10. Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Off Street Parking and Loading I ' , Jo
s
CITY O
. . A CHANHASSEN
_. :..: ,
i . ,. , . . , ,
. , , , . _
. ... . . , ,
. , ,,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning ifI
- DATE: November 28, 1989 , .
SUBJ: Amendments to Article XXV - Off Street Parking and Loading
4
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
I Members of the City Council have asked staff to prepare a zoning
ordinance amendment that would increase parking requirements for
multi-family residences from one enclosed stall to two.
II At the November 15, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, staff pro-
posed an ordinance amendment that would accomplish the City
Council' s goal. As originally drafted, two enclosed parking
I stalls would be required for each multi-family unit except for
efficiency and one-bedroom units where only one stall is
required. We further recommended that the enclosed parking be
permitted only in areas attached to the residential building or
I placed underground when the building is larger then 20 units in
size (generally larger apartment or condominium complexes which
can provide underground parking) . This is due to our belief that
I the use of free-standing garages is usually an unattractive
approach to meeting the enclosed parking requirement.
While staff was reviewing parking standards, we noted a series
IIof omissions in the ordinance. The lack of requirements for
visitor parking, design standards, requirements that all parking
must be provided on site, etc. are making it difficult to ensure
I that only high quality developments are approved in the City.
Therefore, we are proposing a comprehensive redraft of the
Parking and Loading Section. As drafted, it would do the
Ifollowing: <,
1. Provide general standards including:
1 - prohibition against using required parking for storage of
materials or snow
II
II
II '
Don Ashworth
' November 28, 1989
Page 2
' - guidance as to placement of required parking off-site
- review criteria for joint use of parking lots
- 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 developer
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.
1
I
. II
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
II
Page 3
Total Enclosed Visitor I
City Stalls Stalls Parking
Current-Chanhassen 2 1 - I
Eden Prairie 2. 25 1 1 guest for
every 4 units
II
Minnetonka 2 1 if considered
necessary by I
the city
Burnsville 2.25 1 -
II
Plymouth 2 1 -
Maple Grove 2 1 - I
Eagan 2 1 -
II
Maplewood 2 1 -
Edina 2 11 -
I
Bloomington 2. 25 1 -
I
Based upon the data, staff has concluded that the Planning
Commission' s recommendation is appropriate and supportable.
II
Consequently, 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 I
with a number of the cities that were surveyed. In our
opinion, the resulting ordinance will provide one of the most
stringent multi-family parking standards but at the same time,
I
one that is defensible based on protected parking demand.
Staff is also propsoing two additional changes as a result of our
review since the Planning Commission meeting. We are proposing
I
an increase to the parking requirements for office development
from 3 per 1000 square feet to the following:
Buildings < 49 ,999 sq. ft. = 4.5 stalls per 1000 sq. ft. 1
50, 000 to 99, 999 sq. ft. = 4.0 stalls per 1000 sq. ft.
Over 100,000 sq. ft. = 3.5 stalls per 1000 sq. ft.
I
The proposed new standards reflect the current thinking of pro-
fessional planning texts and and have been used in other metro
area communities.
II
II
II '
Don Ashworth
November 28, 1989
Page 4
The second change is the adoption of a requirement that at least
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
who may opt not to use them if they were optional at additional
cost.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments to Article XXIV Parking and Loading.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Division 2, Parking and Loading Standards.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 1989.
1
I
11
' !
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN II
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE I
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as II
follows :
DIVISION 2. PARKING AND LOADING. II
Section 20-1116. Scope. This division applies to off-street 11 parking and loading.
Section 20-1117. General Standards.
a) Parking and loading shall be provided and maintained in II
accordance with the following:
1) No change of use, tenancy or occupancy of a parcel of I
land or building, including construction of a new
building or an addition to a building, which requires II 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
II
ordinance.
2) Required parking and loading areas and the driveways pro-
II
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 II snow.
3) Required parking and loading spaces shall be located on
the same development site as the use served. On-street I
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 II following:
a. reasonable access shall be provided from the off-site
parking facilities to the use being served; I
b. the parking shall be within 400 feet of a building
entrance of the use being served; I
c. the parking area shall be under the same ownership
and merged into a single tax parcel as the site II served, under public ownership or the use of the
parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded
instrument, acceptable to the city;
II
II
I ' ,
d) failure to provide on-site parking shall not
I 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
Ie) the off-site parking shall be maintained until such
time as on-site parking is provided or an alternate
off-site parking facility is approved by the city as
Imeeting the requirements of this ordinance.
4 . Notwithstanding any other provision of this division to
1 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:
Ia) 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
1 hours of operation an amount of parking sufficient to
meet the needs of such use; and
I b) the joint use of the parking facilities shall be pro-
tected by a recorded instrument, acceptable to the
city.
1 Section 20-1118. Design of Parking Stalls and Drive Aisles.
a) Parking areas shall be designed in conformance with the
Ifollowing:
1) Parking stalls shall have a minimum paved dimension of
1 eight and one-half feet by 18 feet. Stall and aisle
dimensions shall be as noted below for the given angle:
Curb Stall
IAngle Length Length Aisle
45° 12.0 ' 18.0 ' 13.5 ' *
I60° 10. 0 ' 18.0 ' 18.5' *
I90° 8. 5 ' 18.0 ' 26 ' **
Parallel 20. 0' 8. 0' 22 '
1 * One way aisles only.
** Aisles which are not between two rows of 90° angle parking
1 spaces may be 22 feet wide.
*** Dead end aisles must be provided with a 26 ' x 10 '
I unencumbered area at the end to facilitate vehicle turning
movement.
1 -2-
1
' 1
6 ) All parking areas except those serving one and two family
dwellings on local streets shall be designed so that cars 1
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.
I
7) All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall
be bordered with raised concrete curbs or equivalent 1
approved by the city.
8) All parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced
with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by I
the city.
9 ) All parking stalls shall be marked with painted lines not 1
less than four inches wide in accordance with the approved
site and building plan.
10) All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic control
I
as needed.
11) All parking areas shall be properly maintained in a neat 1
and serviceable condition.
*,45°angle ve Wan* 9d anak parallel
I
Curti li i - it 12' lne.-► I to'i cwb Itne-y 1$51 -
.71
1
I
50.9' 13.5 •e� o T
5811$,8 —��" -� 62' z�' �Mro• N _ I
CAW lm \ 19•
. 1s< `
IJJLi(-Jl -i w
/1/ -ova* ii- -a 1
Curb hile 1 _
* One way aisles 1
b) Up to 25 percent of the total number of required spaces may be
II
for compact cars and have minimum paved dimensions as follows:
Angle Curb Length Stall Length 1
45° 10.0' 16.0 '
60° 8.5' 17.5'
I
90° 7.5 ' 16 .0'
Parallel 16.0' 8.0' II
-3- 1
Compact car parking may be provided if the following con-
' ditions are met:
1) the parking area shall have a total size of at least 20
' stalls;
2) compact car stalls shall be identified by appropriate
directional signs consistent with the city sign ordinance.
I3 ) compact car stalls shall be distributed throughout the
parking area so as to have reasonable proximity to the
II structure served but shall not have generally perferential,
locations such that their use by non-compact cars will be
encouraged;
I4 ) the design of compact car areas shall to the maximum
feasible extent be such as to discourage their use by
non-compact cars; and
I5) compact parking stalls shall not be permitted for high
turnover parking lots.
ISection 20-1119. Computing Requirements . In computing the
number of parking spaces required, the following shall govern:
I 1) "Floor space" means the gross floor area of the specific
use as defined by Article II.
I 2 ) Where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces
required shall be construed to be the next largest whole
number.
I3 ) Parking standards for uses not specifically mentioned in
this division shall be determined by the city. The fac-
tors to be considered in such determination shall include
' 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
Ivehicles.
Section 20-1120. Yards. On-site parking and loading facili-
' ties shall not be permitted in the required front yard, side yard
or rear yard.
Section 20-1121. Buffer Fences and Planting Screens. On-
' site parking and loading areas near or abutting residential
districts shall be screened in conformance with the provisions of
Article XXV.
ISection 20-1122. Access. Parking and loading space shall
have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number of
width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic
I
congestion and abnormal traffic hazard.
