Loading...
1982 11 01 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1982 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the following additions: set special meeting date to canvass election returns and Council expenses. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to table action on employee evaluations to November 15. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Neveaux moved to note the October 14, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the October 12, 1982, Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the October 26, 1982, Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING AN RI-MH SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTR.ICT: Mayor Hamilton - I do not go along with an ordinance that has a manufactured housing community delineated in it. What we are doing is encouraging a trailer court. I think we can accommodate manufactured housing without creating a park specifically for manufactured housing. Councilwoman Swenson - I completely concur that the rental section be stricken. If we are going to have manufactured development I will only be amenable if the lots were in fact owned and if that were adopted by the Council there be considerable adjustments made in the various sections here. I have a question, I noticed that the medium density is indicated here and I find it's rather confusing. We have a minimum lot area of 11,700 square feet, that being the net lot size after the 15,000 is taken, however, we are taking about a medium density that calls for 3.5 or 6.9 which would permit a developer to have a 6,500 square foot lot. I think we have a conflict on that one. This is on page 2 of Counci 1 Meeti ng November 1, 1982 -2- the first ordinance, Section 6.51, Purpose. "Only those areas designated "Residential- I Medium Density" in the City1s Comprehensive Plan shall be considered for inclusion in this district." Councilman Neveaux - A community where the people own their own property, own their own manufactured housing, is distasteful to you? Councilwoman Swenson - No, that's fine if the land is owned. Councilman Neveaux - Change the wording then to eliminate leased or rented. Would that get the same thing a c c om p 1 ish e d ? Scott Martin - think it would. It would also allow then allow for a condominium type ownership with common open space. The manufactured housing subdivision would be a Western Hills sort of a subdivision where each lot is individually owned, they have no common open space or commonly owned or operated community building like a recreational building whereas a manufactured housing community, even if lots could not be rented or leased, could still be owned in condominium ownership where you do have that open space. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to see these homes in a subdivision atmosphere. If a developer of a subdivision wishes to put in these community buildings, this is their prerogative. I don1t I want to leave any loopholes that could be misunderstood so that somebody can come in later and say, well, this has been interpreted and so and so, your ordinance says that we can do this. We have too many ordinances with too many loopholes now. Councilman Neveaux - I guess I would disagree with that. I just don't see what the differences are between the manufactured housing community kind of subdivision other than the common open space. Scott Martin - Under the community concept you would not have the rigid lot area, lot setback. Councilman Neveaux - Like a PUD. Manufactured housing PUD development as opposed to a manufactured housing R-l subdivision. I guess I just don't see what the problems are with having both kinds of zoning districts available. Scott Martin - Whether it's under a manufactured housing subdivision or a community, you are still saying those would only be allowed under the Rl-MH District so in that sense it would be segregated from other conventionally built homes. If this were the only ordinance you enacted it would not open up existing neighborhoods zoned R-l or P-l or other residential districts to manufactured I housing. Only the properties shown in the land use plan, as medium density residential, would be eligible for Rl-MH Zoning. It was a conscious decision of the Planning Commission to make that recommendation. The density requirements for medium density are not in I I I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -3- here. It's got single family or low density residential density standards but the areas designated on the map for medium density would be the only areas that the Planning Commission is saying should be considered for single family manufactured housing. It was a means the Planning Commission could see of restricting the extent of future Rl-MH Districts because there is much less land planned for medium density residential on your Comprehensive Plan than there is for low density residential. Councilwoman Swenson - I could see a developer coming in and saying this is a medium density area or would you rezone it. You can't rezone all the medium density land in the City to accommodate an Rl-MH. Scott Martin - Thatls the Council IS discretion. Whether you wanted to zone a specific area that's shown medium density on your plan to an R-3 which is truly a medium density district or to an Rl-MH is based on the merits of the development. There is no question that there is a conflict in terms of just looking at densities but the Planning Commission is saying we are going to use the map. Councilwoman Swenson - Do you agree that this would require clarification at this point so that we don't run in to something that's going to, a developer comes in and says I am allowed to build on your medium density property Scott Martin - But not at medium density densities. That's what the ordinance is saying. This is where you can build or this is eligible for Rl-MH Zoning but Rl-MH Zoning still mandates low density residential development for manufactured housing. There may be a legal conflict there. I don't think there is an administrative conflict. Councilman Neveaux - If that's the concept that to control this kind of development within our residentially zoned areas in the City, the Planning Commission is feeling that they should only be allowed in medium density areas on the Comprehensive Plan but at a different density, at an R-l density, then should not the statement be in there that at no time shall this exceed a certain number of units per acre. Clearly spell that out that even though it is channeled into medium density zoning districts they, in no case, should be allowed to be more than whatever 11,700 comes out to be. Scott Martin - I think it does say that. It says that in two places, on page 4, once in the paragraph right after the listing