4. Zoning amendment off-street parking I
1 F
CITYOF 4
1 4 -C 2 A N B A S S E N
1 . . , , . .
. .
..
. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I � (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739i0n by City Administrator
` �" Endorsed ✓ DW AY
MEMORANDUM Nodifieo
II
Rejecte
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date -,3�Z0
Date Submitted to Ccr: ssion
I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Date Sue.:itt d to Gcuncil
DATE: December 28, 1989 / _/_ 5+0
1 SUBJ: Second Reading of an Ordinance Containing Amendments to
Article XXV, Off-Street Parking and Loading
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
I On December 18, 1989, the City Council discussed proposed amend-
ments to the zoning ordinance pertaining to parking and loading
standards. The draft ordinance was given first reading con-
' ditioned on an amendment that would increase the parking" require-
ments from 1. 5 to 2 enclosed stalls for all multi-family housing
larger then efficiency apartments. In general discussion it was
indicated that the standard could be reconsidered at second
I reading and that staff should look into establishing separate
requirements for townhomes and apartment buildings.
I Staff has had an opportunity to further research the matter and
has been contacted by several land owners and developers
interested in the ordinance. A written correspondence from Mike
I Gorra is attached. Mr. Gorra owns land that is currently outside
the MUSA but which may be reguided for multi-family use if the
guide plan update is approved.
I Staff sought additional information from other communities to
ascertain if they distinguish between townhomes and apartments
with regards to parking standards. We found that they do not and
I the table printed in the last staff report pertaining to parking
requirements remains valid. However, from a practical standpoint
it does not appear to be unreasonable to assume that townhomes,
duplexes and quads would have different parking requirements then
1 most apartments or condominium buildings. Since they are typi-
cally larger units they are often occupied by families, couples
or unrelated individuals, thus generating a parking demand that
I is more similar to a single family detached residence, for which
Chanhassen currently requires two enclosed parking stalls. There
is no current requirement for exterior parking stalls for single
1 family dwellings. The draft ordinance would require at least
visitor stall per multi-family dwelling.
11
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
December 28, 1989
Page 2
Staff' s original recommendation to the City Council was that all
two bedroom or larger multi-family units be required to have 1
stalls enclosed. This requirement is more strict then virtually
any other metro area community. The City Council approved a
revision that would require two enclosed stalls for all units one
bedroom or larger. Visitor parking would remain at I stall per
unit as approved. However, visitor parking may be insufficient
if the two enclosed stalls are required as opposed to the 11 that
had been proposed since the original proposal would have resulted
in 3/4 ' s of an exterior stall for each dwelling, all of which
could be available for visitors. After reviewing the available
' information, staff continues to support a requirement of 11
enclosed stalls for townhomes, duplexes and quads. This would
more accurately reflect actual parking demand and would make our
' ordinance the most stringent in the Twin Cities. It would also
facilitate the development of higher quality projects then is
currently the case. The City Council indicated a desire to
' review the potential of establishing one parking standard for
townhomes and doubles and another standard for apartments.
Staff continues to believe that the two car enclosed requirement
for apartment is difficult to justify based on parking demand and
on standards applied by other communities. Further, we believe
that it is generally not possible to provide a sufficient number
of underground parking stalls to meet the requirement. The
Heritage Park Apartment project currently under construction con-
' tains 60 apartments and 60 underground stalls . The underground
parking fully occupies the basement and it is not possible to
create additional stalls without expanding the basement beyond
the building footprint.
The following parking requirements result for each standard:
' HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS
Current Ordinance
60 dwellings = 60 enclosed stalls
60 exterior stalls
' 120 total
Original Staff Proposal
24 one bedroom = 24 enclosed stalls
36 two bedroom = 54 enclosed stalls
78 enclosed stalls
I
11
Mr. Don Ashworth
December 28, 1989 ,
Page 3
visitor per unit = 15 exterior stalls 1
i per 2 bedroom = 18 exterior stalls
1 per 1 bedroom = 24 exterior stalls
57 exterior stalls
135 total stalls
Current Draft Ordinance
24 one bedroom = 48 stalls
36 two bedroom = 72 stalls
120 enclosed stalls
visitor = 15 exterior stalls
135 total stalls
Thus, based upon the Heritage Park plans, it would be impossible
to supply sufficient stalls to meet either staff' s original pro-
posal or the current draft' s requirements without allowing a por-
tion of the enclosed stalls to be located in a freestanding
structure. Staff has also obtained plans for several other
apartment buildings in neighboring communities that were designed
by Arvid Elness, the architect for Heritage Park apartments.
These include high quality projects in Burnsville and
Bloomington. Each building provides one enclosed stall for each
apartment. The architect points out that most apartments in
suburbs are designed as 3-story structures with an average of 900
square feet per dwelling. The average parking stall with drive
aisles occupies 300 square feet. Thus, it is only physically
possible to provide one stall per dwelling without expanding the
building wall or going with exterior parking garages.
Based upon this analysis and data previously presented, staff 1
would propose that the following parking requirements be
established for multi-family:
1. Efficiency and One Bedroom - Two stalls, one of which must be
completed enclosed.
2. Two Bedroom or Larger - Two stalls, 11 of which must be '
enclosed.
If the ordinance is to be revised to differentiate between larger '
multi-family structures and townhomes/quads and doubles, defini-
tions need to be provided. The current ordinance definitions
include the following:
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
December 28, 1989
Page 4
Dwelling, single family means a detached building containing
one ( 1) dwelling unit.
Dwelling, two family means a detached building containing two
( 2 ) dwelling units.
Dwelling, multi-family means a detached building containing
three ( 3 ) or more dwelling units. Apartment buildings, con-
dominiums, manor homes, quad-duplexes, and cooperatively owned
buildings containing three ( 3 ) or more dwelling units are multi-
family dwellings .
' Staff would recommend that the ordinance definitions be revised
as follows:
Dwelling, single family means a detached building containing
one ( 1) dwelling unit.
Dwelling, two-family means a detached building containing two
( 2 ) dwelling units .
Dwelling, quad means a detached building containing four ( 4 )
dwelling units.
Dwelling, townhome means a row of three ( 3 ) or more attached,
one family dwellings, each built within similar architectural
treatement, separated by vertical divisions termed party walls,
and each having a private entrance.
' Dwelling, multi-family means a building containing five ( 5)
or more dwelling units excluding townhomes.
The last issue that was discussed pertained to lighting standards
for parking lots. There was a desire to see a minimum lighting
standard adopted to insure safety. At the same time parking lot
lighting should not be intrusive or impact adjoining parcels and
residents. Staff could not find a specific standard for minimum
lighting for public safety. Instead we have recommended that the
ordinance require that minimum lighting is to insure that safety
' can be maintained subject to review and approval. We are also
recommending that parking lot lighting be no greater than 0.5
foot candles at the property line to minimize off-site impacts.
In our experience this standard results in minimal off-site
impact.
The draft ordinance has been revised to reflect the City
' Council' s revisions on parking requirements for multi-family
homes and the revised language pertaining to lighting.
11
Mr. Don Ashworth II December 28, 1989
Page 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION II
Staff recommends that an ordinance amending Article XXV, II Off-Streeting Parking be given second reading. It is further
recommended that the City Council consider revising the final
draft as follows:
II
Standards
b. Townhomes, doubles or quads: two stalls , li of which
I
must be enclosed
c. Multi-family: i
1 ) Efficiency and one bedroom units - Two stalls, one of
which must be enclosed. 11 2) Two bedroom and larger units - Two stalls, 11 of
which must be enclosed. This requirement is to be
reassessed on a gross basis for the entire project.
II
Definitions
K
Dwelling, single family means a detached building containing 1
one (1) dwelling unit.
Dwelling, two family means a detached building containing two
I
( 2) dwelling units.
Dwelling, quad means a detached building containing four ( 4 )
II
dwelling units.
Dwelling, townhome means a row of three ( 3 ) or more attached,
I
one family dwellings, each built within similar architectural
treatement, separated by vertical divisions termed party walls,
and each having a private entrance.
Dwelling, multi-family means a building containing five ( 5) II
or more dwelling units excluding townhomes.
II
II
1
II
i
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
' The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows :
DIVISION 2. PARKING AND LOADING.
Section 20-1116 . Scope. This division applies to off-street
' parking and loading.
Section 20-1117. General Standards.
a) Parking and loading shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with the following:
' 1) No change of use, tenancy or occupancy of a parcel of
land or building, including construction of a new
building or an addition to a building, which requires
I additional parking or loading spaces shall be allowed
until such additional parking or loading is approved and
furnished. Review may be required under the site and
building plan review procedures of Division 6 of this
ordinance.
2 ) Required parking and loading areas and the driveways pro-
viding access to them shall not be used for storage,
display, sales , rental or repair, of motor vehicles or
other goods or for the storage of inoperable vehicles or
' snow.
3) Required parking and loading spaces shall be located on
the same development site as the use served. On-street
parking, if allowed in the vicinity of the site, cannot
be used to satisfy parking requirements. The city may
approve off-site parking if the city council finds the
following:
a. reasonable access shall be provided from the off-site
parking facilities to the use being served;
b. the parking shall be within 400 feet of a building
entrance of the use being served;
c. the parking area shall be under the same ownership
and merged into a single tax parcel as the site
served, under public ownership or the use of the
parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded
instrument, acceptable to the city;
I
d) failure to provide on-site parking shall not
encourage parking on the public streets , other pri-
vate property or in private driveways or other areas
not expressly set aside for such purposes; and
e) the off-site parking shall be maintained until such 1
time as on-site parking is provided or an alternate
off-site parking facility is approved by the city as
meeting the requirements of this ordinance. ,
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division to
the contrary, a land use may provide the required off-
street parking area for additional land uses on the same
development site if the following conditions are met:
a) because of the hours of operation of the respective '
uses, their sizes and their modes of operation there
will be available to each use during its primary
hours of operation an amount of parking sufficient to
meet the needs of such use; and
b) the joint use of the parking facilities shall be pro-
tected
by a recorded instrument, acceptable to the
city.
Section 20-1118. Design of Parking Stalls and Drive Aisles. '
a) Parking areas shall be designed in conformance with the
following: '
1) Parking stalls shall have a minimum paved dimension of
eight and one-half feet by 18 feet. Stall and aisle
dimensions shall be as noted below for the given angle:
Curb Stall
Angle Length Length Aisle '
45° 12. 0 ' 18 . 0 ' 13 .5 ' *
60° 10. 0 ' 18. 0 ' 18.5 ' * 1
90° 8. 5 ' 18.0 ' 26 ' **
Parallel 20. 0 ' 8.0' 22 '
* One way aisles only. '
** Aisles which are not between two rows of 90° angle parking
spaces may be 22 feet wide.
*** Dead end aisles must be provided with a 26 ' x 10 '
unencumbered area at the end to facilitate vehicle turning
movement.
-2-
II6) All parking areas except those serving one and two family
dwellings on local streets shall be designed so that cars
II shall not be required to back into the street. If deemed
necessary for traffic safety, turn-around areas may be
required in one and two family dwellings.
II7) All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall
be bordered with raised concrete curbs or equivalent
approved by the city.
II8) All parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced
with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by
1 the city.
9) All parking stalls shall be marked with painted lines not
I less than four inches wide in accordance with the approved
site and building plan.
10) All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic control
Ias needed.
11) All parking areas shall be properly maintained in a neat
Iand serviceable condition.
II,45°angle St 'O a !ear* parallel�..
I '
Curb ft A► t 12' i line-. I to I cwb litie-1. 1051
47 0 A. j 18. 22:-M
50.9' 35 -one. - 58j • o c , _ v
way 18.5 -:g•' 62 26'3 (.
cur •Im `► 19• -#-
1 ,one.way f } -�
1 Club 7//
lime J
I * One way aisles
b) Up to 25 percent of the total number of required spaces may be
Ifor compact cars and have minimum paved dimensions as follows:
Angle Curb Length Stall Length
I45° 10.0' 16.0 '
60° 8.5 ' 17.5'
I
90° 7.5 ' 16. 0'
IParallel 16.0 ' 8.0'
I -3-
II
Compact car parking may be provided if the following con-
ditions are met: I
1) the parking area shall have a total size of at least 20
stalls; I
2) compact car stalls shall be identified by appropriate
directional signs consistent with the city sign ordinance.
II
3 ) compact car stalls shall be distributed throughout the
parking area so as to have reasonable proximity to the
structure served but shall not have generally perferential,
II
locations such that their use by non-compact cars will be
encouraged;
4 ) the design of compact car areas shall to the maximum I
feasible extent be such as to discourage their use by
non-compact cars; and I
5) compact parking stalls shall not be permitted for high
turnover parking lots.
Section 20-1119. Computing Requirements . In computing the I
number of parking spaces required, the following shall govern:
1) "Floor space" means the gross floor area of the specific I
use as defined by Article II.
K
2 ) Where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces
II
required shall be construed to be the next largest whole
number.
3) Parking standards for uses not specifically mentioned in I
this division shall be determined by the city. The fac-
tors to be considered in such determination shall include II size of building, type of use, number of employees,
expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and
expected frequency and number of delivery or service
vehicles . I
Section 20-1120. Yards. On-site parking and loading facili-
ties shall not be permitted in the required front yard, side yard II or rear yard.
Section 20-1121. Buffer Fences and Planting Screens. On- II site parking and loading areas near or abutting residential
districts shall be screened in conformance with the provisions of
Article XXV.
Section 20-1122. Access. Parking and loading space shall 1
have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number of
width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic II congestion and abnormal traffic hazard.
-4-
I
II
' f) one handicapped parking stall shall be P rovided for
each 50 stalls. Handicapped parking spaces shall be in
I compliance with the Uniform Building Code and state
law;
I g) the parking requirement for uses not listed in this
division may be established by the city based on the
characteristics of the use and available information
IIon parking demand for such use.
c) The minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for
the following uses shall be:
II1 ) Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or
sports arena - One (1) parking space for each four ( 4)
Iseats, based upon design capacity.
2 ) Auto sales, trailer sailes, marine and boat sales,
implement sales, garden supply store, building
I
materials sale, auto repair - One (1) parking space for
each five hundred ( 500) square feet of floor area.
I 3 ) Automobile service station - Four ( 4 ) parking spaces,
plus two ( 2 ) parking spaced for each service stall;
such parking spaces shall be in addition to parking
Ispace required for gas pump areas .