I -4-
i
II
Section 20-1123. Lighting. All commercial, industrial, and
multi-family parking lots shall be lighted. Lighting shall use II shielded fixtures and be directed away from the public right-of-
way and adjacent residential or agricultural districts.
Section 20-1124. Required Number of On-site Parking Spaces.
II
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
I
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 II anticipated. The number of required parking spaces shall comply
with the following:
1) Calculating the number of spaces shall be in accordance
I
with the following:
a) if the number of off-street parking spaces results
I
in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more
shall constitute another space;
b) in churches and other places of public assembly in I
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
II
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; I
d) for mixed use buildings, parking requirements shall
be determined by the city based on the existing and
I
potential uses of the building. In cases where
future potential uses of a building will generate
additional parking demand, the city may require a II 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- I
mented parking demand for similar developments, the
city may allow reductions in the number of parking I
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 II parking spaces in conformance with applicable setback
requirements. The city may require installation of
the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises.
-5-
I
II
I '
f) one handicapped parking stall shall be provided for
each 50 stalls. Handicapped parking spaces shall be in
compliance with the Uniform Building Code and state
law;
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
' on parking demand for such use.
c) The minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for
the following uses shall be:
1) Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or
sports arena - One (1) parking space for each four ( 4 )
seats, based upon design capacity.
2 ) Auto sales, trailer sailes, marine and boat sales,
' implement sales, garden supply store, building
materials sale, auto repair - One (1) parking space for
each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area.
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
space required for gas pump areas.
4 ) Bowling Alley - Seven ( 7) parking spaces for each
' bowling lane.
5) Churches - One ( 1) parking space for each three (3)
seats, based on the design capacity of the main seating
area, plus one (1) space per classroom.
6 ) Dwelling:
a. Single Family - Two (2) parking spaces, both of
which must be completely enclosed. No garage shall
' be converted into living space unless other accep-
table on-site parking space is provided.
b. Multi-Family:
1 ) Efficiency and One-Bedroom units -
Two ( 2)
stalls one of which must be completely enclosed
' in a garage.
2) Two-Bedroom and Larger Units - Two ( 2) stalls of
which 1 must be completely enclosed in a
garage. This requirement is to be assessed on a
gross basis for the entire project.
Garage stalls for multi-family buildings containing
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
-6-
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 enclosed stall shall be included in the
lease or rental rate of each apartment. In
multi-family 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
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 two ( 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,
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.
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.
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-
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 '
By: 1
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST: '
Don Ashworth, City Manager
1
1
-9-
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 20
r
terms of our flexibility and the intent of what we' re trying to do.
' Anyway, we' ll forward this one and see how the City Council wants to deal
with it.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXIV, 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.
Public Present:
Dean Johnson - Cenvesco
' Hal Pierce - Architect, Design Resource Group
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Dean Johnson: Obviously we've been in front of each other before. I have
' a project that you know this does affect. I guess you know the part of the
change that I 'd like to talk to is the double attached garage with the
double, 2 parking stalls per multi-family unit. I guess the way in which
I 'd like to talk about it is in the fact of affordable housing . We feel
that in Chanhassen you have designated land R-12. The different multiple
family zonings. Some of the reasons for doing this I 'm sure in your minds
are for affordable housing. We also feel there is a market for it in here.
1 Obviously I wouldn' t have been in front of you with the PUD in the R-12
zoning if I didn't feel that there was a market for it. Just thinking of
the new businesses that are coming in with Rosemount Und McGlynn Bakeries
and now I believe there's another one that you talked about earlier that's
coming in on the industrial site over there. You're going to be bringing a
lot of people in with this and these people don't all make $40,000.00 a
' year to afford a single family house or $35,000.00 a year to afford an
upscale multi-family house. I guess I want to get into those types of
things here so you know when you do this and you raise this, that you
realize what's happening and what you're doing to the construction and what
you're doing to a segment of the population that now works here in
Chanhassen or now is going to work here in Chanhassen. ,,,I guess we should
talk about the product a little bit. With the ordinances you have, when we
I chose a building to put on this site and as others are going to do after
me, we chose a unit where the garage was partially tucked under the unit.i
When you have your 35% impervious surface restriction that you do have, it
kind of requires that. If the garage is now outside, even if it's just
attached like a house is off to the side of the house, you have not only
the house area that you're dealing with but you're having a garage area.
So when you throw a 35% impervious surface, it's hard to get within that
' area with your design unless you're going in lower density. If you're
going to take the R-12 in the case that I have and you're going to start
doing those types of things, it means your density is going down. If your
density goes down, the price per units going to have to go up because your
ground costs are there and your development costs are there and all the
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 21 '
types of things that come with developing go along . We were also, and
111
I know I 've said this 100 times to you, is that we were trying to, in this
particular project and in any project that anybody's going to bring in
affordable housing, is try to give alternative to rents. We found in
study of this and doing what a developer does to see if a project's
feasible, that we were given an alternative for people instead of renting.
We found that we could build this unit and it would be slightly more per 11 month to own the unit but by the time you got the tax incentives figured
out and the homesteading all the other things, that it was actually
considerably less. We feel that the double car garage standard is going to
make both townhouses and especially apartments just cost ineffective. I I
guess at this time I know an architect by the name of Hal Pierce, I 'm going
to introduce here and I 'd like him as an architect to talk about the
different types of things that are going to be required in the construction
and the types of costs that you're going to get into for doing this and I 'd '
like him to show you what his thoughts are and what types of impacts
they're going to have on that market and how it' s going to affect the
prices in that market. So if I may, I 'd like to introduce him now and
then I 'd like to talk after that if that' s okay.
Hal Pierce: I 'm Hal Pierce. I 'm an architect with Design Resource Group. I
I 'm also on the Planning Commission in Plymouth so I sympathize with your
dealing with some things tonight. What I would like to talk about tonight
is basically how it affects the design of the building from the architects
point of view and the cost and basically we're looking at, there's 2 types
of units. One that Dean has proposed and another is the typical type of a
multi-family unit. If I could use your overhead. Basically this is the
typical tuck under type townhouse unit. Basically with single car garage,
we're at about 763 square feet. To add a double car garage in this type of
a design would add about 38% increased to the size of. the ground cover and
add probably $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 to the price of .the unit. Because of I
the tuck under , not only the garage is bigger but also because of the
configuration, the unit would have to get bigger also. Again, there could
be some other designs and this has been a very cost effective type of
housing design. The other type of design, I think they all 3. . .are typical I
3 story tuck under garage. I'd say 90% of the multi-family is built like
this. 3 floors, a garage is underneath the units. Usually it's precast
concrete for the 3 hour fire barrier and we go wood frame on top of that. I
Now these units that I 'm using are just a very standard, typical unit with
the building with around 750 square feet for a 1 bedroom-, about 1,000
square feet. . . Take a look at the parking and garage and I've kind of
dashed in where the units would go above it. Basically a 1 bedroom
apartment would cover about 2 1/2 spaces of parking below and a 2 bedroom
would cover about 3 1/2 spaces. Now with 3 floors, we've got with the 2
units, that' s 6 spaces so we've got 6, parking spaces we have under the
units. We have 6 parking spaces, this comes out 1 to 1. To increase this
to what your ordinance standards propose, we'd have to go 2 spaces for the
1 bedroom unit and provide 9 parking spaces. The only way we could do this II
is basically eliminate the top floor and go to a 2 story apartment building III
which would then increase the ground cover like I say to get the density
that is allowed in this zone or we could enlarge the units of course and
make those luxury units so we cover more garage space. We could attach the ,
garages above the ground. I've only known of one that's done this and it
I
aPlanning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 22
1
isn' t very handsome building . It makes some very large above the ground
garages if they have to be attached or maybe go to a 2 story underground
parking garage which I haven' t seen done but I know it'd be very, very cost
ineffective. So what I tried to do with some of the actual physical
restraints would be on the typical types of buildings that are being built
today. Are there any questions?
Conrad: Yeah, go back through this particular one again.
Ellson: Did you say if we had a 1 bedroom, you could have a 1 car garage?
' Krauss : That' s true. We did consider Mr. Pierce's comments on this and
there's probably some validity to it. Yes, 1 bedroom only does require
1 stall , however it takes up a smaller area so there' s more of them and
' conceiveably there could be a problem in cramming enough stalls under the
building unless the building footprint was enlarged because you had some
amenity room or something else that pushed out the first floor larger than
just the footprint that was required for the apartments themselves.
