higher density projects. Several members of the
Council indicated that they would reconsider this standard but
there was no clear agreement on whether it should be raised.
Based upon these discussions, the City Council directed staff to
1 expedite consideration of a new high density residential
district. This district is to be an R-16 district allowing
building densities at a maximum of 16 units per acre, with a 1:1
enclosed parking ratio and potentially with a higher lot
coverage allowance. The attached proposed ordinance amendment
responds to this Council directive.
The R-16 district as proposed would be restricted for use in
areas designated for high density residential in the City
Comprehensive Plan. Minimum lot areas are proposed to be 2,700
i
1
R
R-16 District ZOA 11
February 7, 1990
Page 3
square feet per unit, which is commensurate with a 16 units per
acre cap. Staff is proposing that the maximum lot coverage be
raised from 35% in the R-12 district to 50% in the R-16 district,
which we believe to be more consistent with this type of develop-
ment. In reviewing this standard, it must be recognized that
according to current ordinances, the lot coverage requirement is
calculated on the land which is left after designated wetlands
and park dedications are excluded from the total site. In our
opinion, allowing development of 50% of the remaining area does
not seem excessive and is consistent with standards commonly
found in other metro area communities.
Staff has surveyed a number of suburban communities relative to
learning their requirements for maximum hard surface coverage.
These results are presented below.
Apple Valley Building coverage set at 25%, no t
standard for other hard surface
Bloomington Building coverage set at 30%, no
standard for other hard surface
Eden Prairie No standard outside of Shoreland
zones
Edina Building coverage limited to 35% of
the site, maximum density of 17.8
units per acre allowed
Eagan No hard surface coverage require-
ment.
Maximum density of 14 units
per acre.
Maplewood No hard surface coverage require- 1
ment. Maximum density of 18 units
per acre allowed.
Minnetonka Maximum hard surface coverage 70%.
As you can see, information regarding this standard presents us
with an apples and oranges requirement. Only one of the com-
munities surveyed has a total site hard surface coverage standard
(Minnetonka, which allows up to 70%) . The other communities
either have no requirement or only regulate building coverage.
However, we believe that the data demonstrates that Chanhassen's
current standard of allowing a maximum of 35% total hard surface
coverage is more restrictive then found in the surveyed com-
munities.
The proposed building setbacks have been increased beyond the
R-12 district, which we believe is consistent with the high
intensity nature of development that would occur in this area.
I
1'
R-16 District ZOA
February 7, 1990
Page 4
Building setbacks are proposed to be 50 feet with parking set-
backs 25 feet. If a building over 50' in height is proposed,
setback requirements would be increased to provide 1i ' of setback
for each foot of building height over 50' . A proposal to modify
the recently adopted parking standards is also included in this
recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
attached ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance amend-
ment at their meeting on February 7, 1990. They proposed several
modifications that have since been incorporated. One of the
' items discussed by the Planning Commission had to do with the
basic philosophy behind the creation of an R-16 District.
Questions were posed to staff whether or not the R-16 District
would have a benefit of increasing the supply of lower cost
housing units in the City. Staff indicated that we did not
necessarily believe that this was the case. Creation of an R-16
District would essentially allow the construction of a type of
housing unit that is not now found in the city, in part due to
current ordinances, but it would not necessarily result in
construction of lower cost units. A related question was the
effect of the R-16 ordinance on quality of housing. Staff indi-
' cated that the requirement for underground parking would have a
beneficial impact on quality, but again quality is a difficult
factor for an ordinance to influence. Housing quality is often
more related to market factors and the natural amenities of the
site and cities have relatively little opportunity to influence
these decisions. In fact, when cities take an active role in
11 trying to require higher quality units, the Planning Commission' s
previously stated desire to see lower cost units, is often
adversely affected.
I The Commission devoted some time to discussion of the R-16
District. It was their belief that this district may in fact
become redundant with the creation of an R-16 zone. They also
' remained concerned about the quality of housing that we have seen
occur in this district. Staff indicated that it may in fact
become redundant, however, if elimination of a district is to be
proposed, we would encourage that you assess all residential
districts. We believe this would be advisable since you may find
that R-6 and R-10 Districts would serve a function better than
the R-4/R-8/R-12/R-16 Districts that would exist for multiple
family housing in the city. If the City Council wishes staff to
pursue this further, please direct staff to do so.
In the original R-16 District draft, staff had proposed that
maximum building height in the R-16 District be 50 feet with
I
R-16 District ZOA 11
February 7, 1990
Page 5 I
greater heights allowed conditioned upon increased setback
requirements related to height. The Planning Commission felt
that this was inappropriate and requested that a maximum 40 foot
building height, as currently exists in the R-12 District, be
applied. This change has been incorporated into the current
draft. The Commissioners then requested that a minimum lot depth
standard be eliminated since it served no function. Staff had
originally proposed a lot depth be required to be 155 feet which
is comparable with the R-12 District. However, we agree with the
Planning Commission that it had relatively little validity in the
R-16 District and that the lot coverage requirement and setback
requirements would require a large enough lot that requiring such
a standard is of little importance. The final Planning
Commission recommendation had to do with revisions to the
recently adopted parking ordinance which does not currently have
provisions for an R-16 District. We have added proposed language
to revise this section of the ordinance accordingly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading
of proposed ordinance amendments relating to the creation of an
R-16 District.
ATTACHMENT
1. Ordinance amendment. 1
2. City Council minutes dated January 9, 1990.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 7 , 1990.
I
I
1
i
I
1
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20
OF THE CHANHASSSEN CITY CODE
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains:
SECTION 1. Article XV, shall be amended by adding Section
20-680 - Section 20-684, R-16, High Density Residential District
as follows:
Section 20-680. Intent.
The intent of the R-16 District is to provide for multi-
family residential structures at a maximum net density of sixteen
( 16) dwelling units per acre on land guided for High Density
Residential uses by the City Comprehensive Plan.
Section 20-681. Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted in an R-16 District:
( 1) Multi-family dwellings.
( 2) Public and private parks and open space.
( 3) Utility services.
Section 20-682 . Permitted accessory uses.
1 The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-16
District:
( 1) Garage.
( 2) Storage building.
( 3 ) Swimming pool.
' ( 4) Tennis court.
( 5) Signs as per allowed in R-12 District.
( 6) Home occupations.
( 7) One (1) dock.
Section 20-683. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an R-16 District:
(1) Health care facilities.
I
I
NI
(2) Day care center. I
(3) Group home serving from seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons.
(4) Recreational beach lots.
(5) Temporary real estate office and model home. ,
(6) Churches.
Section 20-684. Lot requirements and setbacks. I
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an R-16
District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifi-
cations set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is as follows: I
a. Two thousand seven hundred (2,700) square feet per
dwelling unit.
(2) The maximum lot coverage is fifty (50) percent.
(3) The building setbacks are as follows: I
a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
(4) Parking setbacks shall be twenty-five (25) feet from all
property lines.
(5) The maximum height is as follows: I
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty
( 40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, one (1) story/fifteen (15)
feet. I
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be come effective immediately upon its t
passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Chanhassen this day of 1
, 1990.
ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. )
11
I
11
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
IAN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows :
SECTION 1. Article XXIV, entitled Off-Street Parking and
Loading is hereby amended as follows:
IDIVISION 2. PARKING AND LOADING.
Section 20-1124 Required Number of On-site Parking Spaces.
If . 2) c) Development in the R-16 District:
I1. Requirements are as follows:
- One (1) enclosed stall per dwelling. All
enclosed stalls must be located in an
underground garage structure.
- One (1) exterior stall per dwelling.
- One-quarter ( 1 ) visitor stall per dwelling.
ISECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be come effective immediately upon its
passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Chanhassen this day of
, 1990.
IATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. )
I
I
I
1
r
City does rat deterimine who has title but that aside, in all probability you''ll
probably own to the centerline. You don't have to do anything to get that
ownership but if you want to establish it of record so it's down in the County,
then you have to go through a process.
!Odd /diner: Ch, okay.
Oouncilsan Johnson: This Hasn't an easement. This was our own city owned
property right-of-day.
Roger Knutson: That's an easement. Aright-of-way is an easement. Sacra thing.
Mawr Qriel: If hearing no other discussion on it.
Cour cilwor an Dinler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
bearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
Resolution #90-5: Cauncilnan Ilbrkman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that
the undeveloped portion of lake Lucy Road right-of-way as illustrated in the
staff report dated January 3, 1990 be vacated. All voted in favor and the
fiotion carried.
ZONING ORDIIME AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND WADING TO PROVIDE
DDMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED D gY SITE PLAN
REVIEW, AID TO REQUEST ENCWSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
=CLINGS, SECOND READING.
Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the City Council approved the first reading of
an ordinance azr er&ent that was designed to comprehensively deal with parking
standards. The issue of course that got the most attention pertained to this
' standard dealing with multi-family parking. The Planning Commission had
recat ended that multi-family units be required to have 1 1/2 enclosed stalls
taken on a gross basis and made that recommendation to the City Council. The
City Courvil gave first reading to the ordinance conditioned on a revision that
would have required 2 enclosed stalls for multi-farily units. - ibuever, the
Council indicated that the standard could be discussed again at the second
reading or would be discussed again at the second reading and gave staff some
guidance to look at separating out townhame parking standards. Tbwnhame,
duplex, quads from multi-family buildings, apartments, condoddniums. The
current draft ordinance has been revised according to the Council's direction.
Staff also used the intervening time to review the ordinance and obtain
additional data and I'd be the first to admit that we received a lot of phone
calls on this as well. We continue to believe that the requirement of 1 1/2
enclosed stalls for townhocres, doubles and quads is sufficient to meet the
de*ard that would actually be generated and note that this standard would place
Chanhassen in the forefront of the metro area iri terms of establishing this
standard. It's exceeded only by one community and that's Edina which requires 2
enclosed stalls at this time. We believe that this type of housing however does
111
have a greater parking demand than do apartments and it makes sense that it
would. They're larger. They have multiple occupancies and that there is reason
to consider that this would generate and require a greater number of stalls and
18 1
I
= City Co ncil Meeting - January 8, 1990
II- .
apartments. We've reviewed a number of architectural plans for apartment
s buildings including the Heritage Square project in Chanhassen and cane to the
conclusion that it's simply not possible to provide 2 enclosed stalls in
underground parking in n ulti-family buildings. As cne architect explained it to
' ne, with the average lot size of an apartment is 980 square feet and nmost of
these buildings are 3 stories high, you can only put 3 parking spaces under each
unit. I've got about 6 or 7 plans here in my office that pretty well
demonstrate that conclusively that with some modifications, the only way to meet
the 2 car requirement would be to have a mix of underground and surface garages.
Based on our findings, were continuing to reconvend that the Council consider
requiring 1 enclosed stall for efficiency and 1 bedroom apartments. Raising
that to 1 1/4 enclosed stalls for 2 bedroom and larger. isle believe that's a
standard that's supportable and consistent with our findings and again puts
. Chanhassen in the forefront of establishing these standards in the metro area.
We proposed suitable modifications for the ordinance based upon the staff
I recamrendation. We also proposed definitions to be used. Our ordinance right
now is deficient in defining exactly what a townhouse is so if we're going to
separate out the requirements, we need to provide a set of definitions and those
have been established. Again, the ordinance that's drafted right mils
consistent with your directions from the first reading. It does have the 2 car
requirement in it. Also, there was an additional matter that was raised by
;Council an Rimier pertaining to parking lighting. Security lighting in
I parking lots. I attanptea to find a standard, if anybody had a specific
standard to maintain security and I couldn't get a quote on cne so I put in
t there some general language that we would review lighting to ensure security and
I the Public Safety Director would take a review of it. Also conversely, we have
a standard in there that you want a parking lot well lit but you don't want it
- spilling over.to adjoining properties so we had a standard in there that lights
I spillover shouldn't be more than half a foot candle which is pretty dim at the
property line. With that, we're again recommending the ordinance for your
c approval.
IMawr Ci*miel: I know that the last time we had proposed this Me had same
developers here indicating their concerns. I'd like to allow each of you the
opportunity again. Hopefully you'll not repeat what we have had. We've had
I ample opportunity to review all the Minutes of that particular meeting. I'd
like to limit each of the individuals on this for a minirnumm of 18 minutes at the
max. Is there anyone who would like to address this?
IBrad Johnson: Mr. Mayors :members of Cb uncil. We've been reviewing the work
that Paul has been putting into this project to try to address all your concerns
and I think were more reviewing it from the point of view that most of us don't
I really have a project we're doing. We're just trying to unmake sure that future
projects in fact will work within the oomaunity and also meet are of the
guidelines that you're trying to accomplish relative to parking and
housing. So If you wt to turn to page S of the staff recommerdatioi d of
en like
just to speak, give you two solutions that probably would solve the problem.