4 ) Bowling Alley - Seven ( 7) parking spaces for each
bowling lane.
I5) Churches - One (1) parking space for each three ( 3)
seats , based on the design capacity of the main seating
IIarea, plus one (1) space per classroom.
6 ) Dwelling:
Ia. Single Family - Two ( 2 ) parking spaces, both of
which must be completely enclosed. No garage shall
be converted into living space unless other accep-
IItable on-site parking space is provided.
b. Multi-Family:
II1 ) Efficiency - Two (2) stalls one of which must be
completely enclosed in a garage.
I 2 ) One-Bedroom and Larger Units - Two (2) stalls of
which 2 must be completely enclosed in a garage.
This requirement is to be assessed on a gross
Ibasis for the entire project.
Garage stalls for multi-family buildings containing
I more than 20 dwellings must be placed underground or
attached to the primary structure. The City may
allow free standing garage stalls only when the
II
-6-
I
1
Section 20-1123. Lighting. All commercial, industrial, and
multi-family parking lots shall be lighted. Lighting shall use
shielded fixtures and be directed away from the public right-of-
way and adjacent residential or agricultural districts.
Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of
the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. To mini-
mize off-site impact, light levels as measured at the property
line shall not exceed i foot candle as measured at the property
line. '
Section 20-1124. Required Number of On-site Parking Spaces.
On-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for
patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors, residents and employees
shall be provided on the premises of each use. The following
standards are minimum criteria. The city may increase the
requirements beyond the minimum based upon findings that, due to
proposed use and/or design, that additional parking demand is
anticipated. The number of required parking spaces shall comply
with the following:
1) Calculating the number of spaces shall be in accordance
with the following:
a) if the number of off-street parking spaces results
in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more
shall constitute another space; '
b) in churches and other places of public assembly in
which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or
other similar seating facilities, each 24 inches of
such seating shall be counted as one seat for the
purpose of this division;
c) except in shopping centers or where joint parking
arrangements have been approved, if a structure con-
tains two or more uses, each use shall be calculated
separately in determining the total off-street
parking spaces required;
d) for mixed use buildings, parking requirements shall
1
be determined by the city based on the existing and
potential uses of the building. In cases where
future potential uses of a building will generate
additional parking demand, the city may require a
proof of parking place for the difference between
minimum parking requirements and the anticipated
future demand.
e) if warranted by unique characteristics and/or docu-
mented parking demand for similar developments, the i
city may allow reductions in the number of parking
spaces actually constructed as long as the applicant
provides a proof of future parking plan. The plan
must show the location for all minimum required
parking spaces in conformance with applicable setback
requirements. The city may require installation of
the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises.
-5-
applicant demonstrates that the architectural design
of the building results in an inability to accom-
modate all the stalls under the building and when
the majority of this requirement is met with
underground parking.
' In multi-family rental buildings , the use of at
least one enclosed stall shall be included in the
lease or rental rate of each apartment. In
multi-family owner-occupied buildings at least
one enclosed stall shall be included in the sales
price of each home.
' The City may apply a decreased parking requirement
for senior/housing projects or other residences
' which, by their nature, should generate decreased
parking demands.
One visitor parking stall shall be provided for each
1 four dwellings .
7) Financial institution - One ( 1) space for each two
' hundred fifty ( 250) square feet of floor space.
8) Furniture or appliance store - One ( 1) space for each
four hundred ( 400) feet of floor space.
9 ) Hospitals and nursing homes One (1) space for every
two ( 2 ) beds, plus one (1) space for every tOo (2 )
' employees on the largest single shift.
10) Manufacturing or processing plant - One ( 1) off-street
parking space for each employee on the major shift and
one ( 1) off-street parking space for each motor vehicle
when customarily kept on the premises.
11) Medical and dental clinics and animal hospitals - One
( 1) parking space for each one hundred fifty ( 150)
square feet of floor area.
' 12) Mortuaries - One ( 1) space for every three ( 3) seats.
13) Motel or hotel - One (1) parking space for each rental
room or suite, plus one ( 1) space for every two ( 2)
employees.
' 14) Office buildings (administrative, business or pro-
fessional) - Buildings under 49,999 square feet - 4.5
stalls per 1000 square feet gross floor area;
buildings from 50,000 - 99,999 square feet - 4 stalls
per 1000 square feet gross floor area, and; buildings
over 100, 000 square feet - 3.5 stalls per 1000 square
' feet gross floor area.
15) Public service buildings, including municipal adminis-
trative buildings, community center, public library,
-7-
I
museum, art galleries, and post office - One ( 1)
parking space for each five hundred ( 500) square feet
of floor area in the principal structure, plus one (1)
parking space for each four (4 ) rests within public
assembly or meeting rooms.
16) Recreational facilities, including golf course, country
club, swimming club, racquet club, public swimming
pool - Twenty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each
five hundred ( 500) square feet of floor area in the
principal structure or two ( 2 ) spaces per court.
17) Research, experimental or testing stations - One (1) ,
parking space for each five hundred ( 500) square feet
of gross floor area within the building, whichever is
greater. I
18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar:
a. Fast food - One (1) space per sixty (60) square '
feet of gross floor area.
b. Restaurant: '
1 . Without full liquor license - One ( 1) space per
sixty ( 60) square feet of gross floor area or
one (1) space per two and one-half ( 2i ) seats
whichever is greater. ti
2. With full liquor license - One ( 1) space per '
fifty ( 50) square feet of gross floor area or
one ( 1) space per two ( 2) seats whichever is
greater.
19) Retail stores and service establishments - One (1)
space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross
floor area.
20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial) - One
( 1) parking space for each classroom or office room,
plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of eating area including aisles, in any
auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be '
used as an auditorium.
21) School, junior and senior high schools and colleges
(public, private or parochial) - Four ( 4 ) parking
spaces for each classroom or office r000m plus one (1)
space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of
seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or
gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an audi-
torium.
22) Shopping center - On-site automobile parking shall be
provided in a ratio of not less than one (1) parking
space for each two hundred ( 200) square feet of gross
-8- ,
I
floor area; separate on-site space shall be provided
for loading and unloading.
23 ) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments - One
( 1) space for each one thousand ( 1,000) square feet of
' gross floor area up to ten thousand ( 10,000) square
feet and one ( 1) additional space for each additional
two thousand ( 2 ,000) square feet plus one ( 1) space for
' each company vehicle operating from the premises . If
it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the number
of employees in the warehouse or storage area will
require less than the required number of spaces, and if
the applicant shall submit a letter to the city
assuring that if there is to be any increase in
employees, the applicant agrees to provide additional
' parking area, the city may approve a lesser number of
parking spaces.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
*
1 By:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
1
-9-
1
1
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA
2469 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 (612) 646-7959
I
January 2, 1989
Chanhassen Council Members II
690 Coulter Drive
P. O. Box 147 1
Chanhassen, MM. 55317
Honorable Members:
The Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) would like to go on II
record as having concerns regarding the proposed amendments to
Article XXV-relating to off street parking and loading.
I
BAM represents nearly 3000 members statewide. The membership
consists of builders, developers, and associate members in many
Isupporting businesses.
Our main concerns with this proposal are affordability related. The
potential difficulties stemming from this proposed action would
II
increase production costs which eventually may price some citizens
out of a new home. Our research shows that even a increase of $3, 000
in costs calculated on a 30 year mortgage could conceivably price 7 II percent of new home buyers out of the market. (Based on a $80, 000
new home. )
It is our contention that townhouses should not be required to have 2 1
enclosed parking stalls as proposed by this ordinance. Although many
units are currently built with 2 enclosed stalls the need for 1 car
garages will remain. It is important to retain the flexibility for
I
those individuals who do not need or cannot afford the luxury of 2
enclosed parking stalls.
Please consider that higher building costs on residential projects in
II
Chanhassen may restrict some builders from working in your
community. The result could place your City into a non-competitive
situation with other cities and the ensuing loss of tax revenue
II
generated by new development may be costly.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns in this 1
matter. We look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen on
this issue.
Respectfully submitted, 1
k kiti 1
Brian A. Helmken
Director of Municipal Affairs
II
December 19 , 1989
' Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Off-Street Parking & Loading
Dear Commissioners:
' This letter is to comment on the current proposal to require 2
covered parking stalls per apartment dwelling.
' I have been in the multi-development (apartment) business as
designer, developer, builder, owner, manager and "head janitor"
for the past 25 years. This extensive experience as owner and
' manager since 1965 leads me to conclude that one covered stall
is sufficient and most desireable. The one covered stall can
be placed under the building if desired without creating a
costly, unnecessary and unworkable designed monstrosity
destined for obsolescence and financial failure. Also, an
additional uncovered stall (for a total of two) is usually more
than is necessary because not everyone has two cars or is home
' at the same time. As for visitor parking, if a resident has
visitors, then usually someone in the building is visiting off
the premises at the same time. ti
Chanhassen has a low enough density that additional parking
stalls (open) can be easily added later if necessary. The most
' the City should require over a total of two stalls (one
covered, one open) is a sketch from the developer showing how
he could add to his parking in the future if the need arises .
' More than one covered stall would drive the price of multiple
land down in Chanhassen or would, in our case prevent any
development interest at all. The City should make it easy and
' reasonable for expansion and development, not stunt it! This
is probably why most of the other cities in the 7 county
metropolitan area and possibly the rest of the civilized world
have a total stall requirement of 2 with only one covered.
Let 's not repeat the "great mainstreet disaster" , the Eckankar
fiasco or even the case of the kitty wampus City Hall (just a
' few of the embarrassing mistakes plaguing Chanhassen in recent
years) and listen to the information, statistics, facts and
intelligent testimony from people in the business to arrive at
' a responsible decision.
Sincerely yours,
M. J. Gorra
1680 Arboretum Blvd.
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
DEC 21 WW 4
%n OF CHANHASSEN
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
Don Ashworth: Is there anything more staff should be doing on this as far as, I
tried to get input from Minnetonka School District but I haven't gotten much
from them.
Councilman Boyt: I liked your memo. I think your memo really hits at the key
issues here. If it makes sense to table this, why don't we table it and go on.
Mayor Ch*a:el moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on the Youth
Development Commission Contribution for more information. A11 voted in favor
and the motion carried. I
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED SED PARKING REQUIREMBES IF 1 RRANTED BY SITE PLAN
REVIEW, AND TO REQUEST ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the City Council first reviewed the proposed
off-street parking and loading ordinance. The draft ordinance is a
comprehensive approach designed to deal with all aspects of site plan parking
and loading issues. At the last meeting there was extensive discussion of the
proposed parking standard for multi-family dwellings. At the present time 2
parking stalls are required, 1 of which must be enclosed. As currently drafted,
the new ordinance would require the following. For efficiency and 1 bedroom ,
apartments, we would continue to require 2 stalls, 1 of which must be enclosed.
For 2 bedroom or larger units we would require 2 stalls, 1 1/2 of Which on a
_gross basis must be enclosed. Let's say if you had a 100 unit building, all 2
bedroom apartments, you'd have to have 150 enclosed parking stalls. There's
also a visitor parking requirement proposed of 1/4 stall per unit. That would
be done in exterior parking. The City Council continued the matter to give an
opportunity for additional feedback. Accordingly staff sent notices to the
owners of multi-family residential property in this city and notified them, of
tonight's meeting. Staff is continuing to recommend that the staff ordinance be
approved as proposed. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Is there anyone who wishes to address this proposed
zoning ordinance amendment? I would like to have you just state your name and
your address and I'd like to sort of limit this to about 10 minutes each.
Don Patton: Can I do less than that?
Mayor Chniiel: I'll take it.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I appeared before you before with the Lake
Susan Hills Partnership which is on 17 south of the city. 14e do not have any
multiple family currently under development but we'd certainly anticipate
something will be happening as the development maturity in the City is coming
around. I guess the reason that I'm appearing before
ng you is to oppose
philosophically what's happening. As a part of development, and I've developed
almost 15,000 units t) oughout most of the cities of the metropolitan area over
the last 20 years. The thing that's happening and good developers, bad
developers, whatever, but we've just continued to have a creeping regulation, a
cook book of development. The thing that's done with the planning departments
23
cl zbunci1 Meeting -December 18, 1989
I
saying this is what has to happen to the lots, as far as sizes go. With the
parks people wanting more and more. With engineering requiring more and more
and the Fire Department and the DNR and the Corps of Engineers, etc. etc. We've
continued to drive up cost and I as being in something that you can't legislate
called the market. You can't legislate the market and there's a lot of people
in the Twin Cities that are not low income. They're medium income getting into
the older, transitioning out of high technology that are having job problems.
You also have a lot of people that are in the early retirement situation from
' companies. I think that we can go so far and at some point we have to stop with
legislating what the market is because you're not going to legislate what the
market is. One of the most desirable sections, if I can call it that, that
' everyone says I'd love to have it in my community could never be built in the
Twin Cities anymore. Anywhere because it's legislated out. The lot size
doesn't fit. The green space doesn't fit. Nothing fits. The County Club of
Edina, it couldn't be built anymore but every city would love to have it in
their community. It doesn't happen because city councils...allow it. The thing
that it's done, it's continued to block creativity. As a developer, I can't
came in with much creative because there's so many rules that you have to abide
by so we're just going to have the same bland stuff that we've always had. I
don't think that's good for any of us. I think you need two, in some market and
again I emphasize the word market which you can't legislate with anything. Maybe
you need 2. Maybe you need 3 but I think the developer in choosing the market
that he's going to core before you with a project needs to hake that decision
and not the planning department or the City Council or the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
IIRick Murray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Rick Moray. I happen to
live in this community as well as do a little developing here. I got a bopy of
II the ordinance the other day and went through it. I guess what I'd like to speak
to, I won't take anywhere near the 10 minutes but the fact that Chanhassen in
this market that Don just mentioned, that Chanhassen restriction wise is
stepping right up to the top of requirements for multi-family housing. We're
I already there and there are a lot of communities that require 2 attached single
family dwellings or 2 attached garages for single family dwellings. I think
that after going through both of the drafts, the ordinances and what the
I Planning Commission came out with, it's fairer however it's right at the top of
what you folks are going to compete for. Whether you like it or not or whether
we like it or not as developers. We only have a certain amount of dollars and
everybody's competing for that. Communities are competing for the best
' .developers to cote forward with their dollars in their communities. When you
set standards that are beyond what the norm is, you're discouraging the best
developers because they're going to go where the market is. If you address
I those markets and you say, these dollars are going to go to serve the middle
income market and middle income is surprisingly low. It's amazing. Middle
income now in the Twin Cities, median income is somewhere around $25,000.00 to
I $28,000.00. I don't know what this year's figure is but amazingly low. Back in
college I can remember trying to rent apartments while I was going to school.