and it's written this way because of the instructions of the Planning Commission to write it exactly the way the current R-l Districts are. It refers both to Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances in this case. The maximum number of lots permitted in any Manufactured Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -4- Housing Subdivision shall be computed by subtracting the total area to be dedicated for street right-of-way I from the total gross land area in the subdivision, and dividing the remaining (net) land area by 15,000. That's your density of one home for 15,000 square foot gross density. That computes out, in the next one, because under the Manufactured Housing Community concept we wouldn't have strict minimum lot size because there may not, in fact, be lots, it's more of an area approach there may be sites but not actually platted lots. That 15,000 square foot per lot density equals 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Councilman Neveaux - Why doesn't it say, in no case shall the maximum gross density exceed 2.5 dwelling units per acre using that 15,000. Scott Martin - It could be added. Councilman Neveaux - I think it would clarify it. Mayor Hamilton - You want to add the sentence, but in no case shall the maximum gross density exceed 2.9 dwelling units per acre after 15,000. Councilman Neveaux - After that next to the last paragraph in 6.54 (1) A. Mayor Hamilton - Why don It we just allow manufactured housing to be built anywhere within the community meeting the standards that we have already established? Scott Martin - That's the second approach and if that' s the policy that I the Council wants to set, then you would be more interested in talking about the second ordinance on your agenda which would basically control that. Councilman Horn - You had another issue, John, about the different types of subdivisions. The issue of having manufactured housing development, the manufactured housing subdivision, and the manufactured housing community. I think we should keep those options open also. I don't know if we want to limit it to a subdivision. Councilman Neveaux - I don't either. Councilwoman Swenson - You have development or a subdivision. Councilman Neveaux - The whole idea of segregation is very distasteful to me. I am extremely upset by kind of discussion any time it has appeared either here or the Planning Commission. I don't think people are that different whether they live in manufactured housing or Bloomberg built housing or whatever. People are people in my book and I could not vote to exclude people. Councilwoman Swenson - The exclusion is only to exclude a rental park. Councilman Neveaux - That's about as far along as I would go to exclude that. Councilman Horn - What we are talking about is under the subdivision having an area laid out with minimum lot sizes and I if we look at a community we are talking about a PUD concept where we would allow sizes to go below minimums to get land transition areas and open spaces or whatever. I think we get more options having both of those in there. In fact if I were to rule one out I I I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -5- I would say let's rule out a subdivision because the PUD concept gives us a lot more flexibility. You can accommodate a subdivision within a PUD but you couldn't accommodate a PUD within a subdivision. Councilman Neveaux - That's a good point. Tom brought up the issue shall we just not have this ordinance at all and move on strictly to the zoning ordinance amendments for development and design standards and cover the issue of manufactured housing in that fashion. What are your thoughts on that? Councilwoman Swenson - Would that include all of the design standards in that? I am in favor of requiring at least a single garage because there is something about sheds that I think are repugnant. They don It do anything for a community and I find no reason for not at least having a single car garage in which the storage can be contained. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request. Councilman Geving - I think if I were going to have either one of these I would have the first ordinance and build in the design standards and eliminate the second one. Councilman Neveaux - That's option three. Councilman Geving - I feel very negative about this whole subject. This is a subject that came up, sprang upon us within the last several months as a result of the Legislature and I don't think it has been very well thought out. I hear a lot of comments from our constituents. I hear comments from people who own several lots or own homes with vacant lots next to them who are very much opposed to having someone put in a manufactured mobile type home on that lot. I would be very much opposed to a manufactured housing community but am very open to the development district or manufactured housing subdivision with minimum lot size 11,700 square feet. I would be much in favor of restricting that area to the 20 acres as proposed and many of the other design features that are shown in the development standards. I think we need that kind of protection. I would like to know what a side yard accessory structure is. What type of structure. What is consists of. How large it is. Scott Martin - A shed or garage. Councilman Geving - I think in this country there are certain design standards that are absolutely necessary. I am very much in favor of a garage and if you will look at what the people in Brandondale have done over the years, it has eventually evolved into that. Councilman Neveaux - I am hearing you saying that you think both of these ordinances probably should be considered but they should maybe be incorporated. Is there any reason why that could not occur? Scott Martin - I think you have got a potential legal problem if you are going to say that for manufactured homes you are going to impose design standards and require garages and for Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -6- homes that meet UBC requirements you will not require the same. As of right now you do not require garage for any conventional single family home. Specific enabling legislation, Municipal Planning Act, basically reads that manufactured homes built in conformance with sections of State Law in terms of code requirements, and in any other single family dwelling that complies with all other zoning ordinances must be treated in the same fashion. What we are trying to do in the proposal before you tonight, we are allowing for manufactured homes but they are going to be in a separate district. We are not imposing any special requirements on manufactured housing that we don't already do for our existing housing but we are not going to intermix them and the design standards