And Pm not saying, I have not had a chance to talk them over with Paul because
11 t we just got his memo today. I was over to see bin today and this has all just
happened. There's two ways of doing this I think. One thing that's missing 3>y
the way from your definition is the word condo because townhaae, doubles, you
know where you get away from that, we don't have any definition called condo and
you can condo just about anything. As it works out where you don't have to deal
with lot lines or anything like that and I don't know bow that's handled. Cne
' 19
wo
,city Counil Meeting - January 8. 1990
way to do it would be to nse a zoning rules and say swathing like this. In
your R-2 and R-4, you require 2 car garages so you could write above that R-2 '
and R-4, 2 car garages. R-8, 11/2. And you could say R-12 could be 11,/2 or
you could say R-12 could be 1 1/4. Okay? Then finally to solve our problem
with that we call multiple housing, R-16 would bemire a new, care later on, a
new zoning ordinance because a very standard density in what you would call the
standard apartment building like Heritage is about 16 units per acre. For
exacrople, that's 25 units per acre because it's downtown but in talking to Paul,
be could probably point out to you a number of communities where they're
building irrultiples that look nice and have a lot of green space are in that R-16
category and that would be a way to do it. There you could go 1 to 1 which
would solve the problem that we perceive you have is that as you stack and go 3
stories high, and that's about all the higher an average apartment building
today goes because of cost, you'd have a 1 to 1 ratio. Now in Edina where they
use a 1 1/4, they're forcing probably each unit to be about 1,200 square feet.
You see that's how they get to that 1 1/4. We're just not in that market. We're
3 cities away fracri that I think so that'd be one approach to take. Just use the
zoning and agree that it should care back and people that have R-12 that would
like to do that, like Patton's, they could just came in and request an trgracle
in zoning so they could build that type of building. Maybe they do it at the
sage tire they bring the plan in. The other way to do it would be to do this.
You go to multi-family and you say 2 stalls, 1 of which is enclosed. Okay?
Then you x out item 2 and you change the definition of multi-family to be 16
units. It seems simpler until you get to condo. You see that would be kind of
a nebulous area and if you did that we, Rick and I and those I've talked to over
here, don't know of any for sale housing that would look like a townhouse that
would be built much more than 12 units per unit. In fact most of your multiples
today are in the 32 units to 48 units per building. I suppose you could even go
up as high as 32. I was using 16 because I think that's about what safe of the
projects, like that Hazeltine Gates is. Is a 16 unit for rent project and it
would fall into that category but we don't know of many. Dean, do you know of
any housing? You just don't do it. You don't get any windows. It gets too big
and you can't sell it. You may condo it by going up and that would be two ways
of solving the problem. One, you simply change scare paragraphs and hope you've
got the condo situation covered because you would have to think of a definition
condo, and that's a for sale housing. Than any multiple would be a 16 unit or
greater. There's two solutions which we think the industry would accept. You'd
have control over the amount of garages you have and the projects which seems to
be what you're interested in and then with Paul's additional changes on parking
standards. You know adding more parking that we just don't have, I think you
would have an ordinance that would meet what you would be looking for. Thank
You•
Brian Hu]z ken: Brian Hilmken. Builders Association of Minnesota. 2469 _
Diversity Avenue St. Paul. I'd like to take the opportunity to address the
Council this evening. I'm here, I represent the Builders Association of
Minnesota and the industry as a whole concerning this proposed ordinance.
Although the brunt of our vea:era do develop and build single family horn,
detached single family hares I should say, we do have several :refbers and
several firms that do develop townhares which is the extent of our concern with
this amen3rent to your ordinance. Basically our concerns stew from the issue of
affordability. The Builders Association of Minnesota, along with our National
Association of Wr-ebuilders, have always been one of the largest proponents of
affordable housing in the United States. We're committed to working for
20 1
.city council Meeting January 8, 1990
II •
' affordable housing. Mel I say affordable housing, I do not mean low inane
- housing. Affordability is relative to the person who is dealing with that piece
of housing. lb a homeless person a $10.00 tent is probably affordable housing
but according to some of our figures relating to mortgaging, qualifications for
mortgaging, a person with a $31,000.00 income could not find the $80,000.00
' house affordable. So when I talk about affordable housing, which after reading
all the notes from the previous Planning Commissions and the previous Council
- meetings, affordability was a major issue raised under this ordinance. So when
you talk about affordable, you're not talking always about low income people. It
should be clear that to a person making $21,000.00, a hone of $80,000.00, which
is about the lowest you can build a single family quality, I've got to stress
the word quality, home. $80,000.00 is probably the lowest you can build a
' single family home. We're talking about .townhoimes which can be built for
slightly less. So I have two concerns here. This requirement raises a cost of
building townhcmes. Adding the extra garage has been indicated to increase the
I .'
cost anywhere from I believe it was $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. Our research has
shown that even an increase of $3,000.00 on an $80,000.00 home, single family
hone, could put about 7% of the market people out of the opportunity of enjoying
' the American Dream of owning their own home. This is something that we're
striving for. Nameownership in the United States is something that we should
all be striving for as citizens. Like I said, homes are not cheap and any
possible method, any possible ordinance that would increase the homes, cost of a
' townhome for a person, should be questioned. Tbwnhames offer the availability
Z of same citizens to own a home. Some people can't afford a $80,000.90 home.
However, some people can afford a unit that's priced in the mid-SO's to 60's. I
think that's same of the concerns here. Not everybody in the world wants the
co mitments, requirements that go along with the single family, home. They don't
tY want 'to rake. -They don't want to cut the grass. 'Thy don't want to drive.
II .` ' `; They don't have the ability to drive. • They're older citizens. They're younger
people starting out that they can't afford it. ibey don't have the ability to
have 2 cars. They don't have the need for a 2 car garage and so on and so
forth. So we :mist maintain the ability, the Builders Association of Minnesota
would like to have that flexibility for the builder/developer to supply the
housing market demand fora 1 car or possibly a 2 car townhame in the City of
Chanhassen and throughout the cities in Minnesota. Basically, to keep it short
here, again I'd like to stress the issue of affordability. You're not, when
I say affordability, bear in mind it's not necessarily always low imams.
Although low income people have a place everywhere. that is our belief. Meld
urge that the current standards for townhomes be maintained. However, I feel
' that that's probably not in your interest and that we would gladly support a 1
1/2 car for townhames on a gross basis for townhomes in the city of Chanhassen.
Thank you.
•
' Don Patton: M. name is Don Patton with the Lake Susan Hills development. One
thing to I guess a vaify or clarify fram our standpoint. then we did our PUD 2
' years ago, there were 2 people on the C uncil that are currently there. One of
the real issues we had that was frustrating for us at the time, was you have to
have higher density but you also have to have :maximum green area. tie have
several areas of R-8, R-12 in our POD. ' lb achieve the density that the City
II • wanted, to achieve the green space that was wanted and we had exhibits that we
presented at the time and that are a part of the PUD, we were looking at a 1 and
1. 2 spaces but 1 inside, 1 outside. That works in with our PUD. The other
IIj thing that complicates some of that, and actually you're blessed with it in
Chanhassen. You have a rather rolling topography which :means that you do have
' 21
$ 4..
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990'
es
same lost ground because of slopes. That's a key consideration. It does reduce
density. It does provide green space but it also reduces flat space that you 11 can put parking lots. With regard to parking, and I think the idea of storage
or outside, things like that can be dealt with and I think they already are in
your ordinances Paul, if I'n not incorrect. Storage of n otorhones. Storage of
boats and so forth, as far as outside, is prohibited. At least certainly
limited and that can be dealt with in your multiple family also. Again, I stick
with the position I did last tune and I'd like to have those points considered.
Thank you. I
Rick Msrray: Rick M rr y. I'in a Chanhassen resident. When I left this meeting
the other week, I had two concerns that I felt pretty strongly about. After
going through what Paul's recommended to you tonight, I think that he's come a
conclusion that I couldn't substantiate but I suspected and that was pretty much
your apartment sizing. I didn't want to see this community put itself out of
business for a standard apartment building. I had a real concern about that. I
think that what Paul's done or what the staff has done here does take that into
consideration. When Brad and I were talking a few minutes ago, we were
wondering about how tomb? a distinction. The standard unit, as Brad was
mentioning, you get the 3 stories and 1 enclosed space if you want to put that
space underground, below each unit. I think that somehow that has to be
addressed so that you don't put Chanhassen out of the apartment building market
totally. Whether you do that with an increased zone or whether you do that by
manipulating numbers within your definitions here, I think that's something the
staff can accomplish. The other overriding concern that I had was that in
general as zoning categories or zoning classifications of land, I didn't want to
see Chanhassen became non-competitive with it's neighbors because there's a lot
• of other multiple zoned property between here and wherever you want to go, Edina
that will be used if we can't be price competitive with our land here. If we
can't be price competitive, i.e. if we have to add more stalls, there's no
industry folks that is more sensitive to the market in the building industry.
We have builders every year that have the misfortune of going broke because they
aren't sensitive to their markets. 1b legislate that you must do this, when the
marketse don't seen to be asking for that, you won't get that built here. It
will get built in a community that doesn't legislate that. That was a concern
I had. I think that those concerns have been addressed and I think adequately
addressed by your staff recommendation. I'd support the staff recommendation if -
we made same sort of effort to get a standard apartment complex back into
Chanhassen. Standard being when you go to a 3 story building, when you go to
where you know you're going to have underground parking, that I think has to
stay pretty close to 1 to 1 to get what we know as a norm. A building norm
right now. TO get that to work. I guess that's all my comments. Thank you.
Al Klingelhutz: You heard what I said the last time. I'm sure you read it in
the Minutes. One thing I% going to bring up. You've got 5-12 unit apartments
right on than View. I've got a sister living in one, another-in-law living in
another one and a real good friend living in another one. I'd say I visit one
or the other one of those 3 apartments at least once a week. I've never yet
found that I couldn't find 3 or 4 parking stalls by each one of these apartments
and those apartments were built with less than 2 parking spaces per unit.
Outdoor units. It just seems odd that all of a sudden Chanhassen should have to
have 2 underground parking places for each apartment unit plus some additional outside space, which I!ve no objections to. And I think Paul has done an excellent job of researching this. Most of the things that he's recommended I 11)
22 1
so
City Oouncil Meeting - January 8, 1990
I like to see you pass here except that the, I guess I could even live with
the 1 1/4 units per a 2 bedroom apartment. Thank you.
' Mawr Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, we'll bring it back to
Council. Anyone wishing to address it? Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I might as well start off. I think everybody probably
I knows where I's going to go because I was pretty plain last time. I think any
ordinance that restricts a minority group within our community, which I believe
this ordinance does, it is a restriction against the elderly. It's a
restriction against the young people of the community. It's a restriction
against the people who have not made it to where we have. I think it is our job
to protect all factors, not just the majority. I think this ordinance, even at
a 1 1/4. If that increases the size of the standard apartment to the we size
as my house, I don't think that's right. I don't believe that we're serving the
total population of the city and the R-12 is not designed for the people who
need 1,200 square feet. The R 42 should be designed for the people who gent to
' live in a little less space and aren't looking for these amenities. I think
that any ordinance that does restrict a minority is not a good ordinance. I'm
going to continue to vote against this. I'd like to see the 2 bedroom and
' larger stay right at 1. The only place I waiver there is probably the doubles.
The doubles I see no reason why we can't have 2. You can't, on a double you can
design a 2 car garage into a double real easy. 1 1/2 on a double to me sounds,
one side's going to have 1, the other side's going to have 2. So 1 1/2 doesn't
I sake any sense to me on a double hare. On a quad, 1 1/2 can :rake same sense to
me in that 2 of them can have 2 car garages and 2 of them have 1 car
think there's a market,for both. So what I'd like to see this go as that�the
- . . !�t is
doubles get treated almost like a single family home as two car garages and that
1 they're usually right with the single family here areas. That everything else
stays at 1. I don't think there's a market here for 1 1/4 and I don't think
that it's a good ordinance to go to 1 1/4 and 2 I think is disastrous. 2, we're
just asking for, let's shut down apartments. Let's not, and I've only had one
phone call and that phone call was supporting the 2 or the people I called to
talk to about this, they all supported the 1. They said that, before I even
' talked to there about lower income, they brought it up themselves. They said
well this is going to be a problem with the lower income and the elderly because
that's exactly what I'm saying. I see no reason for it.