' Hal Pierce: Just in response to that. I haven't really gone into some of
the other things that go into. . .storage possibly, also trash compactor and
' elevator . Mechanical rooms and stuff and also access with garage doors
usually take 2 spaces at each end. But usually it averages out with the
common spaces, we usually get a 1 to 1 ratio.
Emmings: Did you say that you're on the Planning Commission in?
Hal Pierce: In Plymouth, yes.
Emmings: What does Plymouth do with this issue?
Hal Pierce: Plymouth has a 1 parking stall and 1/2 parking stall outside
at the present time for a multi-family which would be an R-4 zone.
Emmings: What about do you have something like an R-12?
IHal Pierce: Well that's what would be our R-4 zone.
' Emmings: Okay, and there you have 1 enclosed and. . .
Hal Pierce: And 1/2 parking stall outside. So that's' 1/2. They like to
see more but that's their number. I usually try to design so there's
I probably 1.7, 1.8 parking spaces. One inside and over the minimum because
sometimes, depending on how many 2 bedroom apartments there are. They
don't have, 2 bedroom apartments require 2. I have worked in some
I communities where they require 2 for a 3 bedroom apartment but that would
actually, if we looked at a 3 bedroom, we'd add one more parking space.
' Emmings: The thing that interested me about this is whether you have 1
bedroom, 2 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms, if you have a married couple that are
each, or the man and the wife are both working, you've got the same number
of cars regardless of the number of bedrooms. Why would we relate it to
Ibedrooms at all?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 23
Krauss: There are statistics that demonstrate that the number of bodies
per unit is related somewhat to the size of the unit.
Emmings: But if it's parents and children, the children aren' t driving for
the first 16 years or whatever.
Ellson: Well even if it was parents and children that' s 2 bedrooms, that' s
definitely 2 cars but 1 car could especially a lower price place could be II
easily be a single person that couldn't afford a house unless they were
married so they're buying something like this. I would think there's a
higher probability of an individual in a lower priced home than vice versa. '
I would just think there'd be more of a chance of it but you're right. If
there' s a couple, there' s probably 2.
Batzli : To really ruin their statistics, I think I lived in that apartment I
building when I first got married and we had 3 cars.
Hal Pierce: I guess it comes down to, in trying to get that amount of
parking on the site and still stay within your 35% impervious surface area. I
Krauss: I think there really is an issue there with the hard surface
coverage but the issue may relate more to the hard surface coverage
requirement than it does to the parking requirement. We haven' t come to
you with any kind of proposals to change it but based on a lot of
ordinances that I 've worked with, 35% hard surface coverage is pretty II tight. That's a very tough standard to adhere to. Possibly that warrants
some reassessment. But you may have a cart leading the horse type of
situation here. What do you think is a valid design standard and then can
you build that within the ordinance. I think your decision should first be '
is what's the valid design standard in terms of the number of stalls that
should be required and then if the ordinance needs changing to accommodate I
that, then consider that.
Batzli : I think the issue is really, if in fact that district is designed
to have a higher density and lower cost housing, the question is really
then what is the change in the affordability of that housing due to what
we're requiring here tonight. We're jacking up the price $10,000.00 per
unit. Maybe that's a value judgment we make. If we' re talking about
doubling the price of the developments by doing this, then maybe it' s
something we don' t want to do but that's really their mint is that by
doing this, we are pricing the type of housing that we are supposedly
promoting in the district out of the range of the people that would buy it. I
Ellson: Or change the hard surface or whatever.
Krauss: Well there's nothing though as far as the density relates to '
value. We have a developer here that wants to build to the low end of the
market segment and that's fine but you could have another developer before
you that was working to hit another segment and it's not the same kind of
requirement.
Emmings: We have the townhouses we approved just before Cenvesco first I
came in down here and they were, all of their units had 2 car garages and
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 24
I
they just did that so that obviously was directed at a different segment of
the market I suppose.
Krauss: In the not too distant past I worked on a number of townhouse
' projects that were designed to sell for $300,000.00 a piece and apartments
that rent for $1,200.00 and up. Now I don' t know if they're going to ever
see that in Chanhassen but you can see different market segments and that's
not related to the density.
Conrad: Well you're coming on impervious surface. In the more dense
districts, the higher density districts, a 35% impervious surface right?
65% hard is allowed.
Krauss: No. You've got a 35% hard surface coverage.
Conrad: In R-12?
Krauss : Yes.
' Emmings: That' s what they've been struggling against with this project on
top of the hill. That was my understanding.
Krauss: In our recent analysis of the Cenvesco project, you had a lot of
the lots at 34%, 34.5%.
Conrad: 34 what? Coverage or open?
Emmings: Impervious. 34 impervious. Hard.
' Conrad: In residential for sure we' re talking 35% impervious.
' Krauss: The maximum lot coverage is 35% so you're looking at 65% green
area. Which if you think that you've already got setback requirements that
create open area. That you've got wetland protection that creates open
space. You've got drainage that creates open space. You've got oftentimes
I steep gradings that preserve open space. That doesn't leave a whole lot to
work with. It' s another issue than what we're discussing tonight but it's
a tough standard.
IConrad: That's business that we' re allowing 70% or 65% coverage right?
' Krauss: Industrial, yeah.
Conrad: Industrial , commecial goes up to that? Okay. Anything
residential is the opposite? Okay. Any other comments? Do you want to
Icome back up?
Dean Johnson: You guys touched a lot on what I was having trouble
I designing with that building and a lot of the reason. It is hard to stay
within the 35% and build affordable housing trying to stay within that
thing. If you did increase the impervious surface, then there's more
flexibility with design. It' s easier to give things and still build
Iaffordable housing so I agree wholeheartedly with Paul there. I guess you
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 25
I
know where I 'd like to go and I 'm going to use the projector here some, if
I may, is get into showing you the types of people that you have working
here. Showing you what types of qualifying it take to get these and show
that some of these people are making fairly good money. I 'd like to show,
I've got a lot of statistics on single parent families. On single people. I
I have a project that I did in Plymouth that I 'd like to show you what the
numbers actually turned out on because it's a finished product in Plymouth
so if I may. '
Conrad: Sure, go ahead.
Dean Johnson: The first one here has to talk about occupations in the
metropolitan area. These are the different kinds of income that you see in
the metropolitan area.
Emmings: Where are the developers?
' 1
Dean Johnson: They' re so far off the scale Steve, you can' t see them.
Emmings: Which end?
Dean Johnson: The low end of course. These numbers, just to give you some I
qualification, come from Minnesota Salary Survey 1989. These same numbers,
now if I can find the brochure, there' s a brochure that's put out. I don' t
believe it's by the City of Chanhassen but it is put out for the City of I
Chanhassen by the Minnesota Department of Human Resources is it? Economic
Development. These same numbers are in that pamphlet that was put out.
The items such as secretary, 2, second division. Punch press operator.
Electronics assembly. Welder . Machinist. Tool and die maker . Those were I
the items we took directly from that brochure that was put out for
Chanhassen. The reason I wanted to do it is I wanted'to show you what
kinds of wages they make and what type of annual wage that works out to.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the median range in Carver County. The 1
median wage in Carver County is $21,112.00. Median wage in Minneapolis-
St. Paul is $22, 385.00. These are from again this survey and the U.S.
Census Bureau. I'd like to also show you this transparency. A lot of this I
data came from the Metropolitan Council. This is a. . .Metropolitan Council .
It shows that 40% of the people are upper income. I believe on that they I
consider upper income over $27,000.00. The numbers are, they use the
dollar numbers from 1979 to 1980 because that's when the, last: census was
taken. What they've done for this circle is to analyze what cost of living
increases and that are and this. . .is what they're projecting, what the Met
Council is projecting from 1986 to 1995. So what's happening is 40% of the '
people have incomes that can afford single family houses. The other 60% of
the people cannot afford them or would have a hard time affording them.
I'd like to go to then, let's see here. I'd like to go to what it would
take to qualify for the units I have before you. My particular units.