Even after school. $20.00 made a big difference and that's about $20.00-$25.00
is about the cost of that extra garage. If you made both stalls were going to
Ibe enclosed. That makes a difference. I got the situation right now in
Excelsior. We own 12 doubles over there. One of the buildings has a double
garage. That building is $25.00 more than the other buildings if you're going
' to rent them. That building's vacancy is twice that of the other units.
Anyway, in competing for development dollars, as a ccrmunity must do, it affects
24
i
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989 '
renters. It affects townhouse owners. The qualifying, if I did my arithmetic
right, the qualifying difference between a single car enclosed or 1 1/2 enclosed
versus that other half space that I think the original ordinance had in it,
cares to about $2,500.00 a year. $2,500.00 to some of us isn't a lot of money
but I can remember when it was an awful lot of money. I didn't care from a
background where, my neighbors generally liked me wherever I lived and I think
that right still be the case, most of them. Anyway, we weren't a detriment to
the carmmunity and there's a lot of people like that that are out there that need
a place to live. Who does the higher cost affect? It doesn't affect people who
can rake a choice of where they want to live but it affects the younger and it
affects the older. People who really don't have the advantage of making that
kind of choice. I would suggest that Chanhassen needs a broad market. We're a
developing community here. We have the advantage of setting rules and
ordinances and a picture that would attract people. Developers, quality
development, development dollars and people who would want to live here. We've
done a tremendous job downtown but I think, I don't think we want to segregate
our markets to say we don't want this class or this category of people here. I
think you want to keep your markets open to everyone and make a spot for them.
Not that Chanhassen can be hate for everybody. I'm not suggesting that but I'rm
suggesting that the opportunity should be there. That it could be. This II ordinance smacks of architectural censorship. I agree with Don. In the last 12
years that I've been developing, we have lost a lot of the creativity that at
one time we could exercise ourselves in that now are it's
pretty structured.
You're in this zone. This is exactly what you do. There's a lot of merit to
doing that. I've seen a lot of reasons for doing it in communities where I've
gone in to look for property. I think that regulation is good bugs' thin it's
got to be petered with discretion. An ordinance that sets out this is how it II should be, or this is exactly what it can be and only that, removes a lot of the
discretion and that's what this body is for. I know that you don't like that
because the approval process, if it's cut and dry it's real easy. I know I've
said before that I like rules being set out verbatim but if you're going to
verbatim, if you're going to take and segregate your markets so there's no
flexibility between markets like this intends to do or I think this starts to
do, you're really condensing the amount of people or the market that we can
develop for. Then if you go beyond that and you say okay we're going to address
markets. Feasibility of projects, our °company happens to be involved both in
the development section of the marketplace and the financing section of the
marketplace. If there is, the worse projects I've seen are projects that a
developer thought were going to work out okay and ended up not. You might get
people who are trying to compete with other communities that have lesser
standards. I'm not talking about lesser quality now. I'm talking about lesser
standards. Our State Building Code and the City ordinances and building codes,
those standards all remain the sane if they're reasonably applied by officials.
State officials and City officials. So I'm not addressing quality. Just
addressing the ordinance standards. If we're competing with other communities
that have lesser ordinance standards and the same quality, the developments that
are in those other communities and if you go through your list there, I think
the staff's pretty well laid them out for the western suburbs and the southern
suburbs. You're directly competing with the sites that are available in Eden
Prairie. You're directly carpeting with sites available in Plymouth. Sites
available in Minnetonka. We're the most restrictive here, or we would be the
most restrictive here. If someone had a site in Chanhassen to develop and they
weren't being competitive by that $20.00 or by that $1,200.00 or $2,500.00 fo rat
townhouse, people are going to go to the, they're going to go to the lesser '
25 '
City Council Meeting - December 18; 1989
expensive site. Not lesser quality but lesser expensive site and they're going
to spend their money there. The worse thing for a community is when a lender
capes in and fills the units up because he's not going to have anywhere near the
leasing criteria or the sales criteria that that original landowner had. Those
Iare the worse projects I've seen. Now you might pass an ordinance like this
that sets those standards or very structured standards. Very limited standards
but I would suggest that you're still going to compete with the sites that are
II available. Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Maple Grove. If you go around
the other way, you're really not going to compete with Edina. You know the
average sale price of a townhouse in Edina? It's $275,000.00 last year. We
can't fool ourselves. We're not going to compete in that market here yet. Don
mentioned swathing about maturity of markets. We've got to get there. I don't
think that we're quite there yet. I'd suggest that you consider, there are sane
very fine changes in here. I don't think the attached garages are one but
II Paul's pointed out several that the old ordinances skipped or were overlooked. I
think that some of those bear merit. I don't think that the number of enclosed
parking spaces bears merit.
ICouncilman Johnson: Rick, are you primarily going for the enclosed parking
spaces? The defining of how big a parking space is, 1/4 for a visitor's parking
spot, you don't have any problems with a lot of those? It's primarily the 1 1/2
enclosed?
Rick M.xrray: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Thank you.
Al Rlingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz, Chanhassen residence. I'm here as a landowner
in Chanhassen. Possibly getting sane of this type of zoning on my land sometime
in the future when TH 212 and TH 101 intersect my farm. I guess my biggest
concern is, have you ever thought of affordable housing? Affordable housing to
the people that work in Chanhassen. The young people that haven't got a
$40,000.00 a year job at this time that have to start somewhere down in the
$20,000.00 to $22,000.00 or even $15,000.00 to $18,000.00. Are we going to zone
' ourselves out of this kind of a place for our children and some of the people
that work in same of our industrial plants which we're really accumulating quite
rapidly in Chanhassen. Most of those people that work in quite a few of these
I places are down in the $6.00-$6.50 an hour range and they can't afford to even
buy a $70,000.00 house much less add another $10,000.00 onto a unit of a quad
`unit or an apartment unit that is being sold out in individual sized units per
family. I guess I'd ask you to really take that into consideration when you're
I asking for 2 enclosed units. Off street parking I can understand that but if
the street is wide enough in a residential area and these saw streets are in an
apartment area and you allow the street parking in a residential area, what's so
I wrong with allowing same of that for guests and visitors in an apartment area
because these people are actually paying the same assessment of front footage as
the people in the single family residential area. I've seen several apartments
in Chanhassen that have been in existence a long time and I don't think there's
been really many problems. I know of about 5 of them that have no enclosed
perking and they seem, to be doing quite well. They're normally at 95% capacity.
We've got a lot of our older residents living in than and as the city gets older
Iand the people in it get Older, we're going to have a lot more of that camping up
and these people are going to want a place to live in Chanhassen. Thank you.
26
16ALI, Luunc11 rye ng r 18,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, any discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I would think it's pretty plain from what I said the last
time that I'm against the 1 1/2 parking spots. I like most of the rest of it.
There's other parts of, on-street parking you can only do it overnight certain
parts of the year. It's not something you can do year round here which as usual II
as it cakes into winter we need to remind everybody of before the snowplows get
out there but this weekend before last I went to a housing conference sponsored
by the Lutheran Church here in the Twin Cities on this and this type of II ordinance is one of the things that they're fighting. In order to maintain life
cycle housing and housing for everybody, it is this type of ordinance that crakes
it to where people cannot afford the housing. We need the housing in this town
to fit the employees in this town, our kids as they grow up and want to move
out. Right now if our kids want to do it, there's a couple apartments available
but if they're full, then they've got to go to some other town. They can't
afford to live in Chanhassen. I'm going to vote against this because I think 1
enclosed parking spot seems to be the standard of all the other suburbs. I
think we should be setting minimum standards, not maximum standards. We go to 2
or 1 1/2, I don't think you'll ever see anybody go to 2.6 or anything bigger
than what our standards are. I'd hate to feel that we are being more exclusive
than Edina, given all the jokes that people make about Edina being exclusive.
I'd hate for us to start becoming the brunt of those jokes. We have people in
this camiunity who are on minimum income and we have a lot of jobs in this
_ ccem►unity. Mr. Carlson from United Mailing, Instant Webb, Victory Envelope, was
in here arguing for affordable housing one time. Very few of his employees live
here. They cone in to work but they can't afford to live here. Its your
project he was arguing for.
Don Patton: More than the young people, it's people who are retirThg on reduced
incomes. It's the spectrum of the age, not just the young and the people that
are starting.
‘ Councilman Johnson: I agree with you. When I said the life cycle and I talked '
about youth, knowing everybody here has kids but Don, both Don's here are
getting older quickly.
Mayor Chmiel: That's maturity. '
Councilman Johnson: Ch maturity. Maturing quickly. And they may be on fixed
incomes pretty soon. But true, the elderly in our society is more and more
becoming pushed out of housing. It's becoming a problem. If you do go, when I
was campaigning 3 years ago, going through the apartments out here. The
apartments without the garages, it was very high percentage of elderly, retired
people in those apartments.
Councilman Hoyt: Which ones don't have garages?
Councilman Johnson: The ones on Chan View over here. All they have is parking
lots. There's about 4 buildings over there. 5? Cur ex-mayor used to live over
in one of those. Still does. I haven't followed where he's gone in the last 2
•
years. I think it's tipsy important for this city not to, I think the R-12 is a
district where people are going to be moving into start or ending up when they
get onto the fixed income and they can no longer afford our constantly rising
taxes and everything 'in this area, or in the case of this year hopefully
27 '
City Council Meeting - December 18; 1989
declining taxes slightly. But yeah, no such thing as massive declining. I
still, I'm going to argue against it but I'll let you guys argue for it now.
' Councilman Boyt: Do you want to hear the other side? I'll give it a go. I
don't know if this will prevail. I've argued every time Jerome Carlson has come
in here and said give me housing for somebody who's making $13,000.00 a year,
that unfortunately that housing doesn't exist.
•
Councilman Johnson: Not at $13,000.00.
' Councilman Boyt: Show me a house that somebody can buy on $13,000.00 a year and
that's what $6.50 an hour works out to. The other thing I think that the
Council I hope keeps in mind is that residents are not demanding, asking for,
hinting at the desire to have this kind of housing. Now I'm not saying that we
shouldn't have it but there are better ways to get it than allowing people to
build to a reduced standard. I think we'd find that when we've made lots
smaller, it hasn't resulted in lower house prices. It's resulted in more
' problems for us. I think that what we want to do on the Council is give people
the highest standard that we can. I think that in Minnesota, and all you have
to do is go out tonight and try to start your car, we have a situation in which
during pert of the year having a garage may pass beyond the desirable into the
necessary. We've set for single family homes in Chanhassen 2 car garages are
the minimum. I think we ought to say the same thing for multiple family. I
think that if we don't, we're in essence not offering that option to people.
We're forcing them to take 1 car. If they've got 2 car garages and they don't
want to use it, maybe they can use it for storage. Maybe they can rent 4t out
to a friend but I suspect that if we went around and checked how many of these
apartment dwellers have 2 cars, we'd find that a very large percentage of then
have 2 cars. I'd like to see them have the ability to put those into parking.
I think that when we talk about, and I read the Planning Commission Minutes in
which they talked about the average income in Chanhassen, those figures are so
far from reality that I would consider them, to misleading, and maybe
intentionally misleading. The Planning Commission, Mr. Johnson gave a figure of
$29,000.00 as the median income in Chanhassen. In 1984 it was $39,686.00
according to the Met Council.
Councilman Johnson: The median was $39,000.00?
' Councilman Boyt: The median was $39,686.00. Now if you want to ca -pare that
' with surrounding communities, it was $43,000.00 in Eden Prairie. It was
$47,000.00 in Edina. Now let's suppose that over the last 10 years that that's
gone up $10,000.00. The last figure that I heard but the Met Council didn't
have it officially, was that the median income in Chanhassen was $50,000.00.
I'm saying that one of the things that the City Council does is it determines
' the flavor of a community. I think that when people live in apartments in
Chanhassen, that we ought to do everything we can to be sure that that apartment
gives them as high a standard of living as possible. Now we can choose to let
them build to the lowest possible standard but I'll bet you that that money goes
to the developer. That money goes to a quick sale for people who are hard
pressed to find a home. I agree. But I don't see Chanhassen residents saying
we want to be that kind of•conmunity. We want to be Noah's Ark to the western
' suburbs. I think people are saying protect my property values. Keep my taxes
as low as you can and relatively low priced housing does not keep their taxes
low. We subsidize those people in terms of taxes. So I think there's a couple
28
I
,City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989 1
of reasons why we should do this. Wamber one of which it gives people something 1
•
they need, which is they need a place to put their car, or their cars which I
think is frequently the case. I think we should go for the 2 car covered garage
standard for multiple family homes in Chanhassen. Whether that carries the day
or not, there's I think a less controversial issue as well and that is that we
talked a few months ago about daycare parking requirements. Out of the whole
list of requirements in there for parking, daycare was overlooked so I think we
ought to amend the parking requirements to include something for daycare
facilities.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. Councilman Boyt spoke to ire about that earlier this
evening. I do have a proposed standard for daycare parking that was based on
same survey work that I had done of a number of daycare facilities. It works
out to a requirement for 1 stall for each 6 children of licensed capacity. With II
your average daycare center which has about 110 children, you're looking at
about usually 19-20 stalls. The problem with daycare centers is that they have
a rush. Everybody comes at 7:30 in the morning or at 5:30 in the evening and
you need to have enough capacity so that people aren't parking out in the
streets when they have to pick up and drop off their kids. Mn my experience,
that standard seems to work pretty well.
Councilman Boyt: So I would like to see this rather lengthy acendnent modified
to include parking standard for daycare.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure whether I want to go into that yet. Looking at
daycares that I've seen and watched and observed, I don't find thab.a real
problem of having 1 stall per each 6 children. I've observed one tn...sat back
and watched that on a constant basis and this was when we were discussing it
sometime ago.
Councilman Boyt: I remember well. I
Mayor ardel: That flow was not there. Not there. I watched another and that
flow wasn't there. It seemed like they were more staggered than what you're
saying. It wasn't congested.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think that we've gone through here and I couldn't think
of anything else that we haven't put a standard in here. Bowling alleys,
churches, service stations. We should work out a standard for daycare centers,
whatever that's going to be and put it in here.