' Councilman Workman: I think Jay's got a lot wrong with what he said but I've
been accused earlier this evening of things and I'll be accused again. I tend
to agree with the staff report. I think we, I. I'll speak for myself. I had
' same concerns about the apartment complexes. I didn't understand quite bow that
would work. I think the staff report, well number one, the definitions I think
we needed and I'm glad we've got some now. I don't have a desire to be so elite
here in Chanhassen that we go so far as to say 2 but I do like the addition. I
' can hear Sill saying it soon that people are not asking for some of the types of
housing Jay that I think maybe you're praroting. Time are .two ends of a
' spectrum and all sorts of areas inbetween. I don't think Csanhassen's going to
be everything to everybody. I don't think we have any intention to do that.
We're making a decision on not so :aoch who we necessarily let into our community
I but how we want our community to look to the people who have an investment here.
! As we get TH 212 and we get a lot of mid and southern Chanhassen developed, I
think we're going to have a strong need for same apartment complexes. That's
one of the things I was worried about and I think that's answered here and I
23
City Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
like the way the report looked from the first tire. I just want to compliment I
Paul on the report but I agree with the way the report stands.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. We'll drift to the other pole here slowly. I like
Brad's idea about a separate zone. I think it gives us an opportunity to do a
lot of things. An R-16 zone in which maybe we set up the 1 to 1 1/4 rakes sense
to re. I guess it care through tome when I saw the quote in the paper as Pouch
as anything. Affordable housing, as the gentleman said this evening, is a very
nebulous tern. I think though that if we're talking about housing that would be
in the reach of people who might not otherwise quality, there are other better
ways to get there. The City should be pursuing mortgage guarantees. We should
pursuing interest writedowns and it turns out that Mr. Johnson's property is in
a tax increment district and I think he should be pursuing ways in which he can
offer a high quality living opportunity to people at less than maybe the price
would be if he had to pay the whole burden through the market. I'd much rather
see Chanhassen provide hones to people who might not be able to otherwise afford
them through those rears than I would by seeing Chanhassen provide those hares
by encouraging developers to build to the lowest standard because that not only
impacts on existing hareowners. It impacts on the community down the road. I
want green space and parks in and around apartment buildings and that's going to
cost the developer sate money but it's going to give the person who lives there
a higher quality place to live. I think we talked the other night, maybe it was
more apparent when it was 20 below zero outside that apartment buildings that
have no covered parking certainly put those people at a disadvantage in
Minnesota's weather and they invite crime. I think personally, I think we have
plenty of examples in to of quad homes and duplexes that have 2 car garages
attached and they're all full. So I thinn that's a reasonable standard and I
- = think the market should support that standard and if it doesn't support it in
the short tern, then don't build it. But it will. There's no way in the world
Mr. Patton that you're going to build bares or apartments that are going to rent
to people who are baking $6.00 and $7.00 an hour. You can't do it with your
land costs and so we have to look at other ways of providing hones for those
people but settling for a lesser standard I think leads to long tern problems.
In looking at sort of the hard facts of what the staff has generated here, I
would like to see us go to, I don't know, 1 ]//2 maybe. Maybe 11,/4 for an R-12
but I don't think we should think of Re-12's as apartment buildings. I think we
should look at zoning that as an R•16. That people who want that zone should
come in and tell us how and why they need it and that gives us some control. I
think that where they're not building apartment buildings, 1 1/2 is a reasonable
standard and anywhere they're talking about 2 family, quad, townhare, they
should look at 2. And if they think people can't afford that, then they should
comeback to the City and see how we can help them afford it. On another issue,
in such a apprehensive parking ordinance, I'm disappointed there isn't anything
in here on daycare. Have you got anything on daycare?
Paul Meuse: Councilman Boyt, in the past I've developed a standard for daycare
based on surveys from other daycare centers and some other cities and I've
gotten same information that was compiled by my staff. They called a number of
cam►unities to get sate recent data. If I were requested to give a standard,
the standard would probably be 1 stall for every 6 children of design capacity.
It seams to place it right about within the middle of the pack depending on how
you figure out the number of stalls that would be required.
24
I
city Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
1
I Councilman Boyt: - Well we have them for schools, retail stores, shopping
centers, research, experimental and testing stations, mortuaries, motels,
hotels. I think that we should have the staff develop a standard for daycares
and that the ordinance should be amended to include that. *ether it's 1 in 6,
' 1 in 10. I don't know but we should have it in there. So fox my part, if it's
the sense of the Council that 2 stalls for an R-12 is too many, I guess I could
see 1 1/2. I think for the others it should be 2. I think staff should be
directed to pursue this R-16 zoning.
Councilwoman Dialer: I'm not going to repeat a lot of things that have already
been said. I guess I just have a few things. I did appreciate Brad's concern
' about defining condo. I wonder if we need to do that. I understand that he
addressed the lighting and that will be done a case by case basis. Is that what
you were saying Paul? _
Paul Krauss: Excuse me?
' Councilwoman Dialer: The lighting will be done on a case by case basis.
Paul Krauss: It will be reviewed with the site plan, yes.
Councilman Boyt: But there is a standard for spillage.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand that but Inman as far as actual
I ' lighting of the lot.
. Paul Krauss: Adequacy for security, right.
I Councilwoman Dialer: Is there a standard there that we can go greater than?
You said you didn't find one.
Paul Krauss: I didn't find a minimum standard for example that Police
Department's tend to like because, well it's my experience that they would like
spotlights in a perking lot so there's got to be a happy medium there.
Councilwoman Dialer: I understand that. I guess I'm okay with that. I'm
wondering when an R-16, I think that's a good idea but I wonder what it will do
to our comprehensive plan that has just been worked over.
' Paul Krauss: Sire. - Maybe I can respond to the condo issue and that R-16 as
well. As far as an R-16 district goes, right now our R-12 district is designed
11 for townhouses, 2 family dwellings and multi-family dwellings so it's the whole
range. It's just the density at which it's built at. lb the extent that the
Comprehensive Plan doesn't define zoning districts, it just defines densities of
' housing, you could adapt an R-16 district to it pretty easily. For ex if
you have an area that's designed ample si
grad for high density dwellings on the Con�parehensive
Plan, you could define that district so that high density means R-16 or R-12.
So that could be adapted.
1 • Councilwoman Dimler: So that's not a major concern?
Paul Krauss: Do. As far as the condo issue goes, in my opinion, that doesn't
need to be dealt with.= Condo is an issue of whether or not it's owner occupied
or rented. It doesn't define the building type or style and definitions that we
25
way w�aas rszuuiy • ./3r1L
provided, do provide those. Whether or '
Pt not you have 2 cars or 1 car isn't
dependent on whether you own it or not. It's how big it is and how many people
live in it.
OourcilwoRan Dimler: I guess ray basic conclusion is after all this research
that has been done, I do like the staff report and I do want to congratulate ,
Paul for the work he's done. I agree with the 1.5 and apartments 1 on 1.
byor Cruel: In looking over your recamendations Paul, and I had some
discussions this afternoon, I guess I do go along with all the staff
reccrnandations. I think he's put a lot of time into this and it has given the
Council sore opportunities to review and to understand really what it's about.
Rather than going and being repetitious of everything that has been said, I do
like the idea that 16 units as well. Those are things that we have to look at
so with that I would entertain a motion to amend what we had considered at our
previous meeting and to adopt. Is anyone ready? j
Councilman Boyt: Well I'll start with an anent that we include daycare and
we set the standard as 1 parking place per 6 students.
Councilwa►an Dialler: I have a question. Is this the place to do that? This
was multi-twiny.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we define everything fro' churches to bowling alleys.
Mayor titriel: It goes through the whole ball of wax. ,
- Councilman Boyt: There may be a point at which we cars back and amend that
writer but we're no worse off than if we direct staff to go back and prepare a
report now and do it. '
!laver O iel: 1 for 6. It's swathing you keep persisting Bill, and
I understand that. Never say die, say darn. I
Councilman Johnson: Well it should be defined.
Mayor Chraiel: Yes, I agree. I fully agree...6 but I'm wondering what the right '
mpber is. As a rule of thumb, as you mentioned, 1 per 6.
Paul Krauss: Mr. ?Tayor, if it's something that you wanted to act on later, I do '
have the data and I could prepare acme information for you•on that. For
exagple, I :mean if you just wanted to see what same of the requirwants were.
Burnsville has 1 per 6 plus a requirement for teacher parking so that would be a
greater requitement. Edina has 1 space for teacher and 1 space for 20 children.
These things are fairly labor intensive so there's a lot of teachers around
there. Also when you have it based on employees it's rather tough to figure
because you don't have a good handle on that. And all the rest of the
ordinances are based on square footage. 1 per 200 square feet in Maplewood so
it goes on and on. There's a lot of different ways to =mute it. -
Councilman Boyt: 1 per 6 seems pretty simple.
- Mawr Model: Is it 1.space per .teacher or person working and 1 per 20?
1
26
I
= CityCouncil fleeting = wary 8, 1990
I ,
Councilman Boyt: That's Edina.
' t . Paul Krauss: That was Edina, yes.
Councilman Boyt: Burnsville is 1 per 6 plus the teachers so we're =ening in a
' little less than that. A little more than...
Comcilman Johnson: How does that compare with our tro daycare renters that we
have ra ft
Paul lOrauss: I have information an one of them. 'fie newest one that we just
' opened up near the McDonalds has, it's 100 children capacity so under 1 per 6
you'd require 17 stalls. It's 16 and a fraction. They built it with 16 so it's
pretty close.
Councilman Johnson: That's a good starting point.
!laver Daniel: 1 per 6. I don't see any problem with that.
' Councilman Johnson: I sure wouldn't want to go any lower than that.
Mawr Orden
tel: b.
' • Councilman Boyt: Okay, is there a second?
• Councilwamen Diner: Are you going to wend it further?
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to kind of take care of that one because if it's
'.clean it will pass and then we can deal with the nursers issue. We can deal
' with it one at a titre.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I agree. I'll second your motion there.
I
Councilman Boyt roved, Councilman Johnson seconded an anenck ent to Article XXV
to include parking requirements for daycare renters be 1 parking stall for every
6 children of design capacity. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: And I would propose another amendment and that is that
townhoires, doubles, quads have 2 enclosed stalls.
' Mawr Daniel: Tbwnherres, doubles or quads.
Councilman Boyt: Item (b) there under Standards.
Mawr Or-del: Is there a secod?
Councilman Boyt: We've already built this stuff. We know this...
, Mawr G't:riel: We know it's existing. lie have it here. Any discussion? Jay?
Anything? o
Councilman Johnson: Was there a second?
27
i
City Coil Meeting - January 8, 1990
i
Mawr Model: lb. tbt yet. We're not getting a second so I'm looking for some
discussion.
Councilwoman Dialer: You can't discuss without a second. '
May= Chaiel: I'm just trying to see if we can keep it alive fora minute or
two.
Councilman lb t: Let's not forget that we require all single fanny hones to
have two attached enclosed parking spaces. One of the reasons we do that is
because we're in Minnesota. One of the reasons we do it is because we know that
people have a need for storage space. This is a case in which the market in
fact will support that. ?Atwell we let people with t wnhames, doubles or quads
build 1, somebody's going by do it.
Councilwatan Dialer: Isn't Paul's reca'p,emdation 1.5?
Councilran Hoyt: Right. I'm saying, whatever we set the minifies at, whether
the aarket gents 2 or not, somebody's going to build less than that because
developers are interested in quickly turning over their developments. I don't
blare them fox that but that's a little different interest than we should have
for the long run approach to the City.
Wuncilr+an 1brla*an: here's our minilmu% on a double right now ,
Paul Fxauss: One.
Councilman lbrkman: They're not being built. '
O,uncilman Johnson: No. I don't think anybody's building a double with a
single car garage. Maybe Rick is.
Mick Mirray: ...1974 but the reason they're not built isn't because people are
legislating them out of existence. The reason they're not is because the market 1
says hey, we're not going to buy that so we don't build them. You don't have to .
legislate everything. We're profit motivated. We'll build what the market will •
bw.
Councilman Wyk: Quickly.
Rick M:rray: lb. We'll build what the market will law that will earn us a ,
profit. It doesn't have to be quick.
Councilaan Johnson: If you build a single car garage double at this time in 1
this market, it probably wouldn't sell.
Rick Mlrray: You're right.
C rx ilman Johnson: Mere would be very few le that
PAP . would be a very small
market looking for that. •
•
Rick Mxrray: And the reason was what you pointed to earlier Jay.
28
i
:City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
I
Councilman Johnson: Boonardc conditions charge. There may be a Market for it
in the future.
Rick M:rray: In 1974 they gent pretty well and who knows, knight cone back. I
' don't know. You legislate it out and it's gone, it's tough. .
Councilman Boyt: Well you look at Slam's development.
' Mawr Oriel: That's exactly what I was going to say. Uri presently lives in a
quad. Bach of those quads have double car garage.
Councilman Wbrkfian: Ihw looking for a trailer though. ratite explain that. I
have one-fourth of my gad. !here are almost 3 identical homeowners filling out
the rest of the quad and I'n going to sell :wine to one of these sane people.