ordinance is really intended to allow for the intermixing of homes but to eliminate the fears of single wide mobile homes, of flat roof and tin siding. We are going to enact some design standards for all residential structures that we currently don't have so that if a manufactured home is located next to a lot in Western Hills it's going to, in outward appearance, look very similar or at least be acceptable in its appearance to conventional homes. Councilman Geving - When I made my presentation I did not say that we would require a garage for example. I mentioned that only because they were talking about a utility shed in the back yard. I want to know what that shed could consist of. I am certain that we would have some kind of design standards as we do right now. I think another comment that's in order is on community storm shelter facilities. I have no idea what's being proposed here on page 7. What is it? How many people can it accommodate? Does it have sanitary facilities? All of those kind of things are going to have to be built in and very much brought out before I am ready to say yea or nay on this subject. I don't know what that thing is going to look like. I think we have to have some design features there and in terms of parking, I see a very definite problem with recreational areas. Councilman Neveaux - How would you like to proceed Dale? Councilman Geving - I would like to throw the whole thing out. Councilman Neveaux - That's option number four. Councilman Geving - Quite honestly John I would like to table it because I don't think we have enough information. We don't even have, in my view, good staff direction yet. Councilman Neveaux - What would you look for in the way of staff direction or a certain amount of additional information, a certain period of time in which to gather that information? A motion to that affect would certainly be considered. Councilman Geving - My comment on this would be that I think we are at least four weeks away from considering this I I I I I I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -7- and I am not trying to be negative, I am not trying to be stalling on this, I just don't believe that there is enough information. I think the Legislature has pulled one on us and they are making us come up with a district or some kind of an area that the people in Chanhassen are telling me they don't want. Councilman Neveaux - How much time time did the Planning Commission put in on this? Scott Martin - Five meetings. I would say on the average two hours per meeting of debate, discussion, public imput. Councilman Neveaux - Carol (Watson) were they satisfied with what they finally arrived at here? Carol Watson - What we were concerned about partially was doing nothing because in doing nothing we are left completely open to one being hauled in day after tomorrow. As of August 1st they could bring one in here as long as it meets HUD code they could put it on any lot in the City. Councilman Neveaux - I think some kind of planning should be attempted. What do you have in mind, Dale, in the way of time and what additional information do you need? Councilman Geving - I indicated to you, John, that I was uncomfortable with the manufactured housing community. I think we need more information on accessory storage, the whole issue of rental I am very much opposed to. The community storm shelter facilities. We can't adopt an ordinance without knowing what in the devil that thing is going to look like or what it's going to be capable of housing. Scott Martin - On page 7 and top of page 8 it does indicate the requirement for a community storm shelter in terms of the number of persons per dwelling unit and the amount of space. The actual review of what it's going to look like is going to depend on what the developer proposes and you do have design review. No where in any of our ordinances that I am aware of, in terms of residential design standards do we say what somebody's plan has to look like per se, but that's still your discretion in your site plan review. Councilman Geving - What I am saying is that is it going to blow away in the wind when we get a tornado or some other act of God and I think those are the things that concern me. Personally, I think for tonights session, building upon some of the concerns that the Planning Commission indicated, that we might be smart at least going through the building design and construction phase that would prevent anyone from coming in here with the minimum of at least 20 foot trailer. I am talking about the second ordinance, the design standards. If the Planning Commission is saying to us that we are laid wide open and tomorrow someone is going to come in with a proposal we couldn't stop it, at least adopting this would prevent that. That Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -8- would buy us some time to fall back and look at this whole other issue in terms of the first I ordinance. Councilman Neveaux - You are talking in terms of adopting the last section of the packet, Section 19.21. If that's your pleasure it may be appropriate to set up a special meeting to go over point by point the others. Councilman Geving moved to place on first reading an amendment to Ordinance 47,with the proposal dated September 9, 1982, Section 19.21, Building Design and Construction Standards, #1 (a-g). Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Swenson - Should we not include, if we are going to do that, even though we haven't yet established the Rl-MH District, shouldn't that be indicated. Councilman Neveaux - We can It indicate a district we don't have. If we do that, then when and if we do adopt an Rl-MH district we would have to modify this ordinance to include it, wouldn't we? Craig Mertz - I believe that what happened was that the Planning Commission said their first choice was to adopt the long ordinance which would restrict the manufactured housing in particular zones. The short ordinance was intended as a second line of defense in the event that I the various legal challenges that the representative from the manufactured house association was making held up in court, we would have the short ordinance to fall back on that at least would require double wides as opposed to single wides and as I understand the motion on the floor Dale is saying lets get the second line of defense in order and discuss the long ordinance at a later meeting. Councilman Neveaux - What I was saying was if this motion passes for first reading and at some point in time, two three, four weeks down the road, we pass some kind of an Rl-MH District these standards would not apply to that unless we modify this one because it doesn1t say Rl-MH District. Councilwoman Swenson - Can't we say all residential districts? Scott Martin - Except the intent was not to require design standards in mobile home parks. Councilwoman Swenson - I think we should. Scott Martin - I am saying that's another reason it's before you the way it is. There are two separate ordinances that can go together or stand by themselves but the intent of the building design and construction amendment was not to apply that to Rl-MH development. Councilwoman Swenson - Why? That's one of the biggest questions I I have. Why are we amending our residential rules and they don1t apply to the mobile home development area. Scott Martin - This is intended to require that manufactured houses look as much like conventional houses as is reasonably possible. I I I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -9- Councilman Neveaux - This would allow double wides, if they meet this criteria, in any residential area in the community. If that's the way you wanted to go you wouldn't allow then single wide manufactured housing anywhere. Councilwoman Swenson - That's right. Scott Martin - You can certainly do that. I am just trying to tell you that that is not part of the Planning Commission's recommendation and, in fact, I don't think the merits of that were actually addressed to any great extent. Councilwoman Swenson - I guess I have difficulty understanding why. The idea as I understand it is that we are not allowed to discriminate against mobile homes but it appears to me that we are setting up specifications here for areas that have nothing to do with a mobile home. I understand you are putting them in there to protect the area but what my question is why cannot these restrictions apply all the way across? Scott Martin - They can. Councilwoman Swenson - At the top of this 47 it does not say one single solitary word about the Rl-MH and I am contending that this only refers to the existing areas and it should include that. Councilman Geving - We don't have that yet. Councilwoman Swenson - I know, but at the time if we were going to pass these together it would. Councilman Neveaux - If we pass only this motion, double wide and manufactured housing could come in to any of our residential districts, singly or as a subdivision full of them, but they all have to be 20 feet wide, etc. Craig Mertz - Using the hypothetical that John stated, if this short ordinance were adopted and the long ordinance were adopted six weeks from now we would have for a six week period manufactured housing would be allowed any place in the City and at the end of six weeks we would cut that off and manufactured housing would have to go in to the special district. Scott Martin - The Rl-MH District does include a provision that specifically, towards the end, page 9, in all districts that permit single family dwellings or two family dwellings except the Rl-MH District, all single family dwellings and two family dwellings shall meet the applicable requirements of the Chanhassen Building Code which adopts the UBC. In all Rl-MH Districts all manufactured buildings shall meet all applicable requirements of the manufactured home code, so part of the Rl-MH thing would exclude, would not only segregate Rl-MH to this new district but would go as far as also specifically excluding them from going in to any other residential districts. That could be left out and you would have a situation as Craig was talking about. That was not the intent of the Planning Commission. What you have before you is the Planning Commission recommendation that evolved over five meetings over a three month period. Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -10- Councilman Horn - I think we need to ask the questions of the philosophy and intent. As I understood what the Planning Commission was doing, I think everybody agrees with Dale that nobody wanted this ordinance and nobody wanted to have to face this issue, now that we have to face it, I believe what the Planning Commission has done is come up with a way to make it as restrictive as legally possible with a few exceptions. I think what we have just discussed was one of those exceptions where we could have made it more restrictive. Scott Martin - By applying design criteria in mobile home parks. Councilman Horn - My concern is that in taking no action is that we I believe, are in a position right now where we are vulnerable to a mobile home anywhere in the City. I think this would help us to some degree if we pass the ordinance that Dale is suggesting. I don1t see that many options that we don1t have the answers to on the other ordinance which would lock us up tight in our situation. There might be some design standards on a community facility that we talked about but I believe that would be adequately covered in the development plan when it comes to us. I really feel uncomfortable in not acting this evening. I don't think there is that much out- standing that we need to consider. I think if there are other things we can do to make it more restrictive than we already have and ask for staff imput or Planning Commission imput on that but I think we have to act on this thing. The longer we delay it the more susceptible we are to getting something we don't want. Councilman Neveaux - Is there any further discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Swenson - Yes. Section D. 1I0nly traditional roofing materials, including shingles, shingle-like materials, and tile are permitted on residential buildings designed for one and two family use." What if somebody wants to come in with a tri-plex? Councilman Neveaux - This design standard applies to any of those zoning districts. Councilwoman Swenson - In that particular paragraph it specifies design for one and two family uses, and my question is why does that have to be in there? Councilman Neveaux - Because there are one and two family uses allowed in R-2 Districts and P-2 Zoning Districts. Councilwoman Swenson - Then it's moot, it isn't necessary. Scott Martin - It probably is restating what's stated in the lead-in paragraph to this section. Councilwoman Swenson - In F, since when do we permit metal siding of any kind? Scott Martin - You don't prohibit it, that's why you permit it. There is no place in the ordinance that prohibits metal siding. Councilman Neveaux - We built the fire station with metal siding for $157,000, remember. I I I I I I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -11 - Councilwoman Swenson - I think what we should have here or somewhere also, but in this particular ordinance I see nothing that specifies the homes that were built from 1978 on. That isn't specified in either one of these. I am saying there is nothing in here to prohibit an older type mobile home, metal or otherwise, to be moved on property. Councilman Neveaux - They have to be 20 feet wide and I don't