These are the 2 bedroom, single car garages we were anticipating. We've
gotten our bids and these numbers again you've heard before. We were I
expecting to sell these at $55,000.00. Now if we were to put a double car
garage on it, it turns out I 've estimated a little low. Hal has figured
that they'd be in a range from $10,000.00 more up to possibly $15,000.00 I
more depending on the style of unit. Let's take the lower end. If you up
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 26
I
' it to $65,000.00, my price range, qualifying income for the single car
garage would need $26,400.00. Principle and interest payment would be
$501. 00. Principle, interest, taxes and insurance would be $638.00. What
you would be doing if you required the double car is you'd be requiring
$10,000.00 more against some in units. Some in the double car itself. If
you're putting a double car garage on a unit and you're doing it in a
townhouse, you have to attach it somewhere. You're going to end up having
to spread the unit on just to even find a place to put that double car
garage on that so you're going to gain in the living space and in the
garage but you may require the qualifying income to be up to $30,556. 00 and
principle and interest $598.00 and PITI of $738.00. Our 3 bedroom unit
that we had anticipated was $68,900.00 and these people would need to
qualify at $31,442.00. Obviously we're up over median incomes already.
Now we' re up over what the average person can take.
' Batzli : When you're qualifying, what are you doing? Paying 10% down?
' Dean Johnson: 10% down and also figuring in a car payment because most
everybody coming in to buy one of these are going to, and I guess I use car
payment somewhat loosely. They're going to have some long term debt
probably along the way so we added in some long term debt. Just general
' experience in business tells you that every time you qualify, somebody has
one type of loan or another. Most often a car. somebody
Emmings: So to the extent that you've got, these are all examples of types
of units that you planned into Oak View.
•
Dean Johnson: These are what I planned into Oak View.
Emmings: And all these are aimed at the 40%.
Dean Johnson: No. Some of them are. The $26,000.00 is in the median.
Emmings: So it was $27,000.00?
Dean Johnson: That was $27,000.00 and then usually what happens is you do
have some down money so you do pick up some of the low. . . We realize we're
not Section 8 housing . I 'm not trying to say that we' re Section 8 housing .
' What I am trying to say is we do pick up a category of that housing with
this project. I guess at this point I 'd like to show you what happened
when we went into the Creekside project. I don't know, were you people out
at the Creekside project? Did you people go out there?
Ellson: In Plymouth?
Dean Johnson: Yeah.
Ellson: I think we did.
' Dean Johnson: This is what happened when I sold these units. This is from
going back through the files and determining who we sold to. We sold to
47% married people. I didn' t go back and actually get ages in this. We
sold to an awful lot of elderly. We sold to an awful lot of just starting
r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 27
I
out single couples. Not a lot of inbetweens. It was either end of the I
spectrum was more empty nesters or just starting out. To give you an idea
of that, in the married people, only 4 families had children. There was 5
children total. One family had 2 children and the others each had 1 child
so 5 children went in with that and that' s why I say there was such a wide II
range. Either they hadn't started having children or left.
Emmings: How many units there? '
Dean Johnson: 128. So we've got a fairly good sampling. We've got 4
years of selling. 22% were single people male. To give you an idea of
children again. Of the 22% there, 4 of those had children, 1 each so there II
were 4 children generated by those people. The remaining was made up of
31% of single female households. Of the single female households, we had
10 that had children, 2 had 2 so we gained 12 children there. So we ended 1
up with a total of about 21 children in 128 units in this particular
project. These sold in a price range when they started out from $55,200.00
up to $60,000. 00 when they started out and ended up in the 60' s range, in
the upper 60's by the time the 4 years had lapsed and building costs had
gone up and the different things that happened. I guess the conclusion I 'm
drawing from this is well , maybe we should go to one other transparency.
Not to transparency you to death but this is a transparency that was again II
this was out of the Met Council 's book. According to the Met Council in
the next years, single parent households, not single people but single
parent households is going to be 18% of our people that are going to go
into these types of units . I guess what I 'm saying to you is you' re going
to end up with a large influx of people that divorced or whatever the
reason is, have a child or 2 but there' s only 1 parent. Consequently the I
need for 2 garages is going to be a burden to them. They're going to need
the 2 bedrooms but they're really not going to need that extra garage. The
other thing is in showing you at the Creekside project is we had single
females and single males buying into this project. Most of them wanted the
extra bedroom for like an office. What were some of the other reasons that
were used in that case? Sometimes a guest bedroom. Sometimes an extra den
or a place to store things. They wanted that but they didn't really need
the garage. Okay? So you' re going to get those types of people that come
into this thing. I guess at this point I feel that I 've shown you that
there are going to be people that are going to go into those 1 story units I
that are going to end up you know being in that price range that you know
to cut all 2 bedroom, 1 car garages is going to be a burden to these
people. I guess from there what I'd like to do if I may is go into what we
found when we searched through Chanhassen for availability. We went to the I
multi listing computers. This is the 1989, it's a little small but
everything that was bought and sold and listed through MLS. This does not
represent every house sold but in other words, most builders do not put
every house they build on MLS. If they sold it to a client, there's no
reason to put it up for sale so it doesn't make this. This is some new
houses and then some used houses. As you can see in the housing end, the
single family homes, you have one house that's in an affordable range or in I
a range where these people can afford it. $54,000.00. The house was built
in 1930 and it's a rambler on Hickory Avenue. I'm not sure where that is
but the majority of your houses are up in the $90,000.00 range and more.
When you get into multi-family homes, . . .54,000.00. The lowest is
r , Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 28 R`
I
$64,900.00 and then it automatically goes up into the 70 's and 80 's and so
' again, you're that step above. When you talk about the other project that
you approved before we came in, you're talking about South Lotus. I know
the gentleman that's developing that. I 've known him for a couple of
11 years. He is building to a little upscale market than I am. In his market
I would go to a 2 car garage also but he is going towards that market. He
keeps bringing himself out of the affordable housing range and going to a
little more upscale townhouse. So I guess what I 'm saying to you is with
' these, the availability of this house in this price range is next to none.
You don't really have affordable housing. I think another point that I 'd
like to bring up, I don' t know how many of you ever read the Council report
l when I did go in front of the Council for the PUD but at that point Jay
Johnson relayed a story about a Korean family that through his church he
was trying to place in Chanhassen and he made the statement that he found
' absolutely no housing that this Korean family could go into in Chanhassen.
None of any kind and I know that's in the Minutes so if you want to go back
through and read that. I know that he has a personal thing with it or
personal contact with it. I guess the other thing is when we get into
rental property because so far all I 've been talking about is townhouses.
In Chanhassen right now as of 8-89, August of ' 89, this comes from the
apartment guide. The organization called the Apartment Guide. Of the 354
units that you have that rent in Chanhassen, you only have a vacancy rate
of 6. 2%. 22 units is all that was vacant at that point. I believe also
that in your rental units, I don't believe any of them have attached
garages. In fact some of them I don' t believe have garages at all and I
don' t believe any of them are attached. None of them are 2 car garages so
right at the moment you don' t have any of that and you've got an occupancy
rate or a vacancy rate of only 6.2%. You could stand of that type of unit.
' In other words, low end unit. When you have a vacancy rate of that little
at that time of the year. That shows to me and to other people that are
knowledgeable that there is a need for that type of housing. I guess I was
going to read some excerpts out of the housing guide that the Met Council,
it' s part of this booklet right here. Housing and Development Guide. I 'm
assuming you people have this. If you want, I certainly can give you a
copy of it or see that you get one. It talks about affordable housing in a
number of places and I guess I don't want to read the whole thing. I think
this should be read before you review this thing because some of the things
in here it does. . .are being done in Chanhassen and it might be good ideas
that you do want to do. But a couple of the things I will read. One of
them deals, it says several policies deal with ways local governments and
developers can facilitate production of affordable housing. They recommend
II _ modifying zoning ordinances for housing size, lot sizes and garages. Then
we get farther back in this thing where it talks about ways to do
affordable housing. It says the policy plan. The main heading is housing
affordability. In that on page 13 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 demand should dictate whether garages are constructed. These with
' other comments on here you might want to look over. I guess the last thing
that I want to do is, well. . .transparency here is where Chanhassen falls in
affordability. Some of these have, these are alternative types of houses
Iother than single family. What do these people have? Do they have other
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 29 "
alternatives for this? Chanhassen has only 23.8% of it's housing is
alternatives. As you can see the goal that's set up by the Met Council ,
they would like to see 41% so the Met Council would like to see an increase
in this so it has recommended an increase. I guess for conclusion one,
I guess I feel that in Chanhassen there is a need for affordable housing
that more could be done and there could be more affordable housing. Two,
you would be reducing, if not eliminating, affordable housing in going to
these garages. You'd be adding $10,000.00 minimum cost a townhome unit
which is the means in which you can get affordable housing and you're
certainly not going to get it in large lots and single family homes so your
multi-family method of doing it is about the only way open to you. Three, II
you are cutting out a large group, well again these are all kind of parts
together . There's a large group of people that can' t afford housing that
right now the housing is not being planned for or allowed for. With this '
type of restrictions it would make it even harder . Again, getting back to
you know the public that you are serving is, I 'm not saying that you're not
trying to think of affordable housing but there's a large portion of the
public that is not being served that could be looked at. I guess the fact II
of going to the garages would again stop anybody from being able to build
on R-12 unless it was in the luxury and larger category. You wouldn't be
able to use your R-12 for affordable housing sites which, not that that' s
the only reason for R-12 but it certainly is one of the reasons for R-12.