' Attired. Fran Facelsior. One car. All three.
Councilman Boyt: Are their garages not filled?
' Councilman Workman: lb, it's full.
Councilman Boyt: Because they're desperate for storage space.
. Councilman Johnson: You fill whatever space you have. Look at m basement.
' Councilman Workman: You're right. They like the location because it's close to
Excelsior still. They've got firewood in them. They've got than stacked.
There's no doubt about it. They enjoy the space, the little extra that they
have in spite of the fact that they have one car. They don't have to now the
lawn. They don't have to shovel. They don't have to do anything. They can to
Florida for 2 months in the winter if they want. They can do whatever they
- want. They like it. They like ma and they're all great people and I hope they
appreciate re telling the City about then. But I know that they appreciate the
space. I know that they can afford the space. They're all either retired, what
I would call executives or individual business owners but they love it. They
love it in there and that entire area is becoming swore and more elderly. It's
not bad. It's enjoyable having then as neighbors. What the heck does all this
have to do with our discussion? Other than they all have one car. Now one pf
the: has a nice big Cadillac. People like the space too.
Councilman Boyt: Then without it, we're going to have we people who are
to be parking that second vehicle, without a choice, they're going to be parking
' them in their driveway. And they're probably going to be parking it an the
street. Both of those mean that they're subject to potential vandalism that
they wouldn't be inside and it also, you're neighborhood has sane very tight
attempts at least to control people leaving vehicles out in the open. One way
they can do that is because they've got 2 enclosed garage spaces.
Councilman Pitchman: Right. It's against the conditions of living there. Yeah.
And I think that's fantastic. Again, I brought up the twins on Pontiac Lane. I
don't know, it doesn't seem to have been that had lately but it's been just
terrible and they've got 2 car garages and there's cars parked all over. I
Idon't know if they're using theca as rentals or what they are but there are
• - trucks, cars, everything all over. It's a heck of a sight to drive through
every day and negotiate recessed manholes and puddles and kids walking over to
29
I .`
• r � r I
•
the k and all 1 the cars. And boats and everything else. 3Urn the corner into
the quads, not a car in sight. It is nice. It is a luxury.
Councilmen Dialer: I guess I have a point of order here. We're discussing
sczething that we haven't seconded and I'm getting real confused here.
.Mawr Cry iel: Okay. I'll ask for a second. •We had emotion on the floor by
Bill. I guess the discussion is so that everybody really knows what we're
talking about here. That's why I'm entertaining discussion. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that and that's fine but.
Mayor Cimdel: We have emotion on the floor by Bill indicate for standards of I
townhcres, doubles and quads. Each of these have 2 car garages. Is there a
second? We're not baying it seconded. It dies then.
Councilman Johnson: I'll support doubles with 2 car garages. All doubles. '
Councilman Hoyt: gut's that?
Councilman Johnson: Doubles. But not townhares and quads.
Councilman Boyt: tbat's the difference when you read the defintion? I
Mayor Cr iel: Yeah. In talking the 2 car garages as to 1 1/2 which must be
enclosed, what's the dimension? Difference between the 2? 2 to 1 1/2?
Paul Krauss: that we intended and I'm not sure, the ordinance might need a
little bit of modification there. that we intended was that if it was a 1 1/2
standard, that they not build 18 foot wide garages which are 1 1/2 cars wide but
that sane of them. have 1 car and same of them have 2 car. We probably have to
add a line in there that no partial garages would be accepted to meet the
standard. I
Councilman Johnson: There's also a problem in the definitions. theer dwelling,
two family and then above in the standard it calls it a double.
Mayor Ci'iel: that are you referencing Jay? •
Councilman Johnson: Well here on page 5. tie's got (b), townhaaes, doubles and
quads. Under the definitions below, he doesn't define doubles.
Paul Muss: That should be changed to two-families, the defintion. ,
Councilman Johnson: Cr doubles down below. O:e cm the other. I krow what you
mean, it's just didn't quite click.
Mayor Csriel: That's being consistent too. acay.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would certainly Jay support 2 anywhere I can get than
so if you're only willing to provide it in doubles, make a motion and I'll
second it but I think, I guess I'll continue to think and be the only one doing
that, in this regard anyway, that in this area people need a 2 car garage. ;
mi -
.City Council Meeting = January 8, 1990
1
Councilman Johnson: There are a lot of people. I meant to ask the principal
over at the elementary school how many single parent head of households are
currently going to our grade school. I know it's increasing all the time and
that's one group that really only needs a 1 car garage, and many times can only
afford, if they can even afford a garage. If you look at the apartments,
another group of people besides the elderly and the newlyweds that are in
apartments are the newly divorced with kids. It's also the fastest growing
segment of our society that is homeless. Completely homeless.
Councilman Hoyt: But there are mooch better ways to provide homes for them then
to allow somebody to come in and build a minimal building to put them in.
' Councilman Johnson: Cne car garage is not, in an apartment building. Ihm going
to diverse away from here, is not minimal. Minimal is sero enclosed. One
' car...is far more expensive and does raise the cost of these. We're still not
talking about bringing the people from Phillip's neighborhood out here to live.
'fie people who are going to afford to live in an enclosed, having at least one
enclosed parking spot is going to raise it out of those people's. We're still
talking, we're not talking indigents are going to be coming in here because we
have one car enclosed. If we had no cars enclosed, it was all outside parking,
that's even more affordable. We're being exclusive by...
Councilmen Hoyt: The issue isn't who can live in the building. It's what
standard of living do they have when they're there.
Councilman Johnson: It's an issue of both. If you can't afford to live there.
But anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would like to entertain another motion. Is anyone ready
for one? We need to do something.
Maldivian Johnson: I'd like to move the rest of the ordinance with the
exception of the townh a es, doubles and quads and the multi-families sections
and get that off. We've added the one list. Go for the rest of it. 14a seen to
be down to just one section to argue about. Make some progress.
Mawr Chmdel: Okay, let's go beck to the townhomes, doubles and quads and I'll
make emotion to have the townhcxres, doubles and quads 2 stalls with 1 1/2 which
Imust be enclosed.
Co r cilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
' Councilman Boy t: tow that's with the intention that those be built either as a
single car or double car garages correct?
Councilman Johnson: Right. No quarter garages.
Mayor Dinkel: 1 1/2 means it would be n= than 1.
- Councilman Wbrbran: Do we have dimensions an what a 1 1/4 garage is?
-Paul Krauss: lb. We haven't established that.
Councilman Boy t: a standard double is 24 feet wide.
31
Lity courtal Meeting
NM
- January , 1990
Councilunn Workman: So we're talking an 18? i
Councilman Johnson: 22.
Councihr�an Workman: For a 1 1/2? U
Councilman Johnson: You wouldn't build a 1 1/2. You'd build, one unit `could
have a ore unit and one unit would have 2 to give you 3 for the 2. On a double,
I don't think 1 1/2 Rakes a lot of sense personally. Ct the townhotes and the
quads, I think the 1 1/2 Rakes sate sense so you have a variety. You can Rix it
up. You can build a building that has both doubles and single car garages. So
if satebody, they can have a choice.
Mayor Oriel: I's not saying 1 car garages for quads. I'm saying that 1 1/2.
Councilman workman: So as it is you Kean?
Mayor Ctrdel: As staff recommendation basically is. I
Cbunci]ran Workman: Then what about multi-family?
Mayor tar iel: Multi-family, to take consideration of the 16 units that we '
talked about. Efficiency, 1 bedroom units, 2 stalls - 1 of which must be
enclosed. Two bedrooms and larger units, 2 stalls - 1 1/4 of which must be
enclosed and this requirement to be reassessed on a gross basis for the entire
project.
Courcilaan Worktan: So as it reads?
Councilman Johnson: That's your motion to go (b) and (c) at the sate time then?
Mawr Crdel: Right. (b) and (c) with item 1 and 2. We have a motion. I
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I did second that one.
Councilman Boyt: One point of discussion before we go on. I think one of the '
most significant things about the ordinance change is that the parking has to be.
attached and that's certainly a move forward. It's my intention to vote against
it. ,
Mawr Crdel: I don't see anything on here that does say specifically attached.
Councilman Boyt: Oh it is.
Councilman Johnson: But there's another spot in here that says not only
attached but I believe it's underground for units, more than 24 units?
Councilman Boyt: I think it says if you can't fit them underneath, then you
can. or architecturally it won't work, then you can go to sate additional out
building.
!laver Qrdel: parking outside, right.
32 1
r •
Councilman Boy t: But I think that's clearly an amenity that I Mould anticipate
'weld improve the value of the apartment. I don't think we're doing enough.
I - Brad Johnson: I'm still back to the multiples. Somehow when you do a multiple
project, you have to have a 1 to 1 coverage, which I call a rental. rather
it's 16 units or 32 or rare, 'because architecturally it doesn't work and if you
go over to Castle Ridge. One of the biggest problems they've had with that
particular project, which has been empty or vacant over the last 15 years is
detached garages in a multiple because they're too far to walk. Even an added
garages doesn't do any good. It's just an added thing that makes the project
look, go around and drive around. Your average project today is what Rick?
That kind of land, other than the one we've got over here, what size project
would you anticipate screbody building? Yeah. Your sites, your projects today
' in high density multiple are 150 or acre: Probalby 4 or 5 buildings and to have
some detached units on slab, I just can't, and you can go back to your
architects, it just wouldn't look very good. It's even hard to determine whose
they are and the ratios just don't Mork. It just, as Paul found out, an average
' apartment building is 900 to 1,000 square feet per unit and you just can't get
snore than 1 average. That means you've got 24 singles. Maybe 12 efficiencies
and 24 doubles. It just doesn't work. I did the sale chock that he did.
Probably with some of the same architects. It just doesn't work in the
apartment projects and it can be over 16 units. Maybe sometime later when they
can do that, that's fine but I don't think you want to do that because we've got
a lot of land in town here. I'm talking about Mr. Patton's land is high, same
' day somebody's going to come along and buy that and put a big project in there
which would be good the community. Generate a lot of taxes. It's going to be
very difficult for him to sell. He's says oh yeah, by the way you've got to put
' = in someplace out there and then determine where they go to get them, an
additional 25 detached garages. You can't go underneath them.
Mayor C oriel: I don't know Brad. I think your analogy is fine but in talking,
my son lived in an apartment. No availability of a garage and be would have
. really loved to have a garage during the wintertime so he didn't have to go out
there and shovel off the snow.
' Brad Johnson: But did they have it underneath?
Mayor Chmiel: No, they didn't have any underneath either.
Brad Johnson: Well these would have theta underneath.
' Mayor °n►iel: I know. We would have these underneath which is fine and that's
what
1 Brad Johnson: But you're adding mire than that.
Mayor C'hm►iel: But if in the event that you have 2 cars and you can't get
another one underneath, you'd have to put it somewhere and he would have just
have as soon as had another garage in or adjacent. Mather he had to walk 15
feet or 50 or 100. You know.
IIi Brad Johnson: it's architecturally I think. Then you're into something that
doesn't look very good. We manage buildings. Have :managed buildings. is have
a hard time selling off all, you actually rent the garages for $30.00 to $40.00
33
I II
City Cloncil Meeting — January 8, 1990
II
each and normally the tenants don't take them all. There's always vacancies and
those people that want 2 can have then. That's just the way it works. I'm just
saying, you should think that through because you just would not have very good
I looking buildings. That was all. Because I can't find any architect that says
i they could design swathing like that they would feel comfortable with. That's
II
the input you have to have.
Councilman Johnson: But they're doing it in Edina.
II
Brad Johnson: No they're not. In Edina they're requiring, to do it you have to
build 1,200 square foot apartments.
IICouncilman Johnson: Yeah, I was just calculating that out.
r Brad Johnson: And they don't rent. 1
Councilman Johnson: 1 1/4 and we would end up.
Brad Johnson: It just doesn't work Jay. You'd have too big of an apartment II
i
building.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. You'd have to end up with something like 1,100
II
square feet for each apartment in order to get 1 1/4 parking spots underneath.
Brad Johnson: If you go over and go in, they're roughed in over here at
Heritage, they're big at 1 to 1. If that issue could be handled in a separate II
g zoning like somehow handled because I think that's a critical issue for
everybody.
r Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. O'ie quick item on the apartments. Men
you'get over 1,000 square foot the cost changes considerably because of the Fire
Code. Once you get over 1,000 square foot, there's a lot of different fire
codes that cane into play. A lot of different sheetrocking. One hour rating I
s walls. All this other types of stuff so it does affect the affordability over
1,000 square foot which again relates back to what you can put on... I
Mayor Chmiel: You're saying that there's less stringent requirements in under
1.000 square feet as opposed to over. b iy is that?
i. 1
- Dean Johnson: I'm really not quite sure. I just know that same of those rules
f apply that they talk about different types of different things.