Councilman Johnson: Send that back to Planning C z'r fission.
Councilman Boyt: Well if we're going to amend something this lengthy, we should
get that taken care of somewhere between now and the final reading I would
think. The other point, you know I watched sarething right outside my back
door. When than Vista was approved shortly before Saddlebrook was approved
Rick, I was concerned about the price of homes there. My bet is that you felt
pressure from them because as I understood it, you were planning an upscale
development fram what than Vista was going to be in Saddlebrook but I don't
think you've been able to do that like you planned to do because of all the
competitive pressure from than Vista.
Rick Mirray: It's not only than Vista...Joe Miller Haines. 1
29
i
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
tMayor Qndel: Rick, would you like to cane up to the Microphone because we
can't pick this up for the Minutes.
Rick Murray: I guess without naming a lot of names but there's been a lot of
canpetitive pressure in Chanhassen and it has been for lower priced lots. We
were getting near, for the size of lot that we were offering, we were getting
' near top dollar for those lots from builders. than Vista was tough competition
and so was Lake Susan.
' Councilman Boyt: And I suspect that what happens is people build to our lowest
standard. I mean not all the people but we've got to face it, there is going to
be economic pressure on our lowest standard wherever we set it. In this regard,
' when I think about multiple dwelling apartment buildings, we have quite a few
buildings that have 1 car garages or no car garages. I think it's time that we
started building them with 2 car garages and move the standard up.
Rick Murray: Do you need the toughest standard in the Midwest to move it up?
Councilman Boyt: Maybe.
Rick Murray: Find me a community that has 2 covered garages in the Midwest.
Councilman Boyt: Well Rick I know from the survey that Paul did that this would
be the toughest standard.
Rick Murray: Not only in the Cities now. Let's expand it. Go find ond. I
' don't know of one Bill.
Councilman Johnson: Engineering wise, could you build one easily?
Rick Murray: Well you'd have to spread things out. That's what I mean when I
said censorship of, architectural censorship. You're really going to be limited
when you start putting all of those.
IICouncilman Johnson: You can't build a 3 story apartment.
' Rick Murray: If 2 stories are parking.
• Councilman Johnson: Dig a deep hole.
IRick Murray: You know you are definitely creating the market. With that
standard you're saying that this is the price.
ICouncilman Johnson: I think it's your hill R-12.
Rick Murray: I only own a little piece of it.
IICouncilman Johnson: You sold most of yours.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Tom?
Councilman Workman: Well Rick, you sold a little piece of your southern part of
Saddlebrook there over to Dean? I think what we're all kind of forgetting about
30
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
is maybe why all this all cage up. I think a lot of why this all came up was
because I don't think the City Council or the Planning C s mission or any, Park
and Rec Commission, anybody felt comfortable about what was going to be built up
on top of a very prominent hill in Chanhassen and so people started running
around trying to figure out a way maybe that it wouldn't occur. I'm not sure
Dean how many people you were trying to get to have in there but you were trying
to get about a half an acre of park in there with several hundred people in
there which anywhere in the midwest would be laughable I think. So it is a two
sided, we have a lot of developers in here tonight and there's a developer's
standpoint and we're coming up on at least my one year anniversary on the
Council. I still consider myself fairly new to the job but I do know one thing
and that's be careful when a developer's coming in. I was telling somebody on
the phone today that one word that I've heard quite a bit over this past year
was free. It's free. We can build this. We can do it. It's free. You know
nothing's for free but we have Frontier limes you know. Even with all of the
guards that you put on, if I could be blunt, people are getting it. I won't be
blunt. I live in a townhouse. I've said that everytime this doggone issue's
came up. I live in a townhouse. I thank Gad that I've got a 2 car garage and
$25.00 is a big deal to me. It is to my neighbors. I live in a quad. The
other 3 people in the quad are retired. If they don't have 2 cars, they've got
it packed with firewood or something else. On the other hand, the twinhones
right near by also have 2 car garages. They've got boats and trailers and
pick-up trucks and I cannot get down the street. I can't get down the street.
I don't mean to keep anybody, as I repeat this, I don't mean to keep anybody
' from sharing the beauty of our community. As I mentioned before, I've got some
questions about apartment buildings but when it cares to townhouses`and single
far►ily homes, you've got a lot more stuff than you've got when you:re living in
an apartment. When you move out of an apartment, you throw the shdes out that
you haven't worn since the last move. Or whatever. You keep moving it because
you're moving. I just think that a lot of the discussion of philosophy about
attempting to keep people out of the market, $70,000.00 home is a pretty
D inexpensive home I think these days. I
Councilman Hoyt: Unfortunately.
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I think we're talking about going to $50,800.00 and '
less hones. Then it became a matter of a prominent area in our city. We've got
Readi Mix in one end and we're going to have a parking lot on the other. It
sort of became that thing so everybody got real nervous about that and I think
that's where a lot of this came from. Maybe it needs same fine tuning so that
we don't become the hard guys. I'm by no means living down by Herb or anything.
You know I'm living in a townhouse. I :wean I'm maybe a pert of the group that
you're talking about here but I don't intend to stay in it either but to go
lower and to see lower, mach lower than that starts to get into an area where I
think same of the ideas that Bill has had start to make a little bit of sense.
To start saying we're trying to divy up the categories of people or pick on
these people or the homeless and the downtrodden and we kind of get shoved down
this hole. I don't feel comfortable being pushed in that direction. I don't
think it's fair. Again, when a developer camel in and says he wants to ram
several hundred people into an area and provide a jungle gym on the quarter to
half an acre piece of;parkland, I don't think anybody thinks that's fair and
that's where this whole thing has taken off I think because we felt that maybe
we were being taken advantage of which wouldn't have been the first time.
31 1
I
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
Mayor (hcr iel: Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have emotions both ways here and then I have sane
' thoughts so I'll concentrate on my thoughts. I appreciate all the comments that
were made about keeping the environment competitive. I do believe that we
should do that. I also believe that maybe we are setting the highest standard
' here within the State but I guess my main concern is that, you know and I've
heard a lot of consents about affordable housing and I do agree that Chanhassen
should have affordable housing. I don't want to keep low income people out but
I guess my question is, what's low income? Would it be under 30? Is that kind
of what everybody thinks is low income?
Mayor C rdel: Probably so. $30,000.00 I think.
' Councilman Bout: If you go with Jerome Carlson's $6.50 an hour, that canes out
to $13,000.00 a year.
Councilman Johnson: Almost everybody in that group's got at least 2 incomes in
their household. A lot of them have 2 jobs.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but my point is that I think that we are already
precluding the very low income by our tax base. They just simply can't afford
the taxes here in Chanhassen and therefore we're not even going to be targeting
the even if you do build it $10,000.00 cheaper by not putting in the 2 garages.
I Those people can't live here because of the tax base. And I do wonder sometimes
if the difference between 60 and 70, the low income people, if they can't afford
70, I wonder if they can afford 60. So although I agree with all your consents,
IIwhen I'm looking at the figures here I just, I don't see that the really low
income could afford to live here anyway and then I would go with building the
higher standard because I think it's more a safety issue than a profit issue
IIhere.
Dean Johnson: A lot of what they've been talking about is because of me and
' also stuff that I guess I've given, I guess I'd like to go over it a little bit.
Some of the comments here I guess hinge on this. This is the overlay or the
transparency I showed you. This is a 1989 survey. This was done this year.
This was done by the Minnesota Labor and Economic Development and this canes
I from a letter that they put out on your community. These are the types of jobs
you have in your community and are getting in your community because of
'Rosemount and the Press and other things. Minimum wage $3.75 is $7,800.00.
' Shipping clerk, $8.10, $16,000.00. These are the low end and the high end that
was done on that list that was made up on your community. $25,000.00, when you
get to the high end here, your accountants and tool and die makers. Okay?
II They've determined that $29,000.00 is the difference between high income and all
the other incomes. Moderate, median and low income. At $25,000.00, those
people cannot afford a $70,000.00 loan. At $60,000.00, instead of $23,000.00-
$25,000.00, those people just qualify so you should realize that low income or
II average income isn't $70,000.00. And what you're saying can't afford the
$70,000.00 and I addmit that. The project that I'm talking to you isn't going to
take everybody on this list.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Very few.
11
32
1
City Council Meeting - December 18; 1989
11
•
Dean Johnson: It's going to pick up about 3 or 4 groups basically. What do you 11
want to do? Do you want to cut that machinist out of there? Is it fair to cut
that machinist out of there who's single and the only income he has is what he
makes at that plant in Rosemount.
Councilwoman DimJer: Well on the other hand, housing should not take up more
than what is it, 35% of your income? So we don't want to stretch these people
either you know. '
Dean Johnson: But that's what qualifying is for. That's what mortgage bankers
are for and that's why FIB, sets top ends and low ends of debt and qualifying
ratios so within those they take into those things.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they just barely make it.
Dean Johnson: Not all of them. Same of them have gift letters. May have cone
out of a divorce with $5,000.00 so they can put it down so they can qualify for
those types of things. All of that stuff enters into this. The other thing I II
wanted to show is something that Bill said. I don't know what you're average
incase is in Chanhassen. The $39,000.00 you know I'm sure you know...
Councilman Boyt: Well you quoted it to the Planning Camm-ission. '
Dean Johnson: No. I quoted $22,385.00 and that was put out by the Carver, or
excuse me. $21,112.00 and that was the median wage in Carver County is what I
had.
JP
Councilman Boyt: When? I
_ Dean Johnson: That was from that same thing.
Councilman Boyt: No, if your statistic is within 7 or 8 years of today, I'd be
amazed. The Metro Council doesn't quote a number anything like that.
Councilman Johnson: Carver County? '
Councilman Boyt: Carver County is surprisingly not a lot different than
Chanhassen.
Dean Johnson: This cones out from the Minnesota Jobs and Training and
Employment and Wages.
Councilman Boyt: And that year?
Dean Johnson: I don't have the year written in this report. The other thing
is, I guess in my project, because I know a lot of this hinged on my project,
was when we were talking about the park. If the issue is, the reason that you
didn't want my project and all these subsequent things that happened and now
you're looking at making strict zoning ordinances so nobody else can go on it.
When I first cane with it, staff you know, because of your park director and
stuff like this, recgnoended that I give cash and put in this playground
equipment. I never offered to have it for a ground or I never tried to put park
equipment you know in one corner of the project because that's what I wanted to
do. The staff frog► the park staff, the park =mission, recommended cash and
33
11
.city Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
this park equipment so we concurred with it. I have 3 staff reports that say
this. Then they changed their mind and went to land and so now we've given
land. We did not try to cane out and say we're trying to get away with
anything. We were going to be paying fees and putting in the park equipment.
And then it changed to land so now we are trying to give land so at least that
should be clarified. That's all I have to say.
Councilwaran Dialer: I have one more comment. I brought out last time under I
think it was Section 20-1123. It's on page 5 about the lighting. I wonder if
anything was looked into there. We were going to look into the number of lumins
or foot candles.
Mayor Chriel: Foot candles.
IICoancilvman Dialer: Page 5. Under lighting, it's Section 20-1123. Paul, was
anything looked into there? I had requested that we specify a certain amount of
lamination.
' Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dialer, no. I really haven't looked at that. Now
this ordinance is structured to minimize impacts, off site impacts frat1 lighted
parking lots. It doesn't get at I think the issue that you have about the
safety of those parking lots. Possibly if this ordinance passes tonight in the
first draft, I can talk to Jim Chaffee and see if there's a minimum standard for
lighting that's an accepted standard. I'm not aware of one if there is.
IICouncilwaran Dialer: Okay. I would like that researched because the moments
that I've had that the parking lots that are already existing are not will
enough lit.
Paul Krauss: We also do circulate plans as we get then to the various
I departments in the city and it's been my experience in the past in reviews such
as that that you get public safety input. If you have underground parking lots,
that they want them well lighted. That they want TV surveillance and that kind
of thing.
IICouncilwaran Dialer: You're not aware then or we have another ordinance that
covers lighting in parking lots?
Paul Krauss: I don't think we do. This is where you probably should put it.
Councilwoman Dialer: Would you check into it?
IPaul Krauss: Sure.
1 Councilman Johnson: Ursula, trying to get more lighting into a parking lot and
then we look at the new shopping center where we're trying to bring the lights
down lower. We're at odds with each other there.
ICouncilwoman Dialer: I know but that's why I thought it'd be good here. This
is just multi-family residences.
IIPaul Krauss: No, this would apply to commercial.
1
34
i
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
Councilman Johnson: It's all commercial, industrial and multi-family parking
lots. This is all parking. This isn't just irulti-family residence.
Councilman Boyt: You don't have to go higher with the light in order to provide
more lighting. '
Mayor Q iel: You can get a direction of light flow depending upon which way
you want it to go. '
Councilman Johnson: But more and more and more for more and more and more cost.
Then you're driving the cost of businesses... '
Councilwoman Dimler: My concern is that we have safety in the parking lots.
Councilman Boyt: There is. ,
Counciluman Dimler: Especially for the elderly. You know they're dunning
anyway so they're having a hard time seeing at night. '
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than go into reiteration as to basically what's said, I
too a' leaning towards the 2 car garages. I think that it's time that we
probably take a stand within the community. I feel basically that 2 car garages II
are needed not only for the availability of having 2 cars. If you have 1 car,
you're still going to utilize that for the other storage because normally in
those kinds of buildings you don't have capacity or storage. Things that I
think about are the boats, same trailers and things of that nature/hat are
parked out there as well and they're there. So I guess without gointo much
further ado, I guess I would lean towards the 2 car garages contained within
that R-12 family dwelling. Any other futher discussion?
•
Councilman Workman: What is, maybe Dean you can answer it for me. I know you
talked about this last time, what's the difference in the cost on a home that
you said between the 1 car and the 2 car?
Councilman Boyt:. Be said $10,000.00. That's what he said. '
Dean Johnson: In townhames. The reason for that is to stretch the face of it
out enough so that you can get the 2 cars in. You end up having to increase the
living area at the same tine. Understand that the garage stall itself does not
cost $10,000.00. The fact that you have to have enough face to the house in
order to do it, especially when you go with the 35% Impervious surface that you
have on it makes it, for any type of design, almost mardator_y to be somewhat
tucked into the house. You have to increase the width of the house and
consequently you get to increase size and the second stall garage and that's
where the $10,000.00 comes from. I
Councilman Workman: So we're talking about the difference between 50 and 60?