I guess if you were to ask me for recommendations, obviously I 'm a little
impartial here so I don't know how much weight you put to what I say but in
looking at it as a person as well as a developer , if you change apartments II
to having 2 car garages, you're going to force it to only be luxury
apartments. I think that other communities have probably thought of what
you're thinking of now and not gone to it. I can't imagine that parking II issues with apartment buildings is for the first time being brought up in
Chanhassen. Every community that I 've ever known has,struggled with
outside parking in apartments and the junkiness that dan somewhat cause and
towing the cars away and all that type of stuff. I 'm sure that they've 11
thought about having more underground parking, more enclosed parking but
realized that the cost effectiveness would just stop that and you'd lose
that flexibility of even being able to build anything but a luxury
apartments. And as far as the multi-family townhouse type, I guess my
recommendation is that if you need to raise it, not that I 'm saying it
needs to be raised but if you need to raise it, 2 is a bit steep because
there are those people that do not need that extra stall which you would be 1
putting a burden on. Maybe the alternative is to go to ,,a 1 112 stall.
Require half the project to be 1 car garages and the other hand to be 2 car
garages. I think there's a lot of basis for that and I think there's some
good thought in that. If you see a need for doing it, don' t across the
board do it because you are going to be hurting some people and causing
them to bear an unfair burden. I guess that's all I have.
Emmings: Can I ask you a question Dean? Getting back to your project over
here, we saw on the graphic 2 and 3 bedroom units. Did you have 1 bedroom
units in that? Any at all?
Dean Johnson: No but I think I'll have to admit, after doing some of this,
some of this surprised me and I think there is some room for 1 bedrooms. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 30
I Emmings: In Plymouth in that development, were there any 1 bedroom
apartments in that or townhomes?
I Dean Johnson: In Plymouth, they were all 2 bedroom. There were no 3
bedroom. They were all 2 bedroom. Oh, we had one unit that had a 5 course
basement in it and in there you could finish a third bedroom, that's right
but the basic unit was 2 bedroom.
IEllson: Didn' t some of them have 2 car garages in Plymouth? I thought
I remembered seeing 2 car garages.
IEmmings: Some of them do here too.
Ellson: It's been a while but I don't think so.
IConrad: Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
I Batzli moved
Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
IIin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Okay folks, we're reviewing the whole ordinance and it's more than
multi-family and parking spaces issue and it's not a Cenvensco issue. It's
I a real broader issue and some interesting thoughts. Jim, we're going to
start down with you.
I Wildermuth: Dean, you did a nice job in your presentation. I guess I
started after reading this packet last night, I thought that 2 garages
stalls per unit was a desireable thing but at this point I 'm thinking
something less than 2 with an average blended figure of 1.6 or 1.7 or
I something like that might be appropriate. As far as the standards are
concerned, I don't know where you dredged these up Paul but they look good.
1 Batzli : Can we get the drawings in the ordinance too?
Krauss: I can put more of them in. I ' ll be the first to admit that
I ordinances are typically plagerized from one another and I plagerized
heavily on one that I wrote a few years ago.
Wildermuth: The other thing I liked about your proposal Paul was it's
I pretty broad. It looks at not just residential or apartment construction
but it's pretty comprehensive except parking requirements in general .
That's all I have.
Batzli : In general , I agree mainly with what Jim said. Not knowing really
how many parking spots are adequate for any given activity, obviously we're
I looking to you Paul for guidance and I don' t know whether 2 is too many or
1 1/2 is enough. It's worked for Plymouth. Maybe that would work here. I
don't think that we should necessarily impose some heavy burden.
1 Hal Pierce: 1 1/2 total. One parks in the drive. . .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 31
Batzli : Right. 1 1/2 total parking spots for each unit. But the point I
being that I don't know if 2 is actually required or needed. I don't know
what the statistics really say whether how many people have 2 cars and are
they going to load up their garage with junk because there's no place.to
store stuff so they end up putting their one car outside. I think that was II
the original intent of why we started looking at having larger garages
because of the storage problem. They're going to put their snowmobiles and
whatever in their garage. Suddenly they're going to have their car in the II
driveway and then if they've got 2 cars, they've got 1 out in the street.
I think it kind of escalated from there and I don't know necessarily
exactly anymore what the problem is that we're trying to solve to be quite
honest with you. If it takes a 2 car garage, then I 'm in favor of a 2 car
garage and I don' t know any better if that's what it takes or if that' s not
__ what it takes. If it's a requirement that you make the garage over s4zed
and that handles it because then you can put your car in there and the
junk, then it's all the same to me. I don' t care you know to be quite;
honest with you as long as there's enough parking so there' s not a- public
safety hazard where everybody's parking on the street and you can get the I
police cars and the ambulances and fire trucks through. To me it makes
very little difference. If there's enough parking so it's not a public
safety problem and there's enough space in the unit that you don' t end up '
with every car parked outside and I think those were the two initial
problems we started to solve and given this ordinance, I trust you
implicitedly that this is what's required but he's presented things today
and it sounds like Plymouth has a little bit different angle on it and so I II
don't know that I can make up my mind given that information. Comments, I
think you did a really good job. I had 3 minor questions. One was in the
first section, paragraph 2, it talks about required parking. Loading areas
shall not be used for storage, display, sales, rental , repair or motor I
vehicles or other goods or for the storage of inoperable vehicles of snow.
Wildermuth: Or snow I think it is. '
Batzli: Is that inoperable vehicles or snow?
Krauss: Or snow. '
Batzli: What' s an inoperable vehicle or snow?
Wildermuth: It's for storing snow.
Ellson: It's so you don' t just push it there and leave it there. '
Batzli: Oh, for the storage of snow. It all becomes clear to me now.
Conrad: Were you born in this area? '
Batzli : There' s just too many or's in there I guess. That was about the
15th or. Okay, I see where that goes back to. One other thing that I just
thought was really interesting was in the 75 degree angle on page 3. Do
you actually require more space between the 2 curbs than a 90 degree angle?
I tried for the life of me to figure out why you'd need more space when II you're parking at an angle then when you're at a 90 degree angle and I ' ll
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 32
trust you there again but I couldn' t figure that out for the life of me.
Krauss: If you're looking at me for a good answer for that, in all the
years I 've worked with this ordinance, I 've seen this standard in other
1 places. I've never had anybody propose 75 degree angle parking.
Batzli : Well at least there's an honest answer . The asterick before the
45-60-70 degree angle.
Krauss : What do they refer to?
Batzli: Yeah, what are those?
Emmings: Is it to put one way aisles? That's all I could figure out.
' Batzli : Are those one way aisles?
' Krauss : Those are one way aisles , yes.
Batzli : Okay. My final question is, when you measure the stalls, are you
measuring it like center line to center line? Stripe center line or how do
' they normally measures these things? Do they just do a total square
footage and then divy it up according to the plan that they have?
' Krauss: Basically what you do is if you have a parking aisle, you divide
it by 8 1/2 and that's the number of stalls you can fit in that aisle.
' Batzli : But when you' re requiring a minimum surface area for each stall,
that's how you end up doing it then is you take the overall area and then
divide it by your number of stalls to see if you have,that minimum number
of square footage for each stall?
I
•
Krauss: Which section are you. . .
t Batzli : Let' s see. I lost it now. Since this is such a fun question, why
don't we go on and I ' ll find it.