Mayor Chndel: I would like to see that sane kind of protection given to all
1
people living in all kinds of buildings whether they be 900 or 800 or 1,000.
1. Dean Johnson: I guess I would imagine that the experts you know that look this, 1
the fire people that look at this, understand that the way fire spread and the
mount of area that they need to spread into and what goes in goes in to
determining what should be done for certain square footages. I would have to
II
I think that that's probably already taken into their fire code. I would have to
think they probably thought through all those problems and determined that
because of lesser footage and more compactness that the area that it has to
I. spread into and the amount of space that it can burn before they're able to get li
to it to put it out, has somewhat to do with what they require for fire codes.
II34
city Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
Councilman Boyt: . I would like to try to amend your Motion. That all zoning
I districts, R-4, R-8, R-12 require a miniznur, of 1 1/2 enclosed parking places per
unit with if they should build a 1 tedroom unit, that that could be a 1 enclosed
space out of the 2. I think that sets, if there's a second to it, the reason I
and we can look at I1 on n1 situation. ground
t we'rrerdoingnitoby zones rather than
by dwellings.
Mayor Chmiel: As a friendly amendment?
Oouncilwauan Dimler: Do you accept it?
' Councilman Workman: I second it.
Mayor Oirdel: What you're saying, let ire understand what you're saying. Fbr an
R-4, an R-8 and a 12 to be 1 1/2 which waist be enclosed. Is that what you're
saying?
' Councilman Boyt: And that's basically the zoning districts we have today but
it's based on the premise that we're going to quickly move to an R-16 which
uvula be an apartment building zoning and that we would work out the enclosed
' parking for that but it's going to have to be something compatible with the
parking.
Mayor Chr iel: Okay. I would accept that.
I ; - Councilwaran Dinler: If you accept that friendly amren:aent, I'll second that
friendly amendment.
' Councilman Johnson: R-16. We're kind of saying we're going to an R-16. We've
been trying to maintain the green space and everything and that's why we had 12
-versus 16. A lot of the areas we're looking at, I'm not exactly sure where
R-16's going to go in this town.
Councilman Workman: We'd have better control.
' Councilman Johnson: I would think people would be rushing in here to
their R-12's to 16's right away. change all
' Councilman Boyt: That doesn't mean that we wouldn't maintain the same amount of
green space.
' Mawr Oriel: No, that's true.
Councilman Boyt: It simply deals with the fact that we are going to have
apartment buildings and let's zone for apartment buildings. Pram what I've
' heard, R-12 isn't really an apartment building zoning because Brad was saying
he's got an R-25.
' r Councilman Workman: Is this a Planning Caniriission question?
I . Oouncilzran Johnson: I think the R-16 is. yeah. There's going to be a lot more
' - consideration before we jump into...
1 35
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
•
Mawr Qrdel: Let's just throw that R-16 back to the Planning Omission. Let
than review it and carne up with sane recannerdations.
Councilman Johnson: That friendly amend ent kind of assumes we're going to an
R-16 though.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we don't have to.
Councilman Johnson: Well I'm going to vote against it because I think 1 1/2 is
still too much on an apartment building. With our current zoning, the most
dense you can get to build an apartment building is R-12 so we are saying to
build an apartment building we have to have 1 1/2 which means we're going to
have attached and detached underground parking for one and we're going to have
half again as mach above ground parking. Sane sheds out back to put your tars
in also out there, which is going to increase your impervious surface and
everything.
Councilman Boyt: We don't have any apartment buildings currently in the strewn ,
anywhere do we? No. So this isn't impacting anything that's caning through the
Planning Cam.ission. We have time to work the R-16 issue out.
Councilwoman Dimler: The 1.5 is enclosed?
Mayor Ctr iel: the 1.5, right. Must be enclosed.
Councilman Johnson: They need 2 stalls overall so you have to have .5 outside
i
at least. Or .5 unenclosed.
is
Mayor Qaniel: Any other discussions?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded an amendmend that all zoning '
districts, R-4, R-8, R-12 require two parking stalls per unit of which a minimum
of 1 1/2 be enclosed. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed
and the amendment carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councih an Boyt: One other quick issue on this and that is visitor parking.
Are you convinced that 1 in 4 is enough visitor parking? Okay. '
Paul Krauss: Yeah, you'll actually have more than that because if you're
requiring 1 1/2 enclosed stalls with a minimum. The units require 2 parking
stalls, 1 1/2 of which :vast be enclosed so with each unit is generating .75
visitor parking stalls.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Now you need your main motion. ,
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. You've got to vote on the whole thing.
Councilman Johnson: You just amended the motion. We didn't vote on the motion. I
Mayor Qr1iel: That's correct. Wye did amend the motion. Now I would accept the
motion to accept the balance of which has been changed and...
36 1
city concii meting January 8, 1990
r .Councilman Johnson: There's a potion on the floor M. Mayor. Your motion is
still on the floor.
Mawr Gtr iel: My motion is still on the floor.
Council' an Dialer: tlo, the arendwent.
IMawr ordel: Well we accepted with the frierdly.arandn ant to it.
' Councilman *Wotan: Didn't we accept the whole thing?
Mayor arrdel: 'hat's the whole thing. We don't have to then. Isn't that right
Roger?
Councilman Johnson: I thought we were voting on the amend ant.
ICouncilman Wor)Qran: There was a first and a second on the anendhent right?
Mayor Model: Right.
' Councilman Boyt: So what we did is we accepted the friendly amendment into it
and that's what we voted on it with the first and a second.
Roger Knutson: That was try understanding of what you did. The only thing left
to do is adopt the ordinance itself as amended.
Councilwoman Dialer: So I will move item 4 in the ordinance containing
arerrhents to Article UV, Off-street parking and loading with the amendments
that have passed.
1 Mawr Cllc'del: And is there a second?
= Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilwaran Dialer moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the second and
' final reading for an Ordinance engirding Article 7CUV, -Off-Street Parking and
Loading as follows:
b. Rbwnha es, doubles and quads: Moo stalls, 1 3/2 of which must be enclosed.
' c. Multi-family:
1) Efficiency and one bedroom units - Ti po stalls, one of which must be
enclosed.
2) To bedroom and larger amts - Two stalls, 1 1/2 of which must be
' enclosed. This requirement is to be reassessed on a gross basis for the
entire project.
I ' All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who
with a vote of 4 to 1. °�08� and the motion carried
37
.U�riLT LIJISR:i4.-1112 1a YOTILUM.: O, i7710
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to acmend the agenda to move item 7.5 to the react
item.
Councilman Johnson: Could we finish this one first?
Councilman Bo:t: I think we did.
Councilman Johnson: No we didn't. I have a priviledge at this time of putting
a statement as to why iq vote.
Mawr Qrmiel: Oo ahead Jay. 11
Courrilman Johnson: I would like to have a place in the record of why I voted
against the entire ordinance is because I believe it is prejudicial to single
Pothers, the elderly and other minorities within our society.
!laver (W el: Very good. ,
Don Patton: Does this amended ordinance care back to the Council for second
reading because it was changed at this meeting? '
Mayor a ndel: No.
Don'Patton: Tiy not? 1
Mayor Qmiel: This should be the second reading in itself.
Don Patton: But it was amended.
Mayor Oriel: Even though it's amended with the amendments that we put to it,to
change it fram what it was previous from the first meeting, that is then
acceptable.
Councilman Johnson:. You've got 2 shots at it. '
Al Aingelhutz: I've got one question. I've got quite a little high density or
842 zoning in the City right now. We haven't got any R-16. What if someone 1
would cane in with some high density zoning right now and without the R-16 they
Mould have to go to 1 1/2 units for an apartment.
Mayor Ozriel: I would say that's right, yeah. '
Councilmen Johnson: As of when this gets published.
Ccouncilman Hoyt: But our intent is to have the Planning Commission work on
this issue immediately. Since there's nothing in front of them about an
apartment building, we'd like to think that wouldn't delay something. I'd like
to think that.
Mayor Oriel: Okay, Bill has asked for movement of 7.5. Is there consensus 'I
within the Council toimove to 7.5? -
38
i
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 27
' Wildermuth: I'd like to move the Planning Commission approve the site plan
89-2 for the Country Hospitality Suites as proposed subject to the
following conditions. Number one, and number one would be changed to read
' and providing for an enclosed corridor between the hotel and a new proposed
building. Does that meet your requirements Steve?
Emmings: Sounds good to me.
Wildermuth: And number two, the 30 feet would be changed to 25 feet.
' Conrad: Is there a second?
Ahrens : I' ll second it.
Conrad : Discussion? How did this motion affect the 12 foot? City Council
was not sure what to do when they reviewed it. Our motion.
' Krauss : Your motion would accept the plans as they are which deletes the
12 feet.
IConrad : Which deletes the 12 feet, okay. So we didn' t need to highlight
that because the plans are the plans and they deleted the 12 feet.
' Krauss: Essentially the plans that you're adopting today supercede the
ones. . .
Wildermuth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan #89-2 for Country Hospitality Suites with the
following conditions:
1. Provision of a satisfactory easement protecting courtyard areas located
at the east and southeast sides of the building providing for an
' enclosed corridor between the hotel and a new proposed building to the
east.
' 2. The minimum courtyard dimension located east of the hotel shall be 25
feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: What does R-16 look like? Do we have any pictures of an R-16?
' Krauss : What a development in the R-16 might look like?
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 28
Conrad: Yeah. Are we talking apartments or are we talking condos? What
is it? And why is it different than R-12? I guess I have to go back to
the fundamental question. I'm not sure why the R-16. I don' t know where II
to put it. I would put it where the R-12 is because I don't know, it
sounds to me like we're solving a parking problem that just occurred
because of the new parking standard. I don't buy that. I have to buy the
rationale for the need of the zone which is high density and then I have to'
buy the need to have two which are fairly close. Do we need an R-20 or an
R-24? Do we need four high density zones because there's a reason for
that? The only reason I see for this one right now is for one car parking "
stalls underneath. Explain more to me so I can have a better grasp of a
rationale for two high density zones. They're still not real high but
higher. I
Krauss: No. Realistically when you look at the R-12 district you cannot,
I'm not saying it's impossible but it would be very difficult to
ecomomically build an apartment or condominium project such as you might
see in Eden Prairie or Minnetonka or Bloomington. Ones that I personally
relate to that fall into that density range would be something like
Chasewood Gates which is in Minnetonka on Crosstown Highway. I don' t
recall the exact density in there but I think it was between 16 and 17
units an acre on that project. If you like we can give you a list of
projects and their densities. '
Conrad: But do we need the two?
Krauss: In my own judgment, no. I think the problem here is the R-12
district didn't do or doesn't do what it was intended to do. It was
intended to be our high density district. Where it fails in on two points.
It doesn't allow enough density to build the kind of buildings that most 1
developers build at a higher density range because you've got to build a
higher density than that and it also hinders them because when you build a
building of that size, when you knock out your parking and your drive
aisles and your paved sidewalks and whatever else you do, plus the
building, you're beyond 35%.
Emmings: But would it be right to think that any developer coming in I
attempting to do a denser type project, they're all going to look for the
R-16 and none of them are going to be interested in the R-12 it sounds
like.
1
Krauss: Arguably the R-12 district becomes redundant.
Emmings: Yeah. It just won't be used. ,
Conrad : So the process is we' ll get rid of the R-12. Pat in the R-16 and
go back to the old parking requirements that we used to have. I
Emmings: That we just got rid of.
Wildermuth: Then you get better quality of construction in the R-16 versus,
the R-12. What you see in the R-12 is not very impressive.
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 29
Krauss: When you're squeezing a development every which way,
which to an
extent we' re entitled to do and it's warranted. You're going to model or
' you're going to produce a certain kind of development. Quality of
development is another issue. I mean you can have people that build
quality or not in any density range. You don' t want to point fingers at
any one project but the R-12 type of density produces or seems to produce
here anyway, somewhat sprawly barracky's looking buildings that are as
compact as possible to make that 35% requirement and are completely
uncreative in terms of design. Now does the R-16 district mean that
' inherently you will get a better design? I don't think so. It would allow
more developers to take a shot at it.
' Wildermuth: Wouldn' t we be better off maintaining the R-12 and increasing
that to 45 or 50% coverage to allow for more creativity in design?
'
Krauss : Well you'd certainly give some flexibility doing that. The
critical factor being that they can't, developers are paying x number of
dollars per acre. Now we don' t normally get into the economics of these
things but they' re going to pay the same dollars per acre whether they' re
' getting 12 units an acre or 16. When you do to the expense and with the
R-16 district we're insisting that the parking be underground which is an
expensive proposition and some of the cities do that. Minnetonka does it.