Dean Johnson: You have to realize that you know that the low end units that I
was talking about, your single car ones, keeping square footage down were going
to sell in the mid-50!s so what you're talking about is the mid-50's to
mid-60's. $10,000.00 is increasing cost to these people by 1/6. That's what
you're doing to then. Making 1/6 of a payment which could be as much as $150.00
more than they're paying.
35 ,
1
City Council Meeting - December 18; 1989
Herb Bloomberg: It's not that important but obviously I've been observing your
=rents in regards to storage and double garages and all that sort of thing. I
know that over here on the Villas up on TH 101, we insisted, we wouldn't sell
that property unless they used double garages but the main thing that I think of
is that everybody needs storage. And if you realize that the present technology
is all built with trusses. We used to have an attic. We don't have any attics
anymore. We've got space. There's a great place to store popcorn but
absolutely you can't put anything up there. I think that this to ire is the
biggest factor is that there is no other storage. I've done many homes,
' expanded because they had an attic and you could go up and build extra roams.
Today you can't. Iirean we've got these great structures and the technology is
all filled with nothing but trusses. But the difference, you've got to build
your walls anyhow and if you really analyze that material, like a garage floor
' and a couple of trusses and sore roof, that section doesn't start to commence to
get to be $10,000.00. In fact I don't think it gets close to $5,000.00 to make
the difference between a single. I think any engineering study would prove that
I out. But we all need storage. Of course I'm interested in historic
preservation. Most things are found in attics that people have saved and
nowadays, you've got a generation now, there's no place to save anything but we
have to live with that. But the one way we can gain a little storage space is
by having at least a double garage.
Mayor Cirrael: Thank you. Any other further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Were we going to then hold the daycare for a future dap?
' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have that yes.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would move approval mending the multi-car parking to 2
spaces.
Councilman Workman: Where's the apartment requirement?
Paul Krauss: B(6) .
Councilman Boyt: I think one area for discussion is do we want to have a
I different standard for efficiency, 1 bedrom units than we do for 2 bedroom, and
larger units. I guess my off hand estimation would be that probably maybe an
efficiency but a 1 bedroa►► unit can very easily- generate 2 cars.
ICouncilman Johnson: There could be sane people with no cars.
Councilman Boyt: Not in Chanhassen.
ICouncilman Johnson: Why not?
I Councilman Boyt: well the only reason I can think of for having no car is you
don't have a driver's license.
Councilman Johnson: That's possible too. My brother-in-law's about to lose his
for quite a long, long time. j
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't tell us why.
36
I
/
City Council Meeting - December 18; 1989 1
Councilman Johnson: Because of what we talked about earlier. Alcohol. His
third DWI.
Councilman Workman: What's his nacre? '
Councilman Johnson: He doesn't live in this town.
Mayor Chnael: Don't say it.
Councilman Johnson: I won't say it but it's the sad truth. According to my I
mother-in-law, it's going to be like 10 years is the rardatory thing in Nebraska
or something for losing his license. My mother-in-law is very misinformed a
lot. i
Mayor oriel: I hope she doesn't live too close either.
Councilman Johnson: You don't distribute in Omaha do you? '
Councilman Boyt: Would it be amendable to the Council to have Section B amended
to such that effeciency units would have 2 stalls 1 of which would be completely II
enclosed. That 1 bedroom units and larger would have 2 stalls which 2 units
must be enclosed in the garage.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're separating it 1 into two different ones? ,
Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on? ''"
•
• Councilman Boyt: C1n page 6, Multi-family. Item, 6(b) . Saying efficiencies,
just strike 1 bedroom units out of that number 1 clause and move it down to
number 2. And number 2, change the 1 1/2 to a 2. mere it says 1 1/2 must be
completely enclosed. Change that to a 2. I would move passage of this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just a minute here. Are you saying that 1 bedroom and 2
bedroom and larger units must have 2 stalls then?
Councilman Boyt: Right. So I would move approval of the first reading.
Brad Johnson: Could I say something before you go too much further? Just a
=vent.
Councilman Boyt: Let's get a second. '
Mayor Ctniel: Okay, we have emotion on the floor. Do us have a second?
Councilman Workman: I'll second it for discussion.
Brad Johnson: I'd like to ask a procedural question. When you have your first
reading, what happens on your second reading? Can you rescind your vote or
anything like that? I was not able to be here and I would say this is one of
the more crucial votts that you're going to be taking and I don't own any
multiple land and I'm not involved. I've got one that we're building but I
think you really should think out this whole ordinance. What I see it as is far
more stringent than is necessary to acconclish whatever the goal is and it
37
I
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
doesn't deal with just tons of issues. I can say you've got a St. Hubert's
sitting over here planning on building an elderly housing project and you're not
going to have a garage in an elderly housing project. Build a 28 unit and we've
got 8 parking spots. You just assure they will not have cars and there's all
different kinds, types of housing. Not to say if you had over here a 3 story
apartment building like we're building over here or have been built all over the
ocrvunity. Maybe you can build an apartment for 45 for rent. For $45,000.00 to
' $50,000.00 cost, maybe $55,000.00, you've just made it impossible to build the
standard 3 story apartment building in Chanhassen. That just doesn't make any
sense to me at all. It's just impossible. You can't build it and be
' competitive in cost because you have to provide one parking lot. I think Dean
said it 2 meetings ago. You provide 1 parking spot underneath the building. To
provide 2 you have to then put all kinds of garages around it. It just doesn't
make any sense and I think you guys should look at this. I think you're
' reacting to an overall multiple question when you may be having to deal with
coverage. All kinds of things that, neighborhood associations. There are all
different ways of taking care of what you're trying to accomplish and I think
you should all look into it. Have Paul look into it. I told the Mawr the
other day, I've been driving around trying to look at, there are good projects
and there are bad projects that are multiple. If you go over to Hazeltine,
they're building a very nice one there. Each one with 1 car garage. I think
you guys should just look at all of those and rethink what you're trying to
accomplish because I don't think, we're going to cane back to this in the
future. There's a guy sitting right there, units do you have to develop
multiple? It's going to sit there forever. It's just life because you're just
beyond what Chhaska's is. You're beyond what Victoria, maybe not Victoria.
Waconia. You're way beyond Minnetonka and Eden Prairie and they've got lot of
' land left that's multiple. We've got land to develop. You should have a
percentage of it in housing other than single family. I think these are just
decisions you're going to have to look at and I think that's all I've got to
' say. This ordinance to me makes no sense whatsoever from a technical point of
view. You're accomplishing maybe what you're trying to accomplish but you're
really limiting all future development within this community. I think you'll be
back at the table about 10 more times, I would think you'll be back a number of
II times. You encouraged him because I was here. You encouraged him to put
multiple in for low income and now you just made probably impossible for him to
build any and that would be my concern so, there's another reading. I think you
all should just take a look at other community ordinances. Take a look at other
projects and see what they've done because there are good ones and bad ones. I
agree. And we're just cementing, there's a number of apartment buildings over
' here that have no garages at all and the parking lots aren't full. If you go
I over and look. I mean it's just different. I think that's my concern. I'm not
pro or con on what's going on over there but I think you should look at that
ordinance heavily because it is, I build a lot of apartment buildings. This is
IIridiculous from a point of view of strictly an ordinance.
Mayor Qir►iel: Thanks Brad.
1 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I can address a couple things that Brad brought up.
On page 7 pertaining to senior citizen housing, there's the third paragraph
down. It says that the City may apply a decreased parking requirement for
II senior housing projects orrother residences which by their nature should
generate a decreased parking demand so you have the flexibility to work with
seniors. I don't think that that's an issue per se. Theoretically I suppose
38
I
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989 i
you could also make a determinationi if federal funding for low income housing ,
comes back and the HUD guidelines insist that you have 1 car and no car parking,
you can make a determination to waive that requirement for same higher purpose.
If those projects exist so I think you can deal with that. As to the issue of 2 1
cars per unit versus the 1 1/2 that had been proposed. I guess I'd have to give
you my own judgment that I think the 2 per unit is by everything I've seen on
the excessive side. I think there's a real physical limitation in terms of II being able to accatmodate it in the types of buildings that are being built. In
the architectural plans that I've seen, I don't believe that you can. What you
would have to do and I've seen a few buildings that this is done, you basically
have a footprint for the building and the underground parking garage has to go I/out under lawn area beyond the footprint of the building. That's not impossible
to do. Not many people do it. It's fairly expensive and it has some design
limitations but it could be done. I'd like to recommend that you look again at
the proposal that was developed by the Planning Canrission. I think that
represents the upper end of the spectrum in terms of the expectations placed on
multi-family housing in the Tiin Cities and I think would accomplish your goal.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see is if anyone else has additional
information before it goes to it's next reading, give that information to us.
Enlighten us. Give us more specifics as to some of your concerns and then we
can go from there. We had a motion on the floor. Any additional discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: He had an amenimment to that. '
Councilman Boyt: I just gave the motion with that in it so it's replly not.
Councilman Johnson:-- You're approving the whole thing with that. • '
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should separate it.
Mayor Chmiel: If it's indicated. '
Councilman Johnson: Is there something else you want to wend?
Mayor Oriel: Multiple family is what you made.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure that a 1 bedroom needs... ,
Mayor Chmiel: Well the efficiency is left out with the 1 bedroom.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. That's not what you meant was it? Efficiency has 2 '
stalls?
Mawr andel: 1. '
Councilman Boyt: One covered and one not covered. The efficiency does.
Councilwomaan Dingier: And you wanted to move 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom or larger 1
units to 2 stalls with 1 1/2 completely enclosed? And I'd like to have Paul
address that. Why dill you put 1 bedroom?
Paul Krauss: You have a lot of single people these days. You have couples too
but you've got a lot of single people these days buy 1 bedroom condominiums.
39
I
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
For example, if you're going to invest in a place to own, an owner: occupied
situation, for the extra square footage and a lot of people I know that have
done this, make the decision if they're going to buy it, they're going to own it
for a period of time. They want the extra square footage. They buy a 1 bedroom
rather than an efficiency. They still only have 1 car. Granted you could have
a situation where there's a couple living together or two unrelated people
living together, whatever where it happens but when you average the whole thing
out, you're not looking at the need, probably in my estimation for 2 enclosed
parking stalls for every 1 bedroom► apartment.
Councilman Boyt: If I might respond to that. You've indicated in here
sarewhere that you're only requiring them to include one of those garages in the
lease or sale of the property. That's part of it so if you don't have a need
' for 2 cars, maybe you only have the 1 garage but it's sitting there available.
As Mr. Bloomberg pointed out, there's a tremendous need for storage in these
buildings and none of those covered garages axe going to go empty. I think that
there is, I'm interested in the architectural problems that we're posing. I'd
like to see how that gets worked out. Maybe we end up going to stand alone
garages as we have now in our apartment buildings. Maybe 1 bedroom apartments
fits where they are right now with efficiencies. I'm open to that but the way I
proposed it, I moved them down to go in there with the higher standard.
Cou cilwa*.an Dimler: I was wondering what Paul's reaction, why he wrote it up
at the top there?
Councilman Workman: Maybe where we're running into...is in this multi-family.
Multi-family is anything from a twin home to a 300 unit apartment buileng. Is
that right?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I think when we start to mix those twins and quads, etc. I
don't think we've got enough definition there. I've said it now both times
we've talked about this that the apartment building doesn't make as much sense
' as the townhouse idea because as fax as getting parking under and around and
where it's going to be doesn't quite make sense to me yet. So while I'd be
willing to go along with passage of the first reading, I do want to see some
I guess, I don't see the word apartment building in here. Because I think that
is a completely different category of housing from twins and quads.
Boyt: But see down in here we talk about 20 dwellings. You really
ICouncilman
don't get into the complicated garage structures until you get over 20 together.
20 is your typical apartment building.
Brad Johnson: That's 40 parking spaces.
Councilman Johnson: Enclosed.
' Brad Johnson: That's a lot.
Councilman Workman: I dort t think we're going to be restricted to, as
I Chanhassen grows and Al Kiingelhutz down by TH 212, etc. I don't think people
are going to continue to build this simply 20 unit apartment buildings because
they're usually a lot bigger than that. I guess just in my mind I see some
40
City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
I
problems with that. Because I think apartment complexes are a completely
different thing than what Dean wants to build and townhouses so I think when
we're kind of lumping them together, it doesn't...
Councilwoman Diller: Do you want to create a separate category then for 11 apartment houses? Can we do that?
Councilman Johnson: Put twins in. Put quads in. I mean you know, your R-4's,
your R-8's, your R-12's. We've got different zoning districts and we're 1
applying one standard to all three. I personally think that the one standard,
it's good to have one standard. It should be one car.
Councilman Boyt: The issues are almost the same. I think the design issues and
our desire to flex to that changes as a building gets larger but the issues of
either the storage or the parking requirements, the standards that we set,
I think are the sage whether we're talking about a quad home or whether we're
talking about a 100 unit apartment building. The design issues are different
but the issues of storage and protection of property. The ability to store your
car out of the winter are the same. '
Councilman Johhnson: One of the twins behind ne has a single car garage. Of
course they've got 4 people living there and each of theme have a car and some of '
then have more than 1 car. So a 2 car garage would help but we're still going
to have cars in the street.
Don Patton: I guess I would like to ask the Council to table this and expand '
it. As long as you have multiple zoning, I think you should reall `look at the
parking requirements. I realize you're trying to simplify this into a couple
things but I really think that multiple family is completely different. Tam, I
really support what you're saying and I don't think it's, especially with the
R-12 that we'll be looking at in the future. I don't see that as we had it
_ approved in our PUD here, it isn't going to work that way.
Councilman Johnson: You've got 4, 8 and 12 in your PUD.
Don Patton: &actly and it's not going to work that way. '
Councilman Johnson: What do you think about 2 cars enclosed in 4 and 8?
Don Patton: Jay, I'd really hate to comment on that at this point but one of
the things again, a quad, a townhouse, I can understand a little bit of that but
the thing I disagree with Cbuncilnan Boyt, I just hate to see everything
legislated. You're going to get a lot of 2 cars with efficiencies or whatever
but I just don't think, I think that should be for us to came forward to you as
a Council and justify that to you rather than setting up some type of rule for
it. As much as I respect Mr. Bloomberg, there's another industry set up for
storage which you have in the city of Chanhassen for people that need that.