think any of those home manufactured prior to 1978 were close to 20 feet. Scott Martin - It's actually 1976, the date you are referring to Pat. Under our current building code, nothing that was built to less than manufactured housing building code requirements would be allowed even under this amendment. Councilwoman Swenson - I am still confused. We have a building code that we cannot apply to mobile homes, right? Scott Martin - The Uniform Building Code but you also have adopted the Manufactured Home Building Code by reference. Councilwoman Swenson - We did? When did we do that? Scott Martin - The last time you adopted the 1981 edition of the UBC. Craig Mertz - If Pat's goal here is to prevent the pre-HUD code from being allowed under this ordinance, you could add another sub-item that would say that the residential building in addition to all of the design standards a-g has to meet either the state building code or the HUD code. That would have the effect of knocking out the pre-HUD code manufactured housing. Councilman Neveaux - The wording to be what? Craig Mertz - (h) Built in conformity with either Uniform Building Code or Manufactured Housing Code. Councilman Neveaux - As I look at it, this is a temporary stop gap kind of a thing until such time as we address the Rl-MH whether we accept it in total as recommended by the Planning Commission, modify it or accept parts of it or create our own or whatever. I am attempting to move it along. Councilwoman Swenson - I recognize that and I am sorry to delay it but I want to make sure that we know what we are doing with this because this ordinance is going to be here. May I ask where the 700 square feet came in? Scott Martin - It is from an ordinance that another city had adopted. Councilman Neveaux - At one time we had some minimum square footage requirements in our zoning ordinances and I think we were told that that was somewhat illegal. Scott Martin - It is exclusionary. Councilman Neveaux - It is very exclusionary and bordering on illegality. Craig Mertz - There are cases from out on the east coast that say that that type of thing is going to be thrown out. Councilman Neveaux - Are you comfortable with the ordinance that we are talking about? Craig Mertz - Yes. I would urge the Council to do something. Adopt either the long ordinance or the short ordinance. Council Meeting November 1, 1982 - 1 2- Councilman Neveaux - Any further discussion on the 9/9/82 version? Councilwoman Swenson - Was there a decision made as regards (d)? Councilman Neveaux - I am going to ask the seconder and the mover if I they would modify their motion to include these suggestions that have been made. Councilman Geving - I will make the motion to include (h) as stated by the Assistant Attorney. Councilman Horn - I will second that. Councilman Neveaux - On the question of (d)? Councilwoman Svlenson - Strike "designed for one and two family use ". Councilman Geving - I would amend my motion to strike "designed for one and two fami ly Use". Councilman Horn - I will second. Councilman Neveaux - Any further discussion on the motion? Councilman Horn - Does this motion state that we would only adopt this tonight or are you just acting on this? Councilman Geving - I think we have to take one at a time. Councilman Neveaux - The motion, to my recollection, does not state anything about any further action being taken this evening but I would suspect something would be. Councilman Horn - The only other thing would be if we could change the wording to include all residential zoning districts since we wouldnlt have the new Rl-MH district included on the list of districts. I would like to have that included in there. Counci lman Neveaux - You are talking about paragraph 1 and the I. heading. That then would necessitate if we do adopt an Rl-MH district that they all be double wides. Councilman Geving - Yes. That's the intent. C 0 u n c i 1 man G e v i n g - I w 0 u 1 d m a k e the mot ion to i n c 1 u dell all residential zoning districts". Scott Martin - That's in replacement of the identifying them by di strict. Co~ncilman Horn - I would include that in my second. Councilwoman Swenson - In the Manufactured Housing Digest that we were sent it reads here "No person shall install a manufactured home in a manufactured home park which is located within a governmental subdivision which is enacting an ordinance to require manufactured homes within its jurisdiction be secured by an anchoring system. We have in (b), in the case of residential buildings placed on concrete slabs, is there any way we can put an anchoring requirement in there? Scott Martin - Itls in our building code. Itls saying here that it's got to be anchored and the building code regulates how it's got to be anchored. That I s covered. I do have a comment that you should at least be aware of. I It's relative to item (c). First of all this ordinance if adopted, applies to all residential construction not just manufactured housing. You have got to understand that. You are going to be precluding flat roofed homes. So if you want to do that at least I 1 I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -13- do it consciously because there are several nice flat roofed homes in Chanhassen that I am familiar with and you may not want to be that restrictive in your residential design. Obviously this is aimed at the common feeling that mobile homes have flat roofs. That may not be true but maybe more often than not they do. Councilman Geving - You mean out of 2,800 dwelling units in Chanhassen we have one or two with flat roofs. That doesn't bother me at all. Councilman Neveaux - It's a good point and it certainly should be brought up as we discuss the final resolution of this very complex issue which I don't think will happen tonight. As I look at this proposed ordinance that's the basis of the motion and discussion, it is a temporary hay guys let's put our finger in the dike until we can get our act together on how we are going to allow manufactured housing to exist within our community and in fact when that occurs there may be a motion to modify this ordinance or it may be included in another design standard ordinance and have this one eliminated. Any further discussion on this motion? This will be the first reading. This would be 4/5th vote. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. Councilman Geving - I think that the first ordinance should be reviewed again by staff. The only problem that I have is that we have to give some direction to staff. Personally, my own feeling is that I would feel comfortable with this ordinance and those comments that I made earlier about the minimum lot size, the 20 acre parcel, yard regulations I feel comfortable with but I am· most uncomfortable with manufactured housing community as it's stated. There was some question and comments regarding a PUD, etc. and I guess the thing that bothers me is the word "rented" as was brought up by several other Council members. I probably could see myself fit to live with most of the other provisions in this proposed ordinance if manufactured housing community were stricken in its entirety throughout all of the pages and t h a ti n c 1 u des page 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 , and page 7. The community storm shelter facilities, I would really like to know more about what's being proposed as a guideline for a developer to come in and propose to put up a storm shelter facility. I would like to know what it's going to be made out of, how long these people could stay Council Meeting November 1, 1982 - 14- in this facility during some kind of a catastrophe, etc. I Councilman Neveaux - So you want some additional design standards for that facility. Councilman Geving - Yes. I feel that there needs to be more infor- mation on that. In my personal view I could feel comfortable with this entire proposed ordinance if the manufactured housing community either was completely omitted or the words "rented" or "leased" were withdrawn. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to see the manufactured housing com- munity portion deleted also, or revised to leave out the rented, leased portion. I also have trouble with the wording on the manufactured housing development where it says "a manufactured housing subdivision" and you look at a subdivision and that1s talking about developing. Craig Mertz - A development is the general category which has two sub-types, one is subdivision and the other is community. Mayor Hamilton - Along with those comments of Dale's and also looking at item 6.54 (lB) which would be deleted or changed, anything that deals with the community needs to be reviewed so I would then move that this item be tabled until staff has a chance to review it and revise it. I Councilman Horn - First of all, we understand the philosophy that the Planning Commission was bringing about. I haven't heard anything tonight, in my mind, that warrants delaying this thing and taking a chance by delaying action on this. I think everyone1s agreed that we don't want to have the leased or rented portion of this ordinance included in it. I think there is a misunderstanding on what manufactured housing community means and I think if we all take out the rented or leased portion of that, the rest of it there is no problem then. As I understand that and I would like to have Scott explain to me if I am wrong in this, the only difference between the housing community is that it's a PUD concept whereas a subdivision is a strict lot size type concept and I think for our planning purposes we should keep both options open. Manufactured housing development is just a development that allows a mix of single family and some manufactured housing. As I understand this ordinance they can only come in in a ne~v area. Councilman Neveaux - We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Motion fails for lack of a second. The floor is open for discussion and/or a motion. I Councilwoman Swenson - I am sure you are familiar with this Minnesota Manufactured Digest which was sent. On page 11 there is a distinction between the price of mobile homes and classification system, I found it really very interesting because it I 1 I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -15- seems to me that it would appear that we have the right to establish the Class A acceptance of these homes and it seems to me that this would solve a lot of the things that we are talking about, removal of hitch and undercarriage, certifies meeting the mobile home construction safety standards, acceptable similarity standards in accordance with 5.04 which I have to admit I am not familiar with. Why can we not incorporate the Classification of Mobile Homes which has been established by the Minnesota Manufactured Housing Digest? Scott Martin - Let me point out that this is a excerpt from a report prepared by the American Planning Association. It was not developed to repond to Minnesota State Law. It's an example of some approaches to regulationing mobile homes. It does not necessarily fit in with Minnesota. What you are saying basically Pat is not unlike what these ordinances do. You are taking a most restrictive approach by choosing only Class A mobile homes and then adding to that any design standards. In Minnesota, however, the law says clearly that if you establish design standards you have got to treat all homes in a similar manner and all homes means homes that meet the UBC as well and the manufactured home building code. This ordinance basically represents the most restrictive approach and assuming in reviewing this material assuming you are prepared to allow used mobile homes or other mobile homes that aren't meeting certain standards it never got to you in that fashion because I think Clark said it best, the Planning Commission in looking at this early on, it was not something they wanted to get into but recognizing they had to because of the change in State Law took the most restrictive approach. If you want to go into a classing system you are actually moving away from the most restrictive approach. Councilman Horn - I would make a motion that we approve the ordinance revision as suggested by the Planning Commission with the exception of reference to leased and rental property as stated in the definition section of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to include condominiums for the very simple reason the definition of mobile home developments. It says; a condominium permitting residential occupancy by mobile homes. Which does not necessarily specify that the individuals have to own the property. They don't own the lot and this is what I have been striving for since the minute I opened my mouth tonight. I want people to own the lot. Councilman Horn - I would include that in my motion. Councilman Neveaux - Is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Swenson - Do we have wheels and hitch removed covered in all this? Council Meeting November 1, 1982 - 1 6- Scott Martin - They have to be skirted. They are recycling wheels and chassis because they are expenslve. Councilman Horn - It wouldn't hurt to include it. I would include that in the motion. Councilman Neveaux - Do we have a second to the motion? 