Edina does it but there's not a whole lot of third ring suburbs that do it.
We' re proposing that we do it and I think you've backed us up on that and
the Council has as well so we're demanding a high grade building in that
' district.
Wildermuth: How is it a high grade building? Give us some comfort as to
the quality of building that you get in an A-16 with underground parking
versus what you'd get in an R-12.
Krauss: I think it' s a matter of how much money it takes to build a
' building that would fit into an R-16 district.
Wildermuth: I can see where the R-16 on an acre of land is going to be a
' lot more productive in terms of revenue for a developer.
Krauss: To meet the right of passage here is that you have to build a
building that will probably be 3 stories high and must have underground
' parking. Underground parking requires masonry construction at least to the
lower level. You know you look at the buildings we' re been getting in the
R-12 and they're framed. It requires fully sprinklered buildings which in
the R-12 district has not been the case. There's ways of getting around
' building codes in those districts. Those are fairly major expenses and to
recoup those expenses the developer is then probably going to have to build
a building that's going to attract the kind of rents or purchase price
that's going to do that.
Ahrens: So by developing R-16 housing we're not necessarily expanding any
' affordable housing base for Chanhassen? We could be building more
expensive housing? I mean, for some reason I had in the back of my mind
that the reason the R-16 was being developed was so that there could be
higher density housing and maybe more affordable housing for all kinds of
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 30 ,
people. I mean did that have anything to do with it or was that something II
that I imagined?
Krauss: No. I think it did. It was certainly a concern that the Planning,
Commission had and the City Council echoed some of the same feelings. The
fact of the matter is that we, people are telling us we have a need in this
town for higher density housing. We don't have higher density housing. II Something hasn' t happened out here that has stopped it. Now I personally
think a lot of that is the dynamics of the multi-family housing market.
Chanhassen was not in the mode to accept that kind of housing or needed it ,
at the time the tax laws were structured that every developer was building .
Wildermuth: . . .construction.
Krauss: What we' re getting is you will not find developers economically II
building the types of apartment units that you find in other communities.
I can't tell you that modern, that the apartment buildings that have been I
built in the last 7 years in that boom times for apartments are cheap.
They' re not. They're considerably more expensive most of them than are the
older buildings. It does provide a style of housing that we don't offer.
That has the potential for offering some differences in rents and for some
lower rent depending on what programs they use and this is not directly in
our control . If it' s in a tax increment district you can require that a
percentage of them be made available for lower cost housing. Right now I
we're not getting those kinds of product in the tax increment districts.
They' re not being proposed. Nothing that would generate enough revenue
that you can float tax increment to offset anything. ,
Ahrens: I think because of the restrictions that the City has also on
development.
Krauss: I don' t know that. That would be speculation. I sort of think II
that's true but I couldn't prove it.
Emmings: I'd like to ask. Let's say that we create an R-16 district. '
Where is it?
Krauss: It' s nowhere to start with. In fact I had this discussion with I
Mr. Dean Johnson the morning after.
Emmings: That's my next question as a matter of fact. ,
Krauss: No, our premise is that I mean we have an A-1 district that
doesn' t exist anyplace. What we would do if this district passes. We
would put it on the map. It would stay in the ordinance and somebody would,
have to bring forth a project that we find acceptable with a concurrent
request to rezone it R-16.
Emmings: Okay.
•
Wildermuth: Well wouldn' t we just automatically look at the R-12 areas? '
Conrad: That's your first thought.
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 31
I
IAhrens: There was something in the Minutes, the City Council Minutes.
Emmings: That's where you'd look but. . .
Wildermuth: But if the R-12 would be redundant. . .R-16.
Krauss: The R-12 and the R-16 district are keyed into the high density
designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Theoretically they can be used
interchangeably. Realistically there is some latitude on the part of the
City as to whether or not they' ll accept a rezoning and it' s contingent in
my opinion on somebody bringing. . .
Wildermuth: Approval would have to be done on a case by case or an area by
area.
Emmings: And that' s not spot zoning? We don't have to worry about being
accused of?
IKrauss : I don' t think so Commissioner Emmings because it' s based on our
Comprehensive Plan.
IEmmings: One of the questions I had is, when you think about that
property, I 'm sure that Dean Johnson was very interested in our having an
R-16 and sees it as a way to get the project he's wanted to do done in some
ways. Maybe he does. Maybe he hasn't but when I think of buildings 50
tall on top of that hill up there, it' s going to dominant our skyline
forever.
Wildermuth: It's going to be the Acropolis.
Emmings: Yeah, it's going to look like the Acropolis. You're right.
Wildermuth: So maybe that R-12 doesn' t become R-16.
Emmings: Well not automatically. And the other thing is, why does a 3
story building have to be 50 feet tall?
Krauss: They' re not usually. A 3 story building is usually about 40 some
odd feet tall. If you wanted to. I mean the way ordinance is structured
right now is it opens up, it gives latitude for a 5 story building to
occur . If that's something that you wanted to preclude, the way to do that
is to go back and say that the maximum building height is whatever we have
in the R-12 district which I think is 40 feet. 40 feet is sufficient for a
3 story building.
Emmings: It' s one of those things, it's real hard because I can see that
you might want to build a 5 story building someplace but you might not want
to build it on top of that hill. I don' t know how you'd get at that.
Ahrens: What hill are you talking about?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 32 •
Emmings: You know when you're right on the end of West 78th Street
g treet here
just before it hits Powers Blvd. . It's all graded now kind of flat.
Ahrens: By the townhouse on Kerber ' s?
Olsen: Just to the west of those. '
Ahrens: Okay. I know where that is.
Emmings: Yeah, if you just go down West 78th Street to where it hits
Powers Blvd. and then you look, if you're driving this way and Powers Blvd. II
is in front of you. Off to your right that's all graded in there and it' s
up on top of that hill where we've had a lot of proposals from a developer II
who wants to put multi-family housing up on top of that hill. It's real
visible.
Wildermuth: We don' t have very much R-12 at the moment. Probably if 212 II
materializes we' ll have opportunities for more.
Ahrens: Paul you had said, I'm sorry were you finished? '
Wildermuth: Yes.
Ahrens : Paul, you had said that you had worked on the Minnetonka ordinance!'
and you had a maximum hard surface coverage of 70%. How did you come up
with number in Minnetonka and in Chanhassen the recommendation is for 50%?
Krauss: Don't take this as a cop out but I'm afraid it's lost in the mist '
of time. I don' t recall. We had a standard of 80% coverage for commercial
areas. For industrial areas it was 85%. 70% as near as I can remember I
seemed to be a reasonably good number. Nobody argued with it at the time
and it became part of the ordinance. Now having worked with that ordinance
for probably 5 years after the date of adoption, I sincerely believe it' s
far beyond what's needed. As I say, we didn't have a project that
approached that and some of those projects were fairly dense.
Wildermuth: What were they? Were they on the order of 50%? '
Krauss: Yeah. 45%-50%.
Emmings: But if someone had come in at 70% you wouldn' t have been able to I
say no.
Krauss: In that instance no and that's why, having done that, that's why
we recommended 50 over 70 because experience showed that that's a number
that worked.
Conrad: Worked for what? Worked for all residential?
Krauss: It worked for residential occuring in that density range, yeah.
Conrad: In which density range? The high density?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 7, 1990 - Page 33
Kr xss. The higher density
range.
' Conrad : What's the downfall of that? As you bring in higher density and
what you're saying is these people need less space. We're going to build
smaller units. Stack them and they need less space to recreate outside.
' They don't really need. Is that what we say? I'm not playing a game. I 'm
trying to rationalize a different standard or does it say that high
density, because they need less space, we have to make sure that parks go
' up next to them or they're located close to a place to recreate. That one
I really have a problem with. I guess I can't say that 35% versus 50% is
going to be make a great deal of difference but on the other hand, it seems
like a contradiction. The more we stack on top of each other, the less
space we need for those people to be outside and I don' t know. That
bothers me.
' Emmings: It' s not unlike, you know we put double homes and multi-family
homes on highways so the less desireable a place is to live, the more
people you put there.
' Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss : One other way of thinking of that though is, first of all we' re
' preserving 50% of the site. You buy your 15,000 square foot lot and I
don't know if the analogy is so good but that says you can' t touch half of
it and then you can build on the rest. You also have to ask why would an
apartment or condominium dwellers in Chanhassen require more open space
than do the same people living in most other suburban communities.
Conrad : No, no. We don' t have to ask that. Not at all. I don' t feel we
' have to. That presumes they're right and we are leaders in a lot of
different cases so yeah. Looking back, it' s like going back to Richfield
and looking at Richfield and Bloomington to see their mistakes and say,
' well they lived through this and let' s duplicate them. No, I can' t accept
that. Rule that argument out. Start with a logical one. Not somebody
else did it. Maybe the 15% difference doesn' t make any difference. It
' might not in a high density. I 'm more concerned right now that we make
affordable building well built. I think that's where we started here. It
appears that our R-12 simply doesn't give us a good product yet it was our
feeble attempt to have some affordable housing in there but we're not doing
it. It's sort of an artificial. It seems like we're ending up with a bad
zone based on.
Wildermuth: Or- it's useless.
Conrad: Yeah.
' Wildermuth: Based on a lot of the projects that have gone in.
Ahrens: But the zoning doesn't sound like the problem. It's just the
' quality of the project that went in.
Krauss: There's some truth to that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 34
•
Wildermuth: Yeah, but the price of the land is the same.
Krauss: The developer that we had built, he took that district and he II maxed it out. The product that you saw is what happens when a developer
does that. Now it could be any developer doing that in any district.
Sooner or later a developer 's going to try it anywhere. As I said
earlier, I can't guarantee that you're going to get better quality in an
R-16 district. I know that it's going to cost the developer more to build I
in that district on a per unit basis than it does in that R-12 district
• because Cenvesco's whole premise of single car garage on slab doesn' t fly I
in the R-16 district. The open space questions are valid. I 'm very
comfortable with 50% of the site is a huge amount of land but one thing
that we have done with the Comprehensive Plan is yes. Higher density site
typically located near some of our parks. That was one of the
intentional off shoots of what the plan did. There's a number of higher
density sites around the park just, on the Eck site and then we're
proposing it west of that property. That was intentional. 1
Emmings: In addition I suppose that if someone' s coming in with something
in the R-16, Park and Rec looks at the plan and says you're putting a lot
of people on this land. We' re going to require a 5 acre park, or a 3 acre
park or whatever. Now you take that park away and then you've got a 50%
requirement. So if Park and Rec is doing their job on making sure that
there's something on site for people and recreation, it's still only 50%
that they can cover not counting the park. So maybe that's protection
there.
Conrad: Might be. If we put R-16 in, Dean Johnson could put his project 1
in exactly the way he presented it?
Krauss: Yeah, it wouldn' t change. Well. I
Conrad: So we'd have the same, we'd have his configuration on that site.
Now he wouldn' t need, but now he' s got driveways. He's got the impervious I
surface ratio taken care of.
Krauss : No, no. Dean Johnson could not put that project in an R-16
district. He can't even put it in the R-12 district anymore.
Emmings: He can' t have, the R-16 isn' t going to allow buildings on slab?
Krauss: He's required to have 1 1/2 garage stalls per. '
Emmings: It isn't going to allow these single car garages? The parking's II
got to be underneath?
Krauss: Well yeah. Let's talk about the R-12 district. A lot of things
have changed in that district from the date you reviewed that project.
Conrad: You're really flying through a lot of these things. I'm still
trying to catch up to what Steve said. What would keep him from. . . ,
Krauss : From building in the R-12?
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 35
1
Conrad : From that district. Why would he not be able to build exactly
what he's got or he proposed in his current site if we zoned it R-16?
Emmings: First he's got to get it rezoned to R-16.
Conrad: Okay, but let's say we go along with that.
' Emmings: Then second, now he's got to put the garages underneath. He
can't build on a slab anymore. He's got to build over a garage.
Wildermuth: He's got to have a superstructure then.
' Conrad: So the R-16 in all cases, you've got to have a garage tucked under
because we're assuming it an apartment building?
' Krauss: Let's focus for a second on the R-12 district because that's what
he' s been operating in. He can' t bring you the product that he was
' proposing before.
Olsen: He doesn' t meet the new parking.
Krauss: It needs 1 1/2 enclosed stalls per dwelling. All his parking has
to be contained off street. His drive aisles have to be wider . He needs
fire department turn arounds. He has to have visitor parking at a rate of
a quarter stalls per unit. His drive aisles can' t be as long as they are.
Conrad: But we've probably got space now. Now that we've gone from 35 to
50.
' Krauss : That district hasn' t changed. The R-12.
' Conrad : But I 've rezoned it because that' s the logical thing to do.