Mayor andel: The only trouble is that they don't go there. They're all on the
street and that's what I've been seeing. Not only here but in other cczmwiities
that I've reviewed also and that's my major objection.
{ Don Patton: With apartments?
41 1
pity Council Meeting - December 18, 1989
Mayor C del: With apartments and multiple dwellings, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Storage of cars.
Mayor Chriel: Yeah. Cars outside on the streets.
Councilman Johnson: They do it on houses too. They do it on single family
houses with double car garages. There's one across the street from me, they
have 1 car in the garage and 1 on the street.
Councilman Boyt: Not now.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah now.
' Councilman Boyt: Well it's illegal.
Mayor Chmdel: Alright. We have a motion on the floor. We also have a second.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to have the motion restated. It's been so
long we don't know what the motion is anymore.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well this is for the first reading. The motion is as
stated in the written document with the change to item 6(b) (1) moving 1 bedroom
unit down to number 2 in that category and changing item (2) so that it reads 2
stalls must be completely enclosed in a garage. As we all understand that the
first reading so it's open to change.
ICouncilman Workman: How many readings are we going to have on it, two?
Mayor Chriel: Yeah. We can always change it the next time.
1 Councilman Boyt: I could have added a lot more restrictions but I decided not
to.
Councilman Johnson: No, I mean being the most restrictive in the Midwest is not
too bad.
11 Councilwa*an Dimler: Should we vote on this amendment separately from the whole
ordinance?
ICouncilman Hoyt: This is the ordinance. There is no other.
Councilman Johnson: Is there any other amendments to vote on?
II Councilwaran Dunker: I want to vote the whole thing through but I don't want
that amendment.
Mayor Chriel: The amendment of what...
Councilwoman rimier: Cif moving the 1 bedroom down to 2 enclosed stalls.
Councilman Johnson: Then it fails.
42
City Council Meeting - Decenber 18, 1989 1
Councilman Boyt: Yeah right. You just put it back together. It'd be just a ,
quick. If you want to vote, if you don't like it the way it is there, then vote
against it and then bring up a new motion. It'd be just as quick.
Mayor Ciriel: Okay, us have a motion on the floor. And a second still stands.
Councilman Workman: Co you have another motion in mind? I
Councilwoman Dumler: That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Councilman Boyt: It's the first reading. You can certainly change it the next
time around.
Councilman Johnson: Your changing the motion will be easy. It's just you don't II
move 1 bedroom.
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah right. Just leave it as it is.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading
of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Cbde for Division 2,
Parking and Loading as written by staff with the following wendment to Section
6, Dwelling:
b. Nlti Family: '
1) Efficiency - Two (2) stalls one (1) of which must be completely enclosed
in a garage.
2) One (1) Bedroom and Larger Units - Two (2) stalls of which two (2). must
be completely enclosed in a garage. This requirement is to be assessed
on a gross basis for the entire project.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried 1
with a vote of 4 to 1.
AWARD OF BIDS: FIRE DEPARTMENT FITNESS EQUIPMENT - CONTINUED.
Mayor Qr iel: Okay, let's just move back with the Fire Department fitness
equipment. John, are you ready to answer some questions? Just state your name
and address and there are same questions.
John Wolf: My name is John W31f. I'm a 4 year member of the fire depart=ment '
and I was more or less volunteered by the fire depart=ment to help them put
together some exercise equipment recommendations to the City Council.
Mayor Oriel: Good. Thank you. Bill, you had some questions.
Councilman Boyt: Ri47:t I did. It's my understanding that you have this amount II of money budgeted but I was wondering why is an exercise bicycle and a tread'Sll
so expensive when your Schwinn Aerodyne is a third that. I think treadmills
1
43
I • City Council Meeting December 4, 1989
II ^% all fronts and in all aspects of city life. You can become more efficient and
;> more cost effective if you're slightly bigger.
rZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN"
REVIEW, AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS, FIRST READING.
Jo Ann Olsen: Paul's out sick so I'm going to try to take his place on this.
' They originally were proposing the enclosed 2 parking spaces and after that went
through review by the Planning Commission, they reduced that to 1.5 parking
stalls that would have to be provided enclosed for the multiple family. We also
went through different areas in the zoning ordinance that needed to be improved
upon such as parking standards, visitors parking, and I guess I'll just leave it
at that and if you have any questions, I'll answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion? Is there anyone wishing to ••
address this?
Councilman Johnson: I was kind of wondering what the group was here for. I do
have same discussion but let's hear from the public first here.
Dean Johnson: As you know, my name is Dean Johnson and I'm in front of you to
talk about the parking issue. I have talked about this issue with the Planning
Commission when it was in front of them. Maybe, I have the versionyor I have
the full presentation that I gave the Planning Commission back 2 weeks ago. I
' guess the question that comes into my mind is, do we need to go through the
whole report and all the stuff that I have put in front of the Planning
Cam►ission? I guess I'm looking for a little guidance. One and a half units on
the townhouse project, although we feel is a little severe, is a workable
situation. We feel that the apartment building part is where it is still an
unworkable situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Dean, maybe I can just answer that. We do have the Minutes of
the Planning Commission and all discussions of what you have here and I believe
it goes on for 3 pages.
Dean Johnson: That's why I bring it up. No, it goes on for 7 actually.
Mayor Chmiel: In several different locations but in one spot here it's 3 pages.
If you could just give us a broad overview.
Dean Johnson: Just to get same things out of the way here because...a lot of
what I'm going to show you came from different things and I guess I'd just like
to show same of the documents that we went through first. Same of it came from
the ca munity profile. The types of 'wages paid out to the employees and that.
' came from something put out by the Department and Trade and Economic
Development. I'm sure you Planning Commission has it. The Met Council report
which I'll be reading from. The Housing Development Giide was something that we
11 used. Also the Minnesota Salary Survey was a booklet in which we took a lot of
this data from so a lot of what I'm talking about is with those and same of the
stuff, I'm going to have some things for the projecter. I guess what I want to
do is recap the Planning Commission. I guess the types of things that we talked
43
• City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989
about that I presented that with is first establishing a need for affordable
housing in Chanhassen. We talked to same extent about the types of people per
the incomes and it showed that a lot of the people that were coming in new to
the City, a lot of the people that were already working here needed this type of
housing because of their wage structure that they have. We established at that
thing through same different forms and in this case it was a MIS listing sheets
for single family houses and townhouses in Chanhassen. That there is very
little in this market in Chanhassen. In fact, if I remember right. In houses
there was one and in townhouses there were 6 that would fit into this category
in all of Chanhassen for the year 1989. We talked a lot and Paul was real
helpful in this, in talking about the garage ordinance in relation to the
impervious surface ordinance. In other words, that the garages had to be almost
tuck under style units in order that with the 35% impervious surface ordinance,
that was the only way in which to do this project unless you reduce density
which again would raise housing costs so for the affordable housing thing, with
those two ordinances combined, would be real restrictive. I guess the other
thing we talked quite a bit about again was the fact that in the make-up of 1
bedroom and 2 bedroom units and in the make-up of the people that would be
renting then, which meant divorced, retired, singles, all of those types of
groups of people, we showed percentages of those types of people. Ropes of
wages that these people would have to have in order to qualify even for the
minimum that I was proposing say in my project. We showed an awful lot of that
staff and came to the conclusion that there is a need for 2 bedroom units with
only 1 car garage because of the fact that there are a lot of singles out there
or there are retired people where they have only the one car. They don't have
children anymore. The other thing that we talked about is we talked about the
fact that there is legislation, 1986 legislation through the State you know that
said that cities should do things to accept a portion of the affordable housing
people or housing that is necessary out there. We read some passages out of the
Met Council about the fact, maybe I should read those. In the housing guide
here in one spot, several policies deal with local governments and developers
can facilitate production of affordable housing. They recommend modifying
zoning ordinance or housing sizes, lot sizes and garages. It goes on to talk
about examining public service costs for streets and streamlining procedures for
approving housing developments. Encouraging cooperation between communities and
private housing, developers and producing affordable housing. There's also a
statement when it gets back into the actual technicalities or the physical parts
of building. It says eliminating garages. A garage can add several thousand
dollars to the cost of a house. Many people consider one a necessity but
garages are not essential for basic living needs. Eliminating a garage can
substantially reduce the price of a house. Market demands should dictate
whether garages are constructed. So in this type of stuff we went with them.
I guess at this point I'd like to introduce the architect that they heard and
I'd like to have him talk about more the apartment side then since you have read
the Minutes and stuff so I'd like to introduce Hal Pierce which, he's an
architect with a group called Design Resource Group.
Hal Pierce: Good evening. I'm Hal Pierce. I'm an architect with Design
Resource Group. I've got over 15 years of design experience in multiple family
housing and I'm also currently a member of the Planning Commission on a
neighboring community so I'm familiar with parking requirements. What I'd like
to readdress is same of the physical constraints of designing maybe a typical 3
story apartment building. I've prepared a couple overheads. This is a typical
3 story condominium building with an underground garage. This basically shows
44
i
City Cbuncil Meeting - December 4, 1989
1 , that the garage is in the basement and there are 3 units stacked above the
garage. The plan would show how a typical 1 and 2 bedroom unit would stack
above these garage spaces. Based on this example, I have a 50% 1 and 2 bedroom.
The 1 bedrooms are approximately 750 square feet. The 2 bedrooms are 1,000
square feet. These would cover, 1 of the 2 bedroom would cover 6 garage spaces
in the basement. Using 3 floors, that would be 6 units so it'd came out to 1
' space per unit. Now we have elevators and stairs and common areas which would
increase some of the garages but we also have compactor, waste storage
dumpsters, mechanical rooms and other types of things like this in the basement
so it usually works out just to be a little bit more than 1 space per unit. Tb
increase this parking we could increase the 2 bedroom units count to more than
50% but with the ordinance, that would also require to increase the parking so
it really doesn't give us much relief. We could attach parking as it's stated
in the ordinance, suggested ordinance, on page 6 to the exterior but this
doesn't make for a very attractive building usually. We could restrict to only
building 2 stories which would of course only give us 4 units for the 6 spaces
but this would again cover, add a lot to the coverage of the building to give
the same density. A lot more coverage and of course increase the cost. We
could of course enlarge the sizes of the units but to do this we'd probably be
1 limited to only luxury units and those types of units go on where we have
amenities like lakeshore. Another solution would be to maybe go to 2 level
parking garage but again, this is usually limited to a highrise type
construction. The cost of a parking space typically is about $5,000.00 a space.
This is about 11% to 14% of the cost of a typical unit which would probably add
to construction cost between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00. The typical 2 bedroom
unit in Chanhassen right now with 1 garage rents for about $575.00 sb if we
' added 1 more stall, we'd probably have to raise that say 11% to 18% which would
be $60.00 to 80.00 a month.
Mayor C2miel: Would you repeat those 2 figures.
Hal Pierce: The hard construction costs? Between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00.
That's usually without the land and the cost is $5,000.00 per space with a
parking stall for underground. If there's any questions.
Mayor Qrdel: You had a cost per month there too.
Hal Pierce: That would run $60.00 to $80.00 a month.
Councilman Johnson: Start at $575.00 for a?
Hal Pierce: 2 bedroom with 1 garage. That's an average we got from the
apartment guide.
Mayor Qr►iel: Now is that over a 30 year period you're talking or how long a
period of time?
Hal Pierce: Usually your debt retirement is over 30 years so that's usually how
you figure your cost.
Councilman Johnson: That's your rental cost.
Hal Pierce: Your rental cost, right. Less all operating expenses.
I
45
City Council Meeting - Dec. zer 4, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Less the operating expenses?
Hal Pierce: You take your total rental and deduct the operating expenses and
that usually is what your debt retirement is based on.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, now you said if you had to add the extra stall it'd
be $60.00 to $80.00?
Hal Pierce: About $60.00 to $80.00 a month based on that percentage of the
construction cost. Now this could maybe vary slightly depending on how we'd
configure those and how it would add to the actual cost of the building. What
I'm showing here basically is that it's fairly typical to build them with one
stall per because of the way it stacks. TO go to 2, we'd have to came up with
same other arrangements. Probably increase that basement area somehow or add
some attached to the building.
Dean Johnson: I guess what I'd like to do then is talk about sane of the '
demographics of the rental. For that I have sage transparencies here also.
This survey or where these numbers are coming from is the U.S. Census Bureau.
In their statistics, 35% of the renters are single renters. 28% have 2 people.
16% have 3 people and 21% have 4 or more. Of the make-up here, 37% of the ones
that are 2 and more have children where 63% of than do not have children. In
other words, the elderly or just newly married. I have another transparency
here. This one is of an... This one is of an apartment building in Crrystal. In
this one, 52% of this one in Crystal has single renters and 48% have 2 person in
then. Of them, only 4% have children in it. This does vary away from the U.S.
statistics but is actually what happened from one, an equal opportunity renter
in Crystal. I guess what I'd like to get to is that the apartment dweller are
generally (a) single people who are starting out. Can't afford to buy a house. L
Don't want to buy a house. Or don't have, they're busy building on you know
what it takes just to set up a domicile away from home. Going to school. Those
types of things. (b) , married people starting out. Haven't establish yet.
Again, are maybe setting up domicile again. Can't afford to buy. Three,
divorce people. Single car. Can't afford to buy because of the transition.
Have more stuff so they need the second bedroom. Four or (d) , are retired
couples. Have a single car. Don't want to or can't afford a home at that time
in life. Again, have lived their life span so they have an accumulation of
stuff. Need the second bedroom but again don't need that space down below. No
need for that car. I'd like to then get to the availability of rental in
Chanhassen. This is a rent analysis for Chanhassen. It's a little too small to
see. This is studio apartments in Chanhassen. There are none available.
Excuse me, studio tenant available. Number of vacancies are 0. There are none
available. 1 bedroom, there are 224 units available. 15 are vacant. That
gives you a percentage of about 6.7%. 2 bedroom units, there are 118 2 bedroom
units. Only 7 are available as of August 15th which is 5.9% vacancy rate and
there are none in the 3 and 4 bedroom. There are none in Chanhassen in 3 and 4.
So you definitely have needs. 6% vacancy rate is a very low vacancy rate for
this and there is a need for these types of units.