Ellson: I thought it was pretty detailed too. I liked how thorough it
was. I liked the idea that no change of use can be made without coming
back and looking at the parking again. I thought about, we're saying that
they cannot use the parking for any kind of storage. In other words, we're
I saying we don' t want people to have boats sitting on the side and things
like that and you know, there's a fine line. They are an eyesore but there
is very few people in residential neighborhoods that don' t have a boat on
I the side of their garage and things like that and yet we're penalizing
these people even more so to say, go to a A-1 Storage or something because
now we're not even going to allow you to do that so I 'm not quite sure that
I'd want to penalize them more on something like that. I kind of question
I that. I don't think bicycle parking should be a requirement for multi-
family type dwelling. I think that those people will in their garage with
their bikes and i see a bike stand thing at a school and public facilities
I and things like that but I don't think it should be a requirement for a
home area. What's the reason behind one way aisles?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 33
Krauss: What's the reason behind it? '
Elison: Yeah.
Krauss: When you use angled parking in one way aisles, in most cases
except for the 75 degree, it allows you to shoe horn in a parking aisle in
a much narrower space. The reason is that sometimes when you have a site, I
you need to design in one way parking just simply because of how you have
to access it. The bicycle parking, I don't have a strong feeling about the
bicycle parking but this ordinance also applies to shopping centers and I
everything else. Frankly I don' t have a strong preference for that. You
can require it under a site plan review I would think if you thought it was
necessary in a shopping center .
Elison: I like the part about you shouldn' t design any parking to back
into the street. All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic
control. Is that going to be as per determined by staff or something like I
that?
Krauss: Yeah, that will come out during the site plan review procedure.
Elison: Okay. I also thought that the presentation you had was pretty
nice and it made me feel like Chanhassen is a bunch of snobs. We don' t
allow anybody in without incomes over x or what have you. I don' t like
seeing us being something like that. I think that a garage is a must if
you live in Minnesota. I think in some states you can cut back on housing
and things like that because of garages but I don' t know, people that live
up here, I kind of think it's a mandatory type thing. I guess I 'd be open
to persuasion on two things. One, taking a look at the impervious surface
percentage. If it would give me the garages that I wanted, I might be able
to look at something between 1 and 2 parking spaces. The other couple •
things were just questions. As I looked through this thing, bowling
alleys, 7 spaces for each lane. That's seems like a lot to me. I was just
thinking churches, I said 1 parking space for each 3 seats plus 2 per
classroom.
Krauss: We did not change any of those standards except for the multi-
family.
All the other ones are contained in the ordinance now,
Elison: I've never really had a good look at it until something came in
front of me like that and I just wondered, well where did that come from? I
That's everyone driving themselves to one of the bowling alleys. I keep
thinking we're putting these standards on people that are more than they
need.
Krauss: There's different ways of getting at that particular one. Bowling
alleys not only have teams showing up that share lanes but they also have
bars and bars generate very high volumes of parking demand.
Batzli: And a league typically will have at least 5 people per lane. At
least 5 cars and then if anybody else shows up you start adding up people. I
So on league night you've got a minimum of 5 people per lane.
IIf
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 34
•
' Ellson: I thought it was really well written and I appreciate the
presentation that we had also. I don't agree that we need to have, I don' t
mind the strip garage look. I know one of the things you didn't like the
use of a free standing garages but that doesn't bother my quite as much if
it's done I guess tastefully or whatever. If the unit is like toward the
street and the garage is in the back or something, isn't that similiar to
what is on Kerber right now and that doesn't seem to bother me at all . . .
Krauss: Yeah. I differentiate between the low rise type of duplex or
' townhouse or quad type of development that has free standing garages and 3
story apartment buildings that have free standing garages. With all due
respect to Plymouth, when you go up on 494 and you see that the multi-
family buildings that have strings of garages up against the freeway and
' typically they're not maintained very well . They tend to look rather
trashy. It depends on the project and it's always been a personal kind of
peeve I guess . I 've never particularly cared for them. In the years I
' worked in Minnetonka, well Minnetonka has a requirement for 2 cars for
multi-family, one of which must be enclosed. Some projects provided a
little more than that because of who they were trying to address and then
we had a visitor parking requirement that we sometimes added to that
' outside. But all the multi-family parking, all the large multi-family
buildings, that was required to be underground.
' Ellson: Well those are my comments .
Emmings: I always have trouble, I get a little spacey when I look at
something that's this long because it's hard to imagine how to apply it
always. It changes completely when you try to apply to any project that
comes in. I like the ordinance because it's just huge so it kind of
doubles the size of our ordinance and that really. . . Apart from those
general comments, I 'm going to look at the multi-family because that's one
I can get my hands around. My comments really are not much different. I
think we seem to have some agreement up here. Like Jim when I read this, I
' came in here tonight as a 2 car garage for every unit man and I had , I
think Dean's comments kind of opened my eyes to some extent. While Dean
talks about affordable housing, he's talking really about just kind of a
next small increment down from where we seem to be now according to the
numbers he put on the board. Where Chanhassen has a lot of units available
in the 60's or mid 60's and up and doesn't have much below that. He's
really addressing a population that's between 55 and 65 but I guess the one
' thing he put up that really impressed me is that over 50% of the units in
his development in Plymouth were purchased by single people. I think that
is, that was very meaningful to nee. I think that's an important market
I that probably that $10,000.00 in difference might mean a great deal to. I
don't know. So I guess I would be inclined on this to do something like,
to say something like 50% of the units. Or no more than 50% of the units
' can have.
Ellson: Single car.
I Emmings: Garage. See and I think part of the problem to me here is that
these places, they are cutting some corners in order to get them down to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 35
the price range they want to sell to and they don' t have basements and I I
think Brian mentioned this. They don't have the basements and they don't
have the storage places and the storage has to be somewhere or it ends up
in the garage and everybody winds up parking outside but I think if we're I
careful , and where I would in particular be willing to maybe look at the
impervious surface thing is on the visitor parking. Or maybe it's not even
visitor parking . Maybe it' s extra parking that's outside but I don't think
there's anything particularly bad in Minnesota about parking outside. I II
there should be one enclosed garage. There's no question about that
but if there's a second car, I guess I don't mind if it's outside. I know
in my own neighborhood there are a number of homes, just as I drive down '
the street that I have to drive down to get down to my house, with double
car garages where the garage is entirely full of things and not one car can
get in there. I think it's a very common snydrome and I don't know why. I I
think it happens everywhere. I don't think it will just happen in this
segment of the market. I think it kind of happens everywhere but if in
these developments there were adequate extra outdoor parking to account for
visitors and to account for a place where these cars can go so they' re not
just on the streets. I don't like them on the streets. I don't think they
should be there. I think they should be in the garage, in front of the
garage or in an extra parking. Some kind of an overflow parking area.
That would satisfy me.
Batzli : Let' s say you included your no more than 50% has less than 2
stalls? 2 enclosed. Something like that right?
Emmings: Whatever the number is.
Batzli : Then are you also going to impose a minimum of for instance. . . or I
something like that for the ones that merely have a single enclosed garage?
Emmings: You know when they bring them in here, they count the space in
front of the garage as a parking space. The driveway that goes into the
garage as a parking space so they always, I know for example when Dean
presented his project he said each one has 2 places to park. If it's a
single car garage, it has 2 and if it's a double car garage it counts as
just 4 so I don't know what we're counting exactly. When you say 1 1/2.
Everyone' s, even if it's a single car garage, it's already got 2 so I don' t I
know what the 1 1/2 means. Unless you're not going to count that space.
Batzli: Well that's the question. Are you comfortable counting that space
and then merely having like for instance, not to base the whole ordinance I
on his project but merely have 3 or 4 other spots per unit seemingly for
overflow parking if you will. In other words, for those spots where if the
spot in front of the garage is filled, where do you park? Do you have
these limited number of spaces available?
Emmings: Yeah, I don' t know and maybe you'd say if you have a 2 car
garage, for every single car unit you've got to have at least 1 overflow
parking place somewhere else or something like that. I don' t know.
There's probably 100 ways to do it but like I say, if I was going to get
adequate extra parking and visitor parking, I'd be willing to look at
impervious surface. I wouldn't be willing to look at impervious surface to 1
1 - r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 36
' put up a garage i don' t think. A strict garage or something like that
because I 'd rather encourage people to park in their garages in the units.