1111 second it for discussion. Councilwoman Swenson - What about plumbing in the community storm shelter? Scott Martin - I don't think it would be necessary. It would be up to the developer whether he wanted to provide plumbing to the building. We are talking about a short term, strictly a storm shelter. Councilman Neveaux - This is not a recreational building. Scott Martin - It could be. In many cases it is combined. The most important element that I have found in my experience in storm shelters in this type of development is accessibility. I have seen instances in Olmsted County where a mobile home park provided a storm shelter but you couldn1t get in it. It was locked up. It doesn't do you any good then. Even an open-end lean-to sort of thing, if it's in the ground, is better than a building that you can It get in to. The time to look at the design of these buildings is the time you are reviewing the plans for the development and not try to design it for the developer. I think it's impossible to do. Councilman Neveaux - That's the point. This would be a requirement of each development that came in that they would have to have a shelter and the review of that design and equipage of the facility would occur at the time of the whole development plan. Councilwoman Swenson - Would that also cover the accessory storage buildings so that we can eliminate the sheds. Scott Martin - You could ask for a detail of that. That would be the standard used in that park. Councilman Neveaux - We have already, under accessory storage, it says where home sites are rented or leased to owners of individual homes, we eliminate that. Scott Martin - It would not be a requirement of owner occupied developments and that's basically because the City does not require that storage buildings and/or garages be required for conventional residential developments now. Councilwoman Swenson - If you do that though, the last paragraph states that you outside storage display is prohibited. So I guess that would cover that. You would have some kind of storage unit or a garage. Councilman Geving - My comment on the assessory structure there on the side yard of five feet, page 4, is that everything that we have talked about is ten feet and I would like to see that five feet changed to ten feet. Councilman Neveaux - Does this differ from our regular R-l? Scott Martin - Right now it's ten foot. Councilman Geving - I would like to change that to ten foot. Councilman Neveaux - I will modify my second. Any further discussion? I I I I 1 I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 - 1 7- Councilwoman Swenson - Is there some way we can cover some kind of a berming or fencing? I have seen these outside storage areas and it looks pretty tacky. Can we require that to be bermed or fenced. Councilman Neveaux - It says, to be protected from adverse visual or other detrimental affects. Councilwoman Swenson - I guess I don It understand #5. Agriculture, except within the area of any manufactured housing development. Scott Martin - Simply because it's under the heading of permitted uses would allow agricultural operations to continue once the land has been zoned Rl-MH. Councilwoman Swenson - What about the 14 foot width? Scott Martin - If you are going to apply the design standards to the Rl-MH District you would want to change that to 20 feet also. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to make that 20 by 48 feet, however I am not hard nosed about it. Councilman Neveaux - What's your pleasure Clark? Councilman Horn - Yes, 1111 put that in the motion. Councilman Neveaux - That would be 20 feet on the top of page 2, 20 feet or more in width and 48 feet or more in length. Craig Mertz - The program then would be more or less as the Planning Commission envisioned it with a district concept for manufactured housing and your second line of defense is your design standards ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson - Is everybody comfortable with that medium density? This leaves an area of Near Mountain avai 1 able? Councilman Neveaux - If they can pay the price. The marketplace will take care of those Pat. It may take care of them to the point of exclusion and we may have some legal challenges I would suspect. Councilman Horn - I think that none of us are really comfortable with this whole thing and we are really hesitant to act on it. Councilman Neveaux - Any further discussion. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor of the motion? Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Opposed. Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Craig Mertz - Motion fails. Councilman Horn - If we are going to give staff direction on this I guess we need to know what they need to include in this to get a 4/5 motion. I think you stated John, your reason was probably the fact that it is discriminatory in terms of the square footage requirement. Is there any other area? Councilman Neveaux - The 20 foot width, also. I think there are some nice looking, reasonably priced homes that are Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -18- 14 feet wide. .They would not be allowed in this community and I am against that kind of I exclusionary zoning since 1968. Provided they are owner occupied. I think there are some people in this community that started with basement homes, added on to them, they are nice looking homes now. They couldn't afford to come into the stick built kind of a home. There is nothing wrong with those kind of folks. Councilman Horn - So if we had something, say 20 by 35 or a minimum Councilman Neveaux - I think we have to look at it more realistically to what the marketplace is out there and to not be blatantly discriminatory which I think some of these design standards will get us into and I don It think they would stand in court, my personal opinion, I just don't think they would stand in court. Mayor Hamilton - I made my comments earlier. I don't want the community included in it. Councilman Neveaux - The motion failed. We did pass one. Councilman Horn - What you are saying Tom, is you are against the whole ordinance. Mayor Hamilton - If the manufactured housing has to be in the City ordinances as they stand today then I think that should be adequate because I doubt very much you would find somebody paying $30,000 for a lot and I put a $30,000 mobile home on it. It just isn't going to happen. We have got ordinances in effect I see no reason, that was the state's requirement that we merely apply the same rules to manufactured housing as we do to other homes. Councilman Horn - So you are disagreeing with the Planning Commission philosophy of being as restrictive as possible. Mayor Hamilton - I don It know that it matters that I agree or disagree with anybody or anything. I am just stating what my feeling is. Certainly they have put a lot of time and effort into it. They came up with an ordinance that they thought was best. Councilman Geving - Could I poll the Council members on this, at least the ones that voted no, on one issue on page 2 and that was the measurement of 14 