Olsen: Well I think what he wants to do is build in the R-12. The R-16
' would be. . .
Conrad: Really the game I 'm playing is, I'm trying to figure out the
quality of development that we get someplace. If we simply rezone what we
have there to the 16, we' re still stuck with the same quality and that says
I'm not sure I like the R-16 if that's the case and that's not contrary to
Mr. Johnson at all . I'm just trying to understand what we get at an R-16.
' Emmings: I just read the ordinance looking for the garage underneath and
I don't see it.
Krauss: The garage underneath? It's parking.
Emmings: I saw it discussed in the City Council Minutes but I don't see it
here in the ordinance itself.
Olsen: It's in the parking ordinance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 111
February 7, 1990 - Page 36
Krauss: There ,
R T was another part of this.
Emmings: See because it allows garages as an accessory use which I guess.
Krauss: There' s an issue here. The way the parking ordinance was
structured was that if your building included 20 units or less, you could II
have free standing attached, free standing outside garages.
Emmings: Yeah, and? What gets us to a garage underneath the building?
Krauss: More than 20 units.
Emmings: Okay, and that's in the. . . '
Krauss: Well , there' s an accompanying ordinance that for some reason
didn't get printed with this one that just changed that one, well it just
provided an R-16 standard.
Emmings: And what did it say roughly?
Krauss: It said you'll have 1 enclosed in a garage. One outside and 1/4 1
visitor.
Emmings: And when it says 1 enclosed in a garage, does that garage have to'
be under the building or can it be?
Krauss: Well the ordinance that was approved, the parking ordinance that
was approved said if you have more than 20 units in a building it had to be
underground. If you want to make sure and your question is a valid one.
Could Dean Johnson do this in an R-16 district. I think theoretically he I
could unless we changed that to say that any building in an R-16 district
must have underground parking.
Emmings: Why wouldn' t any building in an R-16 zone have to comply with
R-16 standards?
Krauss: It would. I
Conrad: We're making up the standards, whatever they are.
Olsen: And require them to only have underground. Say even if you have I
less than 20 units.
Emmings: Oh I see. If you're in R-16 and you're less than 20 units. ,
Krauss: The way to get to that is to tell us to write the ordinance so
that any building built in the R-16 district must have underground parking.!
Conrad: So what are we constructing? Is this a zone for apartment
buildings? I
Krauss: Yes. For condo buildings.
I
1' Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 37
Emmings: . . .zoned for underground garages. For underground parking. I'm
' curious about something else. I don't know if I 'm stepping on the wrong
subject here but it says minimum lot depth is 155 feet and with 50 foot
setbacks, front and rear. I don't understand that.
Krauss : Well your minimum lot width in an RSF district is 90 feet and if
you multiple your width by your depth you don't come up with 15,000.
' Emmings: That's okay. The minimum depth, I don' t even know why you'd want
a number down there because you couldn't build, your building would have,
you'd have 5 feet of buildable space that seems kind of, you're building a
hallway.
' Krauss : Yeah. All the districts have a standard for minimum lot depth. I
carried forward the R-12 standard. Is it a relevant standard? No, it
probably isn' t.
Emmings: Minimum lot depth has to be 100 feet plus the depth of the
' building. It doesn' t say anything really.
Conrad: I have no problem with this ordinance if we want to put it in as
long as there's underground parking. If that's what we want for a zone.
Ahrens : How do you have underground parking under a townhouse?
Krauss: You're not and that's not supposed to be in this district.
Ahrens: On the second page of the ordinance it says the following minimum
requirements shall be observed in an R-16 district subject to the. . .
' Number one, minimum lot area for a townhouse or multi-family.
Emmings: That's another carry over .
' Krauss : Oh. Yeah. I would cross out everything up to the.
Emmings: Just say townhouse or. . .
Krauss: No. Just minimum lot area is 2,700 square feet per dwelling unit.
Emmings: Oh. Oh sure.
Conrad: My only other comment on page 1 that is accessory uses in number 6
says home occupations in an apartment buildings so what are we talking
about?
' Krauss: The accountant who brings books home. I mean it' s nominal.
Olsen: We have a list of home occupations.
I Emmings: You do but it isn' t the accountant who brings books home. It
includes, I could have, as an attorney I can have an office in my home
where I see clients in a residential district.
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting ' "
February 7, 1990 - Page 38
Ahrens: Who'd want that?
"
Emmings: Oh God. In fact I knew an attorney out in the country who bought"
a farmsite and he turned the machine shed into a law office and people
drove up on his farm site.
Conrad: They're very compatible uses.
Emmings: I thought it was great but no, home occupations is something more"
intense than that.
Conrad: Yeah, to me home occupation is more intensive but if that's, by
definition if it's an attorney or an accountant, I guess. "
Emmings: They can have a place of business there and have clients in and
everything else. "
Olsen: I think it specifies that you can' t really be bringing any traffic.
Conrad: Like 3 or 4 visitors a day or something like that. i
Emmings: I read it for my own situation, just as a matter of curiousity
and thought I wouldn't have any problem at all. , "
Olsen: It' s on page 1238. Clearly incidental to residential use. No more
than 25% of floor area. No garage or accessory buildings are used. It
states professional services such as architect, engineers or attorneys ,
dress making, painting. . .services.
Emmings: You can have one non-resident employee. "
Olsen: Yeah. You can have one sign too.
Ahrens : Is that an exclusive list? "
Olsen: It just says the following home occupations not permitted.
Krauss: Such as. Such as architects which resumably if something
p g was
similar to that.
Emmings: You have to have adequate off street parking.
Olsen: No more than 3 parking spaces. Yeah, that's right. Then you get II
into parking and it' s already short on parking.
Krauss: I've had a lot of discussions with Planning Commissions over that
topic for some reason over the years and there's a couple sides to it one
of which is, why should you treat these people any differently than you do
anybody else? The obvious reason is you're living in a more intense
development than anybody else. Home occupations by nature should be II unobtrusive. If you have 2 or 3 cars for a short period of time or 1 car,
whatever it is, in a parking lot that has 200 cars in it because there' s
100 apartments, you're not going to notice the difference. The outside
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 7, 1990 - Page 39
employee.
Some of this stuff was adopted from the Minnetonka ordinance
before I came here so I didn't do all these things but the Minnetonka
' ordinance prohibits the one outside employee in the multi-family district
so that didn't get carried over for some reason. It also prohibits that
signage but we've also found over the years that it's a self contained
' situation. If you're in an apartment building, the management takes care
of, typically, it takes care of problems. Nobody' s going to set up a
woodworking shop in their apartment and get away with it. If it's a
' condominium building, the association takes care of it.
Ahrens: Plus we're talking about 1 or 2 bedroom units and they're small to
begin with. I mean what could you, you're limited to what you could do in
' an area that size.
Conrad : I guess my only thought was on parking space. If you did have
' traffic and there are some interior decoraters that have things set up and
maybe that doesn' t fit in an apartment. That probably is not practical but
there are some uses where you could have 2 or 3 parking stalls taken at a
time and how that impacted parking . But maybe this is not taking us
' anyplace. I guess my preference is not even to see it get there but maybe
it' s okay to say it' s permitted. I didn' t want to flip hom occupations to
the non-permitted but, anybody's direction on that?
' Ahrens : I don' t have any problem with it.
' Conrad: Okay. So we're probably getting close to comfortable on this
thing . What we had done is created an apartment building zone which is
better than the R-12. Do we still have problems with the R-12 district?
Is that a district we should review because it seems like it was our
' attempt at higher density and maybe it's standards there. Maybe we' re not
getting out of it what we'd like. I don' t know. Anybody want to review
that thing in the future? The R-12 district. No takers?
' Emmings: Well we can. I think it was interesting to somebody. Then we
might as well .
' Ahrens: Well R-12 still serves a purpose of townhouses and lower density
building right?
Krauss: It does.
Ahrens: Because R-16 won't address that issue.
' Wildermuth: What we've gotten to date though has not been very impressive.
Ahrens : No but again it's a different type of housing.
' Emmings: You know there are issues there. For example, if we had R-12, if
we looked at it and would think about it in terms of maybe saying they have
to have basements. Is that going to kill them? No, because we've seen
them with basements here. We had one project came in with basements.
They've got to have maybe a certain amount of storage area either
associated with a garage or not. But there might be things there that we
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 40
could do to really make R-12 a whole lot more palatable.
Conrad: And at the same time, Jim probably won't jump on this bandwagon. 1
We could increase the impervious surface to maybe make it economically
worthwhile. I don't know where I 'm at on that but it seems to me the R-12
construction is not too great. We have a lot of problems with it and maybe,
we're forcing , maybe we're forcing those problems and not really helping
but I don' t know. It' s probably worthwhile to look at.
Wildermuth: I don't know, in R-12, would we be better off in increasing I
the impervious surface?
Krauss: Argueably our impervious surface is difficult in all those
districts.
Wildermuth: Making it 50% in the R-12 and just leave it alone and not go
to an R-16. I
Krauss: When you're looking at districts, I would encourage you to not
look at these things individually but look at the fact that we have how
many residential districts . If you want to start out with rural
residential, we've got rural residential. Single family, 4, 8, 12 and now
16. It's like all these motel chains segmenting the market. Do you really,
need so many segments? It's my belief that we've probably overdone it a
bit. Maybe an R-10 would have taken care of that range. I don't know what
the answer is but it seems to me that we're really compartmentalized the
thing beyond what the market is doing because they haven't filled these
niches.
Wildermuth: The thing that bothers me is, I look at for example in Edina. 1
I look at the four plexes. I look at larger, higher density apartment
complexes. The quality of construction is just so much better than what
we're seeing down here.
Emmin s: Of course you've among people to live in that
g you've got a desire anion more
area do you think so it supports a higher?
Ahrens: Well it has the highest rents too I think of any community in the I
State.
Emmings: People want to live there so bad they're willing to pay it? That'
must be it.
Ahrens: I think it's the location. Centrally located.
Wildermuth: But also some of the lowest taxes in the metro area.
Ahrens: Yeah, but that doesn' t affect renters. You can' t find an '
apartment there for less.
Krauss: Edina also very actively subsidizes housing to get medium income 1
and lower medium income people in.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 41
Ahrens: Well in one area.
' Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: One development.
' Krauss: Well no.
' Ahrens: There are some buildings on the other side of France Avenue that
are all clustered together that are subsidized. Then there's the new
Edenborough that's subsidized but only some of those are subsidized.
' Krauss: Then there's Centennial Lakes as well.
Ahrens: Yeah, but I mean if you look at the kind of people who are actualy
' in there, they're subsidized for yuppies a lot of them. I mean they are.
Unfortunately that's what' s happened with some of the them. I mean
Edenborough is a lot like that.
Krauss: Unfortunatley we live in a world these days where yuppies qualify
for income subsidies.
Emmings: You know this list of communities and their maximum hard surface
coverage. That was just surprising to me because how were they dealing
with these? I don' t understand how they're dealing with this issue. We
bring it up again and again. I know it always comes up in the business
' park and it always comes up strongly in the R-12 and you've got a whole
bunch of communities with no standard at all and they' re getting along
fine. How are they handling it?
Krauss: Some communities get projects you probably wouldn' t want out of
that too.
' Emmings: But does that mean that they simply let them cover as much of the
•
ground with hard surface. . .
' Krauss: Well realistically no because they have greater setback
requirements than we formerly had around here. They also protect their
wetlands as well and they may have. When I was city planner of Oakdale we
' wrote an ordinance that said you had multi-family dwellings, you had to
have a percentage. You had a public park dedication responsibility but you
also had a private recreational responsibility that was going to equal 10%
' of the vacant area so you had to actively develop it for recreational
purposes.
Emmings: And in the paragraph ahead of that you say, in reviewing the
' standards it must be recognized that according to current ordinances, lot
coverage requirements is calculated on the land left after designated
wetlands and park dedications are excluded from the total site. I thought
it was based on net density which also took out roads.
Krauss: That' s true. Public roads would be taken out. It's worse than I
led you to believe.
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 7, 1990 - Page 42
Conrad: Do we have a zone that we can create affordable housing in? I '
don't think we just created affordable housing.
Krauss: Zoning does not create affordable housing. It can create
expensive housing. '
Conrad: It can contribute.
Krauss: But I think you have an easier , zoning has an easier time working I
in the opposite direction. There were a lot of movements were fought in
the 60's and 70's against exclusionary zoning. The Metro Council for many .
years was on Eden Prairie's back because Eden Prairie required 3 car '
garages. That' s exclusionary. Who can afford a 3 car garage? Now
everybody has a 3 car garage. Well not everybody. A lot of people do and
standards have changed but there are court cases and I ' ll defer to the I
attorneys in this because my planning law was, I hated that class but you
know Barrington, Illinois was sued over having exclusionary zoning which
they got at by having very expensive building requirements. You just
couldn't meet it unless you threw a lot of money into it. We would never
encourage you to go that route. On the other hand, there are standards
beyond what you wouldn't want to drop and possibly receive projects that
have pushed that limit. '
Wildermuth: PUD' s and higher density projects. . .