If they want to battle the weather and scrape the windshield like Ladd
' likes to, hey, more power to them.
Batzli : If in fact I think if the spots in front of the garage are really
parkable, then I kind of like your idea of having a minimum number of
additional parking spots based on single car garages or something like
that. That would make some sense then.
Emmings: That's all I 've got.
Conrad : Okay. The general standards Paul in this ordinance, I guess some
of the things do fly out like the bike rack, number 5. I feel it does have
' a place in commercial but it doesn' t have a place in residential as far as
I 'm concerned so do we need, well I guess what would you recommend on
that? What would you recommend? And I 'm just talking for myself now. I
don't know what the other Planning Commissioners are thinking but I do
think there should be some standards for commercial and downtown but I 'm
not sure I really want to apply them any place else so if that were the
case, what would you say we should do with that standard? Take it out of
the general conditions?
Krauss : I wouldn't be opposed to deleting it entirely and if we ever felt
that a bike rack was needed , just. . .
Conrad: Well , Market Square.
' Krauss : That would be, and unfortunately we didn' t do it there.
Conrad: That's right and that's a mistake.
I Krauss: The alternative would be to say that this only applies to
commercial or retail developments over 15,000 square feet in size.
IConrad: On the other side of things, I think the retailers who move in
there will want to have bike racks so whether we. . .
Ellson: I think so too. Even a Dairy Queen would like. . .
Conrad: We don't need an ordinance to tell them stuff that they're going
I to do.
Batzli : But they didn' t design in where they could put it conveniently.
IJust in the parking lot somewhere.
Conrad: I'd be real tempted to delete that in total . When you build a
I project, there's a lot of factors that go into the cost. You've got land.
You've got building. You've got profits and you've got amenities and I
guess some of the things, as you set standards for how we build here. . .
problems that we've seen other places or problems that we've seen in
Chanhassen. I don't know that the $10,000.00 is the additional cost to a
unit. I don't think that's an accurate number but obviously it is going to
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 37
cost something. I guess I would change what I see in front of me however II
and Steve, I'm really not persuaded on the impervious surface issue. I
still think as you cram more people into less space, you still need areas
to be for people so I guess I don't know if I can solve personally the
problem that way but I can relate to the number of enclosed parking spaces II
that we have and I think rather than the 2 that the ordinance has, I
believe I need to accomplish 2 things. One, to have a place, inside place
to store a car and stuff and I don't know how to do the stuff. Unless we
have a building standard that requires basements and storage areas. That' s
another way to solve some of our problems. It's not in front of us tonight
and it' s going to be hard to form a linkage between storage and this issue '
but it is a fact and it's something that has to be taken care of. I can' t
get my car in my garage because I 've got junk in it. That's a fact: I
__ just don't have enough space. But, the bottom line is, I think we shpuld,
I would sure be amenable to reducing the enclosed parking to 1.5 versus Vie
2. I don't believe we're a singles haven based on the research thatj've
seen and I've seen a lot of data on Chanhassen. I don' t think we''re maybe
the same type of singles community. It's a pretty family oriented. Those II
charts aren' t Chanhassen. I 'll guarantee you that.
Emmings: They may not be today but what about tomorrow? I
Conrad: Well , they're not today so.
Ellson: Well, here's one of the reasons why. '
Conrad: Could be. Anyway, I think I would reduce the requirement for
enclosed parking. I
Emmings: I don' t mean to interrupt but if you say it's 1 1/2. Does that
mean it's for the project or for each unit?
Conrad: For the project.
Krauss: It's on a gross basis . ,
Emmings: Then you get a question, do you want all your 2 bedroom ones
clumped together or all your 2 car garages? 1
Conrad: I don't care.
Emmings: 2 car garages or don' t you care? Do you want to mix? I
Conrad: That's up to the developer. I don't know that 1.5 is the right
answer. The 1. 5 in my mind speaks to some of the situations that were
presented today. I think it's compensates for singles that might move in. II
Emmings: It' s more variety.
Conrad: I think it' s more realistic. It probably gives, is not as
economic a hardship to a developer who wants to put in an affordable
dwelling here so. I
11
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 38
I
Ellson: You're saying the 1.5 has to be completely enclosed?
IConrad: 1 1/2 on a gross level .
Ellson: Or everyone has to have a 1 1/2 enclosed garage?
Batzli: What about the additional parking?
Conrad: I think each unit needs 2 stalls. Each unit needs totally 2
parking spaces of which 1 1/2 has to be enclosed.
11 Krauss: One of the things we tried to do in the ordinance is separate out
the ability to require visitor parking based on our review of the site
plan. Since Dean was relating a lot of this to his project, I know the
I last time you reviewed his project we were concerned that while the project
met the letter of the law, that while you had for example one private
driveway was 500 feet long and all it had was the 1 car garage plus the 1
car out in the pad in front of it. We said 500 foot of that is just too
I long, is there's 2 people there to have a party on a Saturday night out of
the 30 units that fronted on it, I can guarantee you that the fire truck's
not going to be able to get through. Therefore, we should have the
I authority to require some visitor parking. I think it might be preferable
if you specifically relate this requirement to what you think the dwellings
are going to need and let us handle visitor parking as a separate
' requirement.
Emmings: How would it work now? With what we have in front of us. The
section on page 5 there. That' s the one you go to right now to ask for any
Iproject, what you need for visitor parking.
Krauss: Right. •
IEmmings: And now just to, how would relate this for example to Dean' s
project? Could you work that through for me because I couldn't figure it
1 out.
Krauss : If in fact we went to the 1.5 gross, we would ask Dean to show us
how that's satisfied on a gross basis. Then we take a look at this site
I plan and we'd say well you've met the requirement as relative to the number
of dwelling units but we go to the paragraph, the lead in paragraph for the
required number of on site parking spaces that says the City may increase
I the requirements beyond this minimum based on findings due to the proposed
design that additional parking is due to be anticipated. Dean's particular
site plan, or the one that we last reviewed was one that it was clear to us
that some sort of a visitor parking was appropriate on that extra long
I private driveway because of it's design and that' s not something that's
s ecitTcset down specifically in a standard because it is site plan
Ellson: So this allows you to may increase if deemed necessary?
Krauss: Yes.
•
,Planning Commission Meeting 1 9
November 15, 1989 - Page 39
Batzli : Interestingly enough though, I guess I'm having the same problem I
maybe that Steve was having.
Ellson: What page are you on?
Batzli: On page 5. That's where you' re reading from that the City may do
so if they find that additional parking demand is anticipated. For
instance, do you go through criteria for a multi-family dwelling? Maybe I I
missed something here but then you just go to G?
Elison: 6(B) .
Batzli : 6(B) or 1 (G) , excuse me. Is that where you're going to go to to
up the number? Is this going to be this whole one that you're going to
look at?
Krauss : No. 1(G) would be used if there wasn' t a standard provided in the
ordinance at all. '
Emmings: Well there isn't. For visitor parking at a multi-family.
Batzli: So you're looking at 1 (G) .
1
Krauss : No . I would interpret the 1(G) specifically applies to if there's
no listing for that category for use. What I would refer back to is
basically the purpose section of that sub paragraph on page 5 that says
here's the minimum requirements that we're establishing for that district.
Batzli : Following standards or minimum criteria, right. You don't give a I
minimum for visitors do you? Okay, well you say on site parking areas of
sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers,
visitors, you don't even say residents, and employees shall be provided on I
the premises of each use. You're going to have 2 parking, both of which
must be enclosed and then additional parking for visitors shall be provided
in accordance with the findings of the City so you don't have any criteria I
on which to base that.
Krauss: And there' s a reason for that. Let's take for example that Dean I
came in with a project that had 2 car garages for all these units and had
over width driveways. With the 2 car garages per unit,.,,you have 2 cars
parking out in front of the garage doors and with the oversized driveways,
you may have some latitude to say we can afford to have a car to park in
there. It's not going to cause us a problem. Without having a
specifically designated visitor parking area.
Batzli: Okay, but now that apartment has a party. They have 10 people '
over . What are you going to do? Start parking in the neighbor's driveway?
Krauss: If we had a large enough drive aisle, if these were accessed off a I
private driveway. If it was constructed to a large enough standard as for
example a city street might be, that could absorb parking on one side and
still allow vehicles to pass, yeah we might accept that. '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 40
Batzli : You've got curb cuts all the way up and down. Are you going to
allow parking on the street?