feet or more in width and 40 feet in length. Councilman Neveaux - There are homes that are 25 by 40. Councilman Geving - If that amendment to the motion, had not been made, is it fair for me to ask you how you would have voted? Councilman Neveaux - I would have voted yes. Councilman Geving - Then I would like to make a motion to place on first reading an amendment to Ordinance 47 as proposed tonight. With all the previous I inclusions and exclusions in the previous motion and revert back to the measurement on page 2 of 14 feet in width and 40 feet in length. Councilman Horn - Could we also include in that to be uniform, but must be 700 square feet in area? I 1 I Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -19- Councilman Geving - Yes. I will include that in the motion. Councilman Neveaux - Do we have a second to that motion? Councilman Horn - 1111 second it. Councilwoman Swenson - Do I understand now that we are actually adopting two specific ordinances. One is opening the door for a manufactured housing community and the second does in fact satisfy the Mayor's opinion that they can be built in other areas but according to our standards. Scott Martin - No. You are allowing them only in a separate district. Councilwoman Swenson - Then why are we doing the second one? This is strictly a back-up? Scott Martin - That was the Planning Commission's feeling and I guess to some extent I would agree with that. Councilman Horn - I think what it did is it made it more consistent with the other areas in the community. We are not putting restrictions on this section that aren't also included in the other sections. Councilwoman Swenson - These must coordinate. Councilman Horn - Right. Councilwoman Swenson - Anything that we pass in the second ordinance must apply to the first. Scott Martin - The only discrepancy is 14 versus 20 foot minimum width. Councilman Neveaux - Maybe what we should do is modify the first one. Go back to the way it was written. To require that manufactured housing in any of the zoning districts except Rl-MH must be 20 feet wide. I buy that. In this district, the Rl-MH, you could use the 14 foot width. We have a motion and a second to adopt an amendment to Ordinance 47 to create a Rl-MH District within the City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. Any further discussion on that motion? All in favor say aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Aye. Opposed. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Motion carries. 1982/1983 LEAF COMPOSTING PROJECT: Mark Corpron, Eagle Scout Candidate, gave a report on the project. Council members thanked Mark for a job well done. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SHORELAND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TROLL'S GLEN FIRST ADDITION: Mrs. Peterjohn was present seeking variance approval of a 11.23 foot front yard setback variance and a 7,500 square foot lot area variance to construct a home at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the variances. Councilman Neveaux moved to grant the variances as requested with the conditions of exempting the City from any hazards intrinsic to the Council Meeting November 1, 1982 -20- property through the analysis of the Planning Department on their September 30, 1982, report. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The I following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT WIDTH, SHORELAND LOT WIDTH AND SHORELAND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 26, BLOCK 1, RED CEDAR POINT: Mr. and Mrs. Parsons are requesting approval of a two foot side yard setback variance on both side lot lines, a 50 foot lot width variance, approval of a 35 foot ordinary highwater mark and shoreland building setback variance, and a 13,658 square foot lot area variance to the Shoreland Management Ordinance in order to construct a home on the property. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended denial of the requested variances for the reasons stated in the staff report of September 30, 1982. Councilman Geving moved to deny the Parsons request for variances Planning Case #82-12, for the reasons stated in the September 30, 1982, Planning Report from the City Planner. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT: Wynn Binger and Richard Lundell are requesting approval of a 13~ foot 1 shoreline management setback variance for the construction of a 61 x 6' step platform and approval of a 7~' shoreland management setback variance for the construction of a 201 x 201 deck on the eastern side of the existing residence. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the variances requested. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the setback variances requested as recommended by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT PREPARATION OF NEW ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the recommendation of the Community Development Director in his memorandum of October 25, 1982, in regard to CDBG funding for consultant preparation of new zoning and subdivision ordinances at a cost not to exceed $11,000. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. . PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT: Mayor Hamilton expressed concern that the Planning Commission should note why they have not recommended I an applicant, if that person has been interviewed several times. Councilman Horn stated that applications should be updated if they are older and also show the number of times that a person has applied. Council Meeting November 1, 1982 - 21 - I Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and appoint William Ryan to fill the present vacancy on the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Set Public Hearing Date, 1983 Revenue Sharing Allocation. November 15, 1982. b. Special Assessment Debt Service Study, Authorize Contract DeLaHunt Voto & Co., LTD. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SPECIAL MEETING CANVASS ELECTION RESULTS: Councilman Neveaux moved that the City Council sit as a Canvassing Board for the November 2, General Election on Wednesday, November 3, 1982, at 5:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1 COUNCIL COMPENSATION: Councilman Geving moved that effective January 1, 1983, increase the fee for Councilmen from $150 to $200 per month and the Mayor from $200 to $300 per month and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to determine whether this can be affected or any other method of reimbursement that would equal the same amount of money. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, and Councilman Geving. Councilmen Neveaux and Horn voted no. Motion carried. Amended November 15, 1982. Councilman Neveaux moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I