Krauss: Our PUD ordinance, these things unravel. Our PUD ordinance is
another matter that we'd probably like to talk to you about at some point
in the future. Our PUD ordinance just says you've got a PUD and it doesn' t'
say what you do with it after that and that everything is thrown out the
window. We're a little concerned about that.
Conrad: How'd that happen? Didn' t we just, that hasn' t been that long agll
that we looked at the PUD.
Emmings: I think you're being a little quip aren't you because I don' t
think that's what it does.
Krauss: Not if you would talk to some of the commercial developers.
Olsen: It' s real strict for single family. When you're looking at
multiple family and commercial, we have nothing. . .
Emmings: Oh, okay. '
Conrad: Okay, moving right along. These are fun issues because we create
zones and we create standards and we don't really know what those standards,
did to the zone. Do we want to move R-16 along or do we want to send,
table it and have Paul and Jo Ann kind of look at the R-12 in conjunction
with it? And send it as a little package to the City Council . They' ll
probably be very supportive of the R-16 but is there any.
Emmings: It' s their idea.
Planning Commission Meeting
,+ February 7, 1990 - Page 43
I
Conrad: Is there a preference? Do we care?
' Wildermuth: Why are we doing this R-16? Why are we looking at it? If you
don' t tend to influence quality construction or create or influence
affordability, why are we even looking at it?
Krauss: What we've got right now is a situation that artificially
precludes a type of housing. Whether or not that housing is built in an
' affordable range or not, you can't build it here now. What the City
Council was saying is, let's at least give the opportunity for it and then
we wanted to get some reasonably, something developed to a reasonable
standard. Councilman Boyt even indicated some recepitivity to the idea
' that if you built in this density and brought us a project which the City
wanted and found encouraging, found acceptable, and it was built in a tax
increment district, that we should look at partially subsidizing that to
' get the kind of housing that we wanted in the price range that we wanted.
Wildermuth: We've got these multi-family projects don't pay their own way
' from a tax standpoint anyway and then we're going to subsidize them?
Krauss: No, multi-family does. Multi-family generates a tremendous amount
' of income.
Wildermuth: Income but not tax.
' Krauss: No tax. A 2 bedroom apartment.
Wildermuth: Just before you came though the City Manager put together a
' study that.
Krauss : It should say that because the multi-family housing. . .screaming at
the State legislature every year.
' Conrad: It'd be interesting. I'd like to check that because what we did
see was single. It may have said single family.
' Emmings: That' s what I remember.
' Conrad: Single family under $70,000.00 but it didn't, I'm not sure.
Wildermuth: It didn't talk about multi?
Emmings: I don' t we've got enough experience. We don't have any so how do
we know?
' Wildermuth: Nobody does anymore.
Krauss: The property tax on a 2 bedroom unit, the 2 bedroom units in
' Eden Prairie that I 'm aware of generate $2,800.00 a year in property tax
which seems ludicrous since it didn' t cost $200,000.00. It's taxed at
about 3 times the rate of a single family house.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 44
Emmings: $2,800.00? So you've got $200.00 you've got to charge for the II
apartment.
Krauss: Just to make. '
Emmings: You don' t even quite make it. So the owner 's got to charge at di
least $200.00 for that unit just to get the tax out. That's before he get
anything else out. So these are not going to be cheap. Those aren' t
cheap.
Conrad: Okay, any preference for how we want to deal with the issue
tonight?
Emmings: I feel real funny about this because in some ways I think it' s a I
good idea to have this available. It seems to be but I don't really think
I know what it is. Probably because I 've never dealt with it before so I 'm
kind of uncomfortable with it at the same time. You said at the beginning
could we see a picture of a project that' s built along these lines.
Krauss: We can certainly do that. '
Emmings: I think some examples showing us, showing us some examples of
what it is that we're approving here would be a big help to me. How hot is'
the City Council to get this done? We don' t have anything zoned for it
anyway. We don't have a zone for it so what's the difference? There are
no plans on the table.
Krauss: Well we've got Dean Johnson chomping at the bit but I don't know II
that. . .
Emmings: But has he redrawn his plan to fit this? ,
Krauss: Theoretically, they have a draft copy of the ordinance and
theoretically they're planning something. We haven't seen it. That's
irrelevant. That shouldn't make you feel one way or the other about it.
Emmings: I could go either way. In some ways I 'd like to look at it again
and it might be nice to have input from Brian and Annette and Tim too since,
it' s kind of new thing.
Conrad: I don' t think it hurts but as Paul said, it's another zone. It' s II
another district out there.
Emmings: But it isn't out there until we put it out there. '
Conrad: And I don't know that the old ones are right yet but I don't see
any harm in what we've got. It does permit something so, okay. Is it a
feeling that we should table it until we see a picture of what this is? Or,
do we not care? What does it look like?
Emmings: I care. I
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
rFebruary 7, 1990 - Page 45
Wildermuth: I care but I don' t know that I could look at enough pictures
to get a good feel for what we're looking at. I don't see where it's going
' to do a lot of good but I guess on the other hand, how much harm is it
going to do?
Conrad : It' s going to put a garage underneath the building which is not
bad.
Wildermuth: That might be an interesting change.
' Conrad: It allows a real positive thing in my mind. I just don't know that
it deserves a special zone to tell you the truth. It's zoned to allow a
' garage.
Wildermuth: I can' t recall a good example of a quality R-12 project.
Maybe it would be worthwhile trying this.
' Conrad: Joan, what do you think?
' Ahrens: I don' t think I need to see any pictures really. I have some idea
what a 3 story apartment with an underground parking looks like. I think
that there' s a danger in looking at pictures too because sometimes you buy
off on the picture of a specific development rather than what it could look
like. I mean it could look a lot worse than that.
Emmings: So I make myself clear. I wasn't thinking about looking at
pictures of buildings. I don' t think that will tell me anything. I 'd like
to see a development that's done to this kind of intensity where you've got
more than one building. Get a feel for what' s building and what' s space
' and what's around and stuff like that. Maybe you should tell me where
there is one and I can just go look.
' Ahrens: Do you think York Plaza? Do you know where that is? York Plaza
right by Southdale. Do you know where that is Paul?
Krauss: I think I know which building that is.
' Ahrens: That's on York. York Avenue.
Krauss: Down by the senior buildings.
Ahrens: Fairly close and there's a lot of buildings and it's right behind
Byerly's. All the buildings, they're white and they all have underground
' parking and I think that's probably real close to what we're talking about.
Wildermuth: Where the library is?
' Ahrens: Yeah, it across from the library.
Krauss: How many story buildings? There's a couple of while ones that are
high rises in there.
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 46 I
Ahrens : These aren' t high rises. These are the maximum 3 story. They all,
have little balconies. They're made out of. . .
Emmings: Papiermache. '
Ahrens: Yeah. No, they're white concrete or you know. There' s maybe 7 or
8 buildings in a cluster in there. '
Krauss: I think you'll find that that density is probably higher . If you
want to look at a project that I think is in this density range, I 'm pretty
sure it's close, if you're driving by on TH 169 you can sort of see the '
project called the Park in Eden Prairie. It's right, you know where the
Cathedral just went in? It's right in there.
Ahrens: Oh, behind that little shopping area in there?
Krauss: Yes. '
Ahrens: Okay.
Krauss : In fact I worked with that developer. They did another project I
in Minnetonka.
Emmings: These guys really get around. I don' t know any of these places. II
Conrad: Yeah, you're all out in farm country.
Emmings: Yeah, I suppose that' s it. Densities out there are 1 unit per I
160 acres.
Ahrens: That would be a good example.-
Emmings: I'm kind of bothered by the 50 foot height. That still makes me
kind of queezy and I don' t know if it's a problem. ,
Wildermuth: That's urban sprawl coming there.
Krauss: I think that's a valid consideration. Frankly the only type of II
building that I think would ever be a high rise out in Chanhassen that you
might want to consider is a senior building and we don't have any senior
buildings being proposed. '
Emmings: The new apartment down there was how many floors? Just 2?
Krauss: 3. '
Emmings: What that 3?
Krauss: 3 with underground parking.
Emmings: So that' s an example of. I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 7, 1990 - Page 47
' Krauss : Not it' s not because that building, somebody somehow pushed it up
in the air so the parking lot is not, it's sort of at grade. It's not as
' below as it' s supposed to be.
Emmings: You mean the garage is really first floor?
Krauss: What they did is they pushed the building up to use an old sewer
line that they weren't supposed to use.
Conrad: Which one are we talking about?
Emmings: The new one.
' Conrad: Heritage?
Krauss : That's one of the reasons why it looks so big. It's higher than it
was supposed to be.
Emmings: How high is that?
' Krauss: 40 feet.
' Emmings: 40 feet?
Olsen: . . .6 feet higher . . . It's not at grade. It' s 6 feet above.
' Wildermuth: Where are our building inspectors? How do they get away with
something like that?
' Emmings: Ladd did it one night when none of the rest of us were here.
Krauss: It's one of those things that makes staff look totally inept and I
keep telling you that we've changed a lot of things and I hope nobody
' proves us wrong. So am I hearing you that we should fix the ordinance so
any building that' s built there must have underground parking and that we
should go with a straight 40 foot building height. Those are the changes
' that you' re looking for?
Conrad: I think so.
' Krauss: And change the lot to either eliminate the lot depth or come up
with a size that' s commensurate with that type of building.
' Emmings: I don't even know if you need to put that in there at all.
That's going to be governed by the setbacks.
' Krauss: And the hard surface coverage.
Conrad: Yeah I think it's taken care of.
Emmings: Signs . Down there number 5 on the bottom of page 1. It says
signs so that's a signal to me, a sign to me that we should go to the sign
ordinance to find out what's going to be approved and appropriate in the
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 48 ,
R-16 and there's not going to be anything in there. So when it says signs,"
what does it mean?
Olsen: . . .high density. '
Emmings: Well we don't have an R-16 under signs though.
Krauss: That's a good point. I see what you' re saying. Well we could
refer it back to the R-12.
Emmings: You could if that's appropriate. '
Krauss: We're talking about monument signs, yeah.
Conrad: It probably is.
Olsen: We just have to add an R-16 in there. 1
Emmings: I see you can have one dock. I think we should require that they
all have one dock. Lake or not. One dock. It'd be a little hard to
imagine these on a lake but. . .
Conrad: Do we need a motion on this? We probably do.
Emmings: They've recommended that we approve the attached ordinance.
Conrad: Somebody want to make that motion with the changes that we noted? I
Emmings: So moved.
Wildermuth: Second. ,
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to creat an R-16, high density
residential district with the changes discussed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: Any interest in reviewing the R-12 district? I think we should. I
-have an interest. We're going to put that down in our work plan and then I
we' ll just figure it out.
Emmings: Put it on the list. '
Conrad: And when I say review the R-12 district, it means review it for
what?
Eramings: Quality.
Conrad: Yeah, there's a good word. Intent. Yeah. Is it achieving what II
we thought it was really designed to achieve and that's probably higher
density. More affordable housing.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 49
Emmings: But it sounds like too, Paul is saying we're overly
compartmentalized here. Maybe we also want to look at that in connection
' with the other three zones that we've got and maybe even decide not to have
it.
Ahrens: I think if you look at R-12, you should look at R-10 and whatever
else.
' Emmings: Might as well.
Conrad: I don't want to create a gorilla to review here.
' Krauss: I think what we could do is give you a summary of what we think
these districts are accomplishing.
Conrad : That' s probably real valid. Like how many do we have or what' s
gone in and what are you hearing is the need. What are the developer's
saying that we need .
' Emmings: And why are they all even numbers? That' s what I want to get at.
I want something with odd numbers.
Conrad: Let's move on quickly and get out of here if we can.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE BH, HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
ALLOW BANK DRIVE-THRU WINDOWS AS A PERMITTED USE.
Conrad: Without any staff comments, do we have any comments?
Emmings: In Section 2 in the ordinance I 'm looking at.
' Krauss: You know something, they stuck it in there.
Emmings: Yeah, and that doesn' t have. Number one, that has nothing to do
with banks and number two, it doesn't say anything about being underneath
the building.
Krauss: Well no.
Ahrens: This is what was missing last time.
' Krauss: That's in the text of the original ordinance. I knew I wrote it.
I was getting frustrated. The parking ordinance has, this is only one
component. One line of that parking line. The parking ordinance itself
' that was approved had. . .
Emmings: So that Section 2 ought to be deleted out of here?
Krauss: Well it doesn't belong in this one that's for sure.
I