Councilman Johnson: No 3 and 4 bedroom. That says something too.
Dean Johnson: It does say something but maybe not '
ng quite what you're thinking
and the reason is, when you go further in the apartment guide report, you find
that the 3 and 4 bedrooms are the worse for vacancy rates. In other words, by I
46 1
City Council Meeting - December 4; 1989
the time the rents get up there for that type of thing, they're more into the
houses or townhouses because of their station and family so you'll find that if
' you go through other communities that do have same, they don't fair very well.
In fact vacancy rates can be up in the 20% and 25% range real easily in those
types of units. There are low numbers of them and they don't rent very well.
Councilman Johnson: We sure had a hard time trying to find one when we were
trying to get a family of 8 into affordable housing.
Dean Johnson: Which I believe is that Ethiopian family that you talked about
that one time.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Dean Johnson: Yeah. There are those cases and well, there's nothing in
Chanhassen. Nothing at all. Something should be done. Just to back up some of
' this, total vacancy rate is 6.2%. 22 of 354 units in Chanhassen were available.
That's a low percentage. I believe that the rentals in Chanhassen, rental
available does not have attached garages. In fact, I believe the only rental in
Chanhassen that has garages are the townhames that are adjacent to the site that
I'm looking at. I'm not sure of that but I don't believe any of the older
existing has any type of garages at all that we were able to see.
' Mayor Cvmiel: Same do.
Dean Johnson: Same do? ti
Councilman Johnson: Apartments. I don't think we have any other townhames do
we?
1 Mayor ainiel: No.
Dean Johnson: No, there is no other townhames but the apartments, okay. But
none have double attached. I think they have garages but they don't have
attached garages. I think they're all out garages, if I'm not mistaken. But
none according to the rental information have double garages. They're all
' singles at the most. Okay? As Hal's pointed out, to build that stall adds 14%
or 11% to 14%. $60.00 to $80.00 so you're increasing the rental. You're going
to put more of a burden by adding this stall. You're going' to cut out the
affordability by doing this. The other thing that canes in is that you have to
look at in renters is the fact that these rents pay a disproportionate amount of
taxes. These renters don't get homestead credit so you're going to end up with
not only are you taxing than harder just by the way the tax rolls are, and I
realize that's not samething that the City or City Council does but it's another
burden that are on these people and now to put this on is going to make it
harder for affordable housing for then. After the Planning Commission meeting I
realized that, we too saw a need for the looking at parking ordinances in other
communities so Hal Pierce, with the aid of a fellow named Frank Larson, went
around and gathered what the other communities. I do know that in your packet
that's sent out, because I do have a copy of the staff report, that they did
canvas some communities themself. We canvas same also and we got a little bit
of duplication but not too much. I believe you people canvased Bien Prairie in
yours. You're looking at yours. This is what we found and we have the
ordinances here. Copies of then so if you want to look at then. But we found
47
City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989
that as mach as in your r epo rt, everybody r equ ired same covered par king. In
fact same of them didn't. Chaska required 2 stalls for the multi family. One
other point I should bring up. In same communities, multi-family and townhouses
were not separated. Their ordinance covered both so when you see things like
the dashed lines, it means that the townhouses and the multi-family and the
elderly were grouped in one section. In Chaska they require no covered parking.
They require 2 stalls for parking but they require none of them to be covered.
Victoria requires 1 1/2 stalls and 1 stall covered. Minnetonka who had a lot of
experience with this, requires 2 stalls again so there's adequate parking but
only 1 of them be required. Eden Prairie, there seems to be a little bit of a
discrepancy. We have in our ordinances and we've looked at what they've sent
us. They have 2 for townhouses and 2 for multi-family. They don't address
elderly. They only require 1. I believe your staff report says something a ,
little bit differently but I do have that stuff with me if you want to look at
it. It's according to what they sent us currently in the ordinance. It's only
2. 1
Councilman Johnson: Do they require a visitor's stall?
Dean Johnson: They require visitors. ,
Councilman Johnson: Ours says 2 1/4. I think the quarter is from the visitors.
1 out of 4 is to be a visitors so that would be 2 for the resident and a 1/4 for
a visitor.
Dean Johnson: Okay. Again, we get into Hopkins doesn't. St. Louis Park
doesn't but Plymouth and Weyzata do. Nobody that we canvased saw, and a lot of
these people have experience with them. A lot of people are experience them now
or a lot of communities experience them now. Nobody after looking at it in
their ordinances require more than 1 covering but most of them, the majority of
them required 2 spaces so there was adequate parking. I believe the only one
that was different in your staff report was Edina. Edina covered 1 1/4 if I'm
not mistaken what the staff report said. I guess the point I wanted to make was
that there are communities that don't require any to be covered. Edina seems to
be the very high end and then a lot of them were at 1. From the comments that
were made at the Planning Commission meeting, we saw storage as an issue. We
felt that maybe same of what was being discussed here was not so much the need
for parking or only parking but a lot of what prompted changes was in the
storage. We started to think about the types of things that you know people
would be putting in their garage or you know that type of stuff. We got into
the bikes and the toys and the lawnmowers and garden tools, workbenches,
motorcycles, snowmobiles and boats. Single family, all of these people have
that. When you get into townhouses, the list seems to dwindle. You have bikes. 11 Some people have children so there are some that need it for the children but
lawn equiment, that's all done by the association so the lawn equipment's no
longer around. You don't have gardening tools. Work bench, maybe but again you
know, depending on their station in life, probably not very much of that.
Boats, usually are required to be stored other ways. I know in the townhouse
project that we did in Plymouth, that we required boats to be stored off site.
That they could not store snowmobiles, trailers or boats on site so there was
the place for the garage so it couldn't be taken up by that which is something
that we would again work into an ordinance here. Apartments, then you lose a
lot more. You're not going to have work benches in apartments. You may have a
motorcycle and you may have some bikes but that's where storage areas work out.
48 1
City Council Meeting ')ecember 4, 1989
1
Instead of having extra spaces, nobody's going to put their extra belongings in
a parking space. It's going to need to be a storage locker obviously so maybe
the thrust of this maybe should be that, maybe that there shouldn't be 2 stalls
required for the thing but instead of having 1 1/2 required covered, that maybe
some storage requirements or things should be looked at. The other thing too is
a lot of what came out of the Planning Commission meeting were things that we
felt might be covered by nuisances. In other words, one of the commission
members came to the point where he said well I just got married and me and my
wife moved into a townhouse, or excuse me an apartment building. The 3 story
variety he said, and I had 3 cars when I moved into it and everybody kind of
laughed about it because of the fact that well, what do 2 people need 3 cars for
and we laughed about 1 probably wasn't licensed and those types of things and I
guess what we're getting to, you do have nuisance ordinances for unlicensed cars
and junkers and those types of things and so they can control some of what goes
into this. So I guess in conclusion I'd like to list off same things here. ' I
think through what was said through the Planning Commission and same here, we'ye
shown that Chanhassen does need same affordable housing. It needs affordable
apartments. I guess I do have one other transparency which shows the amount of
an alternate housing in Chanhassen. This is a transparency made off of the Met
Council. Met Council has deemed that 41% is their goal for alternative housing
' types. In Chanhassen, if I'm reading this properly, you have 23.8%. You have
23.8% alternative housing types. Chanhassen is somewhat deficient in affordable
housing. It could use a project that has affordable housing and these garages
would make that hard to do. A strict garage ordinance along with an impervious
surface ordinance pretty much eliminates a lot of the affordable housing. This
cuts out a large group of people who need and have the right for affordable
housing. It kind of you know maybe the thing to be looked at or to%be thought
of is that by the wages in Chanhassen, by the wages of people starting out in
life in Chanhassen and also the elderly, you might came to the conclusion or it
might be drawn that your children wouldn't have a place to live because the
wages that your children would make wouldn't suffice to pay the rents and stuff
that would go along in Chanhassen with these types of things added in. There
doesn't seem to be a need for 1 1/2 cars in apartment buildings. The storage
locker would probably be more of the answer for that. The cost to increase the
parking requirements from 1 to 1 1/2 raises the rent to an unaffordable level
and makes building an apartment building an unfeasible thing in the present.
It's not cost effective in this market so I guess then for recommendations that
I would have is, leaving the apartment garages at 1 covered stall and address
the storage need, the 1 1/2 covered stalls for the townhouses is restrictive if
you want to go to even more affordable ranges than the townhouses but it is a
doable thing but what might help that situation is something that was talked
about by Paul Krauss' change in the impervious surface from the 35% to possibly
a 40% or 45% to give you some design flexibility and being able to work with the
1 1/2 car rule on the townhouse. And that's all I have. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Any discussion?
I Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. Mr. Mayor. Cbuncilmen. One of my Other lives
I used to develop apartment buildings and I happened to read this ordinance this
afternoon. I was quite surprised by it because of it's restrictions. I
developed about 400 apartment buildings in New Brighton, Roseville, Minneapolis,
South St. Paul, places like that. Not 400 apartment buildings, 400 units.
Generally speaking, the concept currently that we are using for apartments, not
so much townhouses because that's what I�was looking at, is a 1 to 1 ratio and
49
I
City Council Meeting - Dec. aer 4, 1989 - 11
that seems to be what the market's looking for. Then they have about 2 rki
Pa n9
spots per building so you have 1 underground and 1 above and that seems to be
the market today. If you drive around Dien Prairie. Not so much in Chaska but
around Eden Prairie and places like that, you'll see kind of a 1 covered either
underground or detached or attached and 1 above. As they explained today, it
just works out that's how the buildings work. You can put 1, you can take the
footings of an apartment building and put 1 car per unit. It's just the numbers
work out that way, underneath very efficiently. it costs about $3,900.00 to
$5,000.00 a unit to do that. If you were to put 1, you'd have to go double
layer down and it gets very costly. You'd probably his $10,000.00 or
$15,000.00. If you had to have detached housing, you can imagine an apartment
building with parking underneath and then parking outside like you have over
here at the townhouses. They have 1:1 ratio I believe at that particular thing.
You'd just have kind of a crazy looking building and if you drive through most
of your xx plexes, -you'd see 1:1 ratio. That's what we ran into in most
cciu,uities. But-my major concern is, I don't know if Don Patton, he's got 500
units to develop and I don't know if he even knows. I just found out about it
this afternoon because I happened to ask for the agenda for this evening and
then I went over and picked up this thing. There's a bunch of people that may
own property in this community are not aware of what this could potentially do
to them financially because the way I look at it, as the ordinance, it really
makes a lot of units undevelopable in this community because you're not
competitive. I noticed that somebody did a study and the study says enclosed
stalls 1, 1, 1, 1 per unit and then we recommend 1.5. That doesn't make a lot
of sense. That makes us non-competitive in the marketplace. Secondly, St.
Hubert's is planning on building a senior facility with 20 to 30 units. K know
for a fact that seniors don't have cars so many communities. No, I'm talking
about seniors, assistant living like they're talking about over there. Normally
I built a lot of the units. You've got all kinds of divisions of types of
housing so normally it's like .2 to .3 parking spaces for a senior facility. I
They all vary and I think the ordinance doesn't address any of those types of
things and you're going to be back trying to change that and I notice that when
you brought that up somplace, you brought out the senior stuff, that you have to
have that in as part of it. I think we've got some land that's zoned for 12
units per acre. To me that us multi-story apartment land. That's one type of a
building. Then you've got townhouses and different types of areas that you
should deal with. Edina talked about affordable housing. Edina's actually
subsidizing the developers now to build affordable housing in Edina in the
$60,000.00 to $75,600.00 category, -all of which have 1:1 coverage and they're
selling like hotcakes and they look fine. That's all that stuff that's going in
over by Southdale so I think you should just generally look at that whole issue.
My question is why are we doing it so restrictive and look at the market place
because I think this is overly restrictive given what the marketplace is
actually doing. I think you should consult with some of the developments. Our 11
architect that we have here, Arvid Ellness probably only does probably 5,000
units of housing per year. There are a lot of people who can show you different
types of projects that are very attractive. Make sense and are not as
restrictive on coverage because coverage really, I figured out, if you had to
build a $10,000.00 garage, which is the second level down, just the taxes on
that that you have to pay the government is 5% of value so that's $500.00 per
year. So another $40.00 just in taxes that every apartment would have to do.
It's a real restrictive ordinance that you're suggesting and not competitive
with what other communities are doing and given the average wage in Chanhassen
is probably what, $22,000.00 to $23,000.00?
50 1
1 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989
, • •
Dean Johnson: $21,000.00.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, we all look around. The people that work here are earning
$20,000.00 to $30,000.00 a year. Rosemount will change that. The people that
live here on the average are marking $50,000.00 to $60,000.00. Eden Prairie
' next to us has housing right now for sale for $56,000.00. Single family.
Average income in that ccr unity is in the $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 also but
they have got a place for it. It all has 1:1 parking so I think this, I realize
this is the first reading and I missed it but I think you should really look
into the whole concept that you're working under and why you're doing it. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I need discussion. I would almost suggest that possibly we
table this particular item and get same input from some of the other people as
well like Don Patton to see what basically his concerns are regarding this.
' Councilman Workman: What does Don Patton have to do with it?
' Councilman Johnson: He owns a whole bunch of R-12 and R-8.
Jo Ann Olsen: Lake Susan Hills, the PUD. He doesn't own it. He's the realtor.
The developer.
Mayor Chmiel: And too maybe Rick Murray. Doesn't he? That would be my
suggestion at this particular time. We're getting close to 11:00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why isn't Paul here tonight? I'd like to hear him.
Councilman Johnson: He's sick.
Mayor Chmiel: I realize Jo Ann's trying to fill in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to address it?
Jo Ann Olsen: I can. If you feel more comfortable notifying everybody to have
that here...the final thing's going to be, you might as well table that now and
we'll do that. That's no problem.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what I'd like to do.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see if it's got any chance of passing anyway.
Whether there's, this takes a four-fifths vote to amend the zoning ordinance.
' I'd like to see if 1 or 2 of us are against this. There's no use wasting a
whole lot of time if there's already going to be 2 votes saying heck no, we
don't want this. I'm not sure where Bill sits on this one.
rCouncilman Workman: Out of town.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah...I think he wants 2 enclosed.
Mayor Chmiel: So at least thats my suggestion. I would make that as a motion
to table to get the additional information from the other people. Is there a
second?
i51
City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989
1
Councilman Workman: I'll second it to discuss it a little.
Councilman Johnson: You can't discuss a motion to table.
Mayor Ctmiel: Oh, that's right. It's a tabling motion. Don't second it.
Let's have a discussion.
Gbuncilman Workman: Dean, are you familiar with what Met Council's projections
were for population for Chanhassen in the year 2000?
Dean Johnson: I think I have it.
Councilman Workman: I know what it is. Maybe you can take a stab. Well, to
-save us all time, -103.243,13130.foorthhe year 2000 and we're well, well, well past
that and people are lining up to get into this ca'viunity. I think a lot of your
contents kind of missed the mark in telling us how much Met Council and other
stastistical agencies tell us how much of a certain kind of housing we should
have or we're supposed to maybe feel guilty on how much we have of that or not. 11 We don't have trailer homes in town either and I suppose a trailer home group
could come in and say well you should have them. The issue Brad with the
apartment buildings I think I would agree with more on that side. I'm looking
more at the single garage, more townhame type things. I live in a townhome, as
I've indicated before. Two stalls in my townhome, 2 bedrooms, is not very much
room. As I've mentioned to people before, if you drive down Pontiac Lae where
the twin homes are and they have 2 car stalls, there's trucks and cars and
garbage and you can't hardly get down the street. It looks terrible. I drive ril
through it every day. Those people aren't the reason for this ordinance but
again you're bring up a group of people or a very large group of people that Lim
maybe we're supposed to feel sorry for. Maybe we're not supposed to. Divorced
people, single people. I understand there's an awful lot of need out there. We
could all be divorced and single someday but parking is the issue and storage is
not the issue I would say. You can always find roam for storage or you throw it
out. The parking issue, you know I used to live down where Peter used to live
down, or you live somewhere down in Minneapolis down in Lake Harriet. I used to
live down by Lake Harriet and there's 5 of us in this big house. We were the
problem in the neighborhood. I'll admit it. We were the problem. We're the
renters becaause renters are a little more transient and move around and do a
little more things. They party a little more and they've got a little more oats
to sow and so I don't feel as though we owe anybody an ability to rent in the
city. I do have same concerns about large employers in this city and a lot of
those employees being able to get some housing but I think those are a couple of
different issues. I still think that the City has a right and can have the
right to what the aesthetics are of these complexes and for me that's the issue.
M, townhame association has a very sound rule of everybody has a 2 car garage.
Garage door shut and both cars in the garage. No parking outside for any
distance. It's in our By-laws. I think it's a good idea. It keeps things nice
and tidy and clean and it doesn't look like a big parking lot. I think that's
where we're heading. I don't mean to shut people out. I just think where this
city is heading, you and I maybe have a different idea about where we're heading
or where we're able to and where we should be heading. But Met Council has
gotten our population way wrong, let alone highway funding. Let alone whatever.
52 1
City Council Meeti^q - December 4, 1989
• Councilman Johnson: I definitely agree with Tam on Met Council. Using than as
' an authority does not carry a heck of a lot of weight but I do believe in life
cycle housing. I believe that when my kid goes to work, whether he chooses to
go to college or if he goes to tech school or whatever when he first gets out of
whatever schooling and decides to live someplace, I'd like him to have the
opportunity to live in Chanhassen. I'd like to have him have the opportunity
for affordable housing in Chanhassen. I do not think that we should endeavor or
should became an exclusive community where we say you've got to be making
$30,000.00 or $40,000.00 before you can move into the community because the
price of our housing is too high. I think we need a complete span. I do think
that sane of these places do get rather unorderly with too many cars parked all
' over the place. Shoot, I have a neighbor who's got 4 kids but none of them are,
the oldest one's only 12 but he's got 4 cars too. I don't think he's ever sold
a car that he's bought. He's the exception. I have another elderly retired
11 ' couple and they have 2 cars. She likes big cars, he likes little cars. They
can't agree on what kind to buy so they each have their own. So you know not
all seniors, you can't clump anybody into a group. I don't like what this would
do to affordable housing in town. I think there is roan for affordable housing.
I think it's up to the developer to decide. I think that I can see the Don
Patton area, some of his areas would be very convenient to, in fact across the
street from the industrial park where his R-12 is, once the Lake Drive West
continues on west. One side of the street is R-12, the other side of the street
is industrial, if I remember right. That's where you'd be looking for another
area of affordable housing. If we told them we had to have 2 stalls enclosed in
there, that would drastically hurt the affordable housing and hurt our
businessmen plus just one more step towards making this an exclusive city, which
I think we need everything so I'm against 2 stalls enclosed. I do believe we
need roan for 2 cars. 1 in, 1 out. I'd encourage people, if ah_ybody wants to
do a PUD, we may be able to do some negotiating there too. We add some rmore. I
think we need the visitor's parking is very important so 1 in, 1 out and a
quarter for visitors maybe. That's my comments Don.
rCouncilwoman Dimler: I agree with what both of you said and I'd like to add
that on page 5, section 20-1123, with the lighting. I did have a letter from a
Janet Arnold that lives at Chan View Apartments #102 and her concern was that in
' the present situation and all the places that you've been in multiple family
parking lots, that the lighting is not adequate. It's okay in the wintertime
when the snow reflects the light but in the summertime it's very dangerous in
that the light gets absorbed and they cannot see and she feels that they are
unsafe and I guess I'd have to agree with her. So I would like to see under
lighting, that that would be extended or that we look at maybe having some
specific requirements as to how much lighting. Not just that it be lit. Does
that mean that we just have 1 light? You know, we ought to look more
extensively into that Jo Ann, as to having some requirements as to...
Councilman Johnson: How many foot candles.
Councilwanan Dimler: How many foot candles there axe, that's right. Because it
' is not adequate.
Mawr Chmiel: Just so I don't have to reiterate, I guess I agree with what's
being said here. I really do because I've driven around and I've looked at
Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, areas that the parking is as such and I'm sure you're
bringing up with single individuals or single car stalls. There to I find that
53
11
City Council Meeting - Dec er 4, 1989 1
the impact to that neighborhood is just absolutely chaotic because there are
boats, cars, vans, all over. It just, in my opinion, is just not as neat as it
should be. Aesthetically I think it's just not there. I really agree with some
of the concerns that have been discussed so with that I feel with what we have
brought forth to what's being proposed, my suggestion is still that we table
this to get some input from some of the other people and move on with that.
Councilman Johnson: How can we handle the unsightliness that you're talking '
about?
Brad Johnson: I was just going to address the unsightliness. You've raised the '
question about possibly doing...All around Ddenvale they're all 1 car garages.
They have figured out same way in the design of the system...
Councilman Workman: Well we don't have control over that. I
Councilwoman Dirtier: There's parking all over the streets there.
I/Brad Johnson: No. They don't allow parking in the street.
Councilwoman Dirtier: My daughter has a friend that lives behind there and I
could barely get into the neighborhood.
Brad Johnson: I just visited them and...
Mayor Cmiel: The best time to visit them after 6:00 in the evens ng it. Try i 11
on Saturdays. That's what I did. i
Brad Johnson: And I'm not sure you can control those types of things somehow.
Councilman workman: They're 2 car garages also. I
Brad Johnson: Some had just 1.
Councilman Workman: Not the twins though. The townhomes are all 2 car garages. '
Brad Johnson: I'm not talking about the twins.
Councilman workman: I know but they're 2 car garages and there's still stuff
hanging out of them.
Councilman Johnson: You give a person the opportunity, they'll fill their 1
garage. They'll buy a boat.
Dean Johnson: ...an observation for me but what it seems is happening here is 1
you're requiring everything to be inside so it's aesthetically pretty.
Mayor Chmiel: That was only my view. I
Dean Johnson: Well, a couple mentioned things hanging out of garages, those
types of things. What you're going to do is put the burden on them and you're
going to get rid of affordable housing. If everything has to look perfect... I/
54
11 . , City Council Meeting - ,ecember 4, 1989
1 Mayor Chmiel: We want affordable housing in the community, there's no question
but I think some consideration should be given too as to what we're directing
and what we're saying.
Dean Johnson: Well we agree. We're not against 2 spaces. We're not even -
against... What we're saying is trying to impose that on an apartment building
or any...so you can get that market also, you're going to find that 2 car
garages is going to blow you out of that market. You're not going to be able to
have that in Chanhassen. If you want to be an exclusive community, those are
' the types of things that you do need. If you want to not be an exclusive
crnmunity.
Councilwoman Dimder: Dean, would you address the difference in price between 1
car and 2 car?
Dean Johnson: In the townhomes?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Is $10,000.00 difference?
Dean Johnson: $10,000.00 to $15,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimkler: Okay, so you're looking at between $55,000.00 and
$65,000.00? Well, I think $65,000.00 is considered affordable housing.
Dean Johnson: It may be. If you look at wages, it's not. I mean if you look
at what a person's wages, if you look at the economic report that was put out by
11 the Trade, Minnesota Trade and Economic Development, they gave wages. If you
take those wages and you qualify those people at 10% and give them same long
term debt, in other words a car payment. Even if you only get half of it, you
only get say $100.00 to $150.00 a month in long term debt, they don't qualify
for $65,000.00. That was brought out again to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I made my motion previously to table.
Councilwoman Dimkler: I second that.
11 Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the zoning
ordinance amendment regarding off-street parking and loading to provide
dimensional standards, increase parking requirements if warranted by site plan
review and to require enclosed parking for 2 vehicles for multiple family
dwellings for more input. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING.
11 Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the zoning
ordinance amt modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience
stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
1
55
.6 1
CITY OF �r r �<� �f
„ CHANHASSEN _.._,,:' ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 fiction by City Administrator '
r
Endorsed `-"'"Arm
MEMORANDUM Modified ,
Rejected
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date.._
Date Submitted to Ccmm:ssion
FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning
DATE: November 28 , 1989 Date Su^m'*r ;c cc�nii
SUBJ: Amendments to Article XXV - Off Street Parking and Loading
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY I
Members of the City Council have asked staff to prepare a zoning
ordinance amendment that would increase parking requirements for I
multi-family residences from one enclosed stall to two.
At the November 15, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, staff pro-
posed an ordinance amendment that would accomplish the City
I/
Council' s goal. As originally drafted, two enclosed parking
stalls would be required for each multi-family unit except for
efficiency and one-bedroom units where only one stall is
I
required. We further recommended that the enclosed parking be
permitted only in areas attached to the residential building or
placed underground when the building is larger then 20 units in
I
size (generally larger apartment or condominium complexes which
can provide underground parking) . This is due to our belief that
the use of free-standing garages is usually an unattractive
approach to meeting the enclosed parking requirement. I
While staff was reviewing parking standards, we noted a series
of omissions in the ordinance. The lack of requirements for
visitor parking, design standards, requirements that all parking II
must be provided on site, etc. are making it difficult to ensure
that only high quality developments are approved in the City. II Therefore, we are proposing a comprehensive redraft of the
Parking and Loading Section. As drafted, it would do the
following:
1. Provide general standards including: 11
- prohibition against using required parking for storage of
II
materials or snow
II
I
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
Page 2
- guidance as to placement of required parking off-site
- review criteria for joint use of parking lots
i - prohibit the use of on-street parking to satisfy parking
requirements .
' 2. Detailed standards are provided for compact and normal
stalls, drive aisles and various parking configurations. The
current ordinance states that standards are provided in a
' Design Handbook which has never been formally adopted.
3. Clarifies the point that numerical parking standards that are
' provided are minimums and that the city can require additional
parking if deemed necessary by the review of the plan in
question.
4 . Provides guidance for calculating parking requirements for
mixed use buildings, e.g. , office/warehouse structures.
' The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at the
November 15, 1989, meeting. During the public hearing, extensive
testimony on the matter was provided by Dean Johnson, a 4gveloper
who has a pending application for a multi-family project in
review by the City. The information stressed several points,
including:
- Metro Council data correlating building requirements such
as enclosed garages with increasing housing costs
' - high costs of housing relative to income
- inability to provide underground parking for two cars per
dwelling with common architectural plans, and
' - lack of consistency of proposed parking standards with
parking requirements of other Twin Cities communities
Based upon this data and their discussion, the Commission recom-
mended revising the standard down to 1.5 enclosed stalls for two
bedroom and larger units. They also expressed a desire to deve-
lop a standard for visitor parking. The Planning Comission was
supportive of the balance of the ordinance recommended that it be
approved by the City Council.
Since the meeting, staff has had an opportunty to further
research the matter. This data is provided in the attached
' table.
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
Page 3 ,
Total Enclosed Visitor
City Stalls Stalls Parking II
Current-Chanhassen 2 1 -
I
Eden Prairie 2. 25 1 1 guest for
every 4 units
Minnetonka 2 1 if considered 1
necessary by
the city I
Burnsville 2.25 1 -
Plymouth 2 1 - II
Maple Grove 2 1 - I
Eagan 2 1 -
Maplewood 2 1 -
I
Edina 2 li * -
Bloomington 2.25 1 - II
I
Based upon the data, staff has concluded that the Planning
Commission' s recommendation is appropriate and supportable.
IConsequently, the draft ordinance has been appropriately
modified. Staff is also proposing a visitor parking requirement
of 1 stall for every four dwelling units since this is compar-
tible with a number of the cities that were surveyed. In our
II
opinion, the resulting ordinance will provide one of the most
stringent multi-family parking standards but at the same time,
one that is defensible based on protected parking demand.
I
Staff is also propsoing two additional changes as a result of our
review since the Planning Commission meeting. We are proposing
an increase to the parking requirements for office development
II
from 3 per 1000 square feet to the following:
Buildings < 49,999 sq. ft. = 4.5 stalls per 1000 sq. ft.
50,000 to 99,999 sq. ft. = 4.0 stalls per 1000 sq. ft. II
Over 100,000 sq. ft. = 3.5 stalls per 1000 sq. ft.
The proposed new standards reflect the current thinking of pro- I
fessional planning texts and and have been used in other metro
area communities.
II
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
I Page 4
The second change is the adoption of a requirement that at least
I one of the required enclosed, multi-family parking stalls be
included in the sale or rent of each unit. This is being pro-
posed to insure that the stalls are available to the residents
I who may opt not to use them if they were optional at additional
cost.
ISTAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments to Article XXIV Parking and Loading.
IATTACHMENTS
1. Division 2, Parking and Loading Standards.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 1989.
I
I
4'
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II