Krauss: But see those are all design issues.
' Batzli : I know but these are the things you're going to hit the first time
you try to implement this ordinance and then what are you going to say?
Krauss: All I can attest to is. . .
Batzli : It's probably workable somewhere else but I 've never had to work
' with it and you have so you've had the benefit of having to interpret this
thing. That' s just my question is how do you go through this and where
would you come down on something like that?
' Krauss : It's really site specific and that's the problem I have with it.
I think you need some latitude to view what's being proposed in the context
of how that design works on that piece of property and a hard and fast rule
Ifor something like visitor parking is kind of tough to apply. It's not to
say, I 've seen ordinances that do it. I would prefer to have the latitude.
I Batzli : I think with latitude the problem you're going to get into is it's
going to be, the developer comes in and you say we want 20 stalls of
visitor parking and he says, well what do you mean? The last guy that came
II in, you didn' t give any. Why are you being unfair to me? Then you' re
going to have to come up with some rationale. You're going to have to have
all these findings of why did you do this in this case and not in the other
and eventually you're going to have standards anyway or else you're not
I going to have any standards at all . Then you're going to end up with a
sliding scale like you wanted earlier.
r
II Conrad: Sure, bring me into your mess . Any other comments? Is there a
motion?
Batzli : I guess I don' t know, I heard what Ladd said about having a
minimum of 1 1/2. Your 50%, is that the same thing in your mind?
Emmings: I guess when I was talking about 50%, I was thinking that it
I ought to be distributed. That it ought to be, each unit ought to have,
some ought to be 2 car and some with 1 car to kind of spread this out in
the project. That's why I asked Ladd the question I did. Did he care and
I guess he persuaded me. I guess I don't care anymore.
Conrad: The ends will take the 2 car garages and the middle will take the
1.
IBatzli : Or just make them all 1 1/2 to show us.
I Emmings: If it was Annette's motion, then they put storage in the other
half.
I Krauss : Yeah, I think you want to specific on that. If your goal is to
provide parking stalls, it should be on a gross basis for the project.
I
'' 1A1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 41
Emmings: So each unit should have 2 parking spots and of the ones which
are enclosed, the project has to have an average of 1 1/2 or more. We
don't care if it' s higher . We only care if it's lower. A minimum of 1
1/2.
Conrad: Dean, you have a question. We' re struggling with this. A quick
one? '
Dean Johnson: What occurs to me when you talk about the 1 bedroom units.
It's just more information. Is the 1 bedroom unit. . .1 bedroom units. Is II
that just going to be the 1 stall like we did in the. . .multi-family
townhouses or multi-family. . . I guess what I'm saying is, I see a little
bit of a possible conflict there. How does that figure into these things?
Krauss: The ordinance accepts 1 bedroom and efficiency apartments.
Emmings: Yeah, but we're talking about the project. '
Dean Johnson: What happens to the total number then?
Ellson: Does the project need 1 1/2 even though some are 1 and 1 would
have been an exception before.
Krauss: I would anticipate having to do some playing around with a I
calculator so that you only had 1 stall applied to those smaller units but
then all 2 bedrooms and above had that 1.5 requirement.
Conrad: See I don't know. I have to let some expert tell me but even on a I
1 bedroom, a married couple without children will have 2 cars so I
guess I'm not totally sold on a 1 bedroom only needing 1 space. They'd
still need 2 spaces in my mind so I don' t know.
Krauss: Well, they would still have 2 spaces but only 1 of which would be
the enclosed one. '
Conrad: Versus the 1 1/2.
Emmings: So if the whole project is single, one bedroom places?
♦ ti
Ellson: You could run the risk of having all married couples in there and
none of them. . . 1
•
Krauss: If you had 100 one bedroom units, a project that had 100 1 bedroom
units, you would have 100 enclosed stalls and 100 on the outside.
1
Emmings: And 200 cars parked outside.
Krauss: That's something else. I didn't put that in the ordinance but I II
had a few projects over the years where you required that they have 1 car
enclosed and then they said in the lease that that's an additional $45.00
or $50.00 a month and nobody wanted to pay for it so there was a shortage I
of parking on the outside so I got to stipulating that they have to give
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 42
one stall in the rent with each unit.
' Conrad : I don' t know. I think the City Council can wrestle with this just
like we are. I still think we have an issue of storage and parking and
' we're kind of solving the 2 with this parking deal but I 'm not convinced
we've solve storage problems really but anyway. I'm still waiting for . . .
' Emmings: But I think there's a dramatic increase in the amount of stuff
people have and need to store when you move into a house as opposed to when
you live anywhere else. That's my own experience. You accumulate a lot
more crap when you have a house.
Conrad: It makes sense but these many supposed affordable units have no
basements and we've gone through this problem before in Chanhassen and it' s
' been a complex problem. When you have no basements and limited garages,
you end up with problems. It's just an absolute thing. That's where I 'm
trying to solve that problem and I think there are multi ways to solve it.
This is one way to do it.
' Emmings: I don' t think that a 1 bedroom, under the thing we're proposing
now, I don't think there's any reason to treat a 1 bedroom different.
' Conrad: Is there a motion?
' Batzli : I' ll make it. I don' t know that I understand what you're really
going for Ladd but we can just find out. I move that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the amendments to Article XXV, Off Street
Parking and Loading set forth in the memo dated November 6, 1989 as set
' forth except with the following changes. In Section 20-1117, A(2) , the
word "of" shall be changed to "or". In Section 20-1118, paragraph A(1) ,
this is by the way on page 2, after the word 18 feet g paranthetical which
I reads, (except parallel parking shall have minimum dimensions as set forth
below) .
' Conrad: You didn't touch bicycle parking.
Batzli : Delete bicycle parking, I 'm sorry. That's paragraph 5 of Section
20-1117. I had that on my list. I wasn' t there yet. In paragraph
I 20-1124, the third line after the word visitors, insert the word residents.
Then in paragraph 6 (B) of that same section, we're going, to change the
first sentence to read, actually make it two sentences. The first sentence
I would be, Two, (2) parking spaces. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of
units shall have 2 parking spaces both of which must be completely enclosed
in a garage. Make sense to do it that way or do you like your 1 1/2
better?
IEmmings: Isn't it the same?
I Conrad : I think it's the same. I understand mine but I think yours is
probably the same.
Ellson: A minimum of 1 1/2 enclosed.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15
1989 - Page 43 '
Batzli : Well this reads 50% of all the units shall have 2 parking spaces,
both of which are enclosed in a garage. I think that does the same thing.
And those are the only changes I have. That'd be the extent of the motion.
Conrad: Is there a second? '
Krauss: Would you mind if we also deleted the. 75 degree angle parking? I
don't think we' ll ever need it.
Wildermuth: I would rather see the number of the staff than put it at 1.5.
Something less than 2 per unit.
Batzli : I guess what I would propose, if it's been seconded, is that we
make it the number that it is but that obviously staff should take a look
at that number and see if it's reasonable and make a recommendation t`6 the ' I
City Council as well. I think we should put a number in there but you'r4
right. I don' t know that our number is any better than the number that was
in there before we started tonight.
Emmings: Well maybe check in with some other local municipalities.
Krauss: There are no other municipalities to the best of my knowledge that I
require more than 1 enclosed stall .
Emmings: Plymouth. Oh no, that's right. His is 1.
Batzli : So we're requiring 2 per unit and at least of '
q g p t 50$ o the units shall
have the 2 spaces enclosed.
Emmings: It still contains an exception for efficiencies and 1 bedrooms.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Elison: Second .
Conrad: Discussion. ,
Elison: I just had a question on if anyone thought about may point about
the first page. I know no one ever mentioned it except me but, required '
parking and loading area and the driveway, inoperable vehicles or snow.
We're saying here that a person can't put a boat or another car or anything
else out there? I mean I agree that you shouldn' t display, sell , rent or II
being repairing stuff out there but I don't know if it's fair to tell
somebody that either they can't have a boat or they can't keep their boat.
Conrad: See I read that. It didn't say boat. Is the word boat in there? I
Emmings: Other goods.
Ellson: Maybe this doesn' t apply to that but I know we saw those at the
other one.
Conrad: See I paid attention to what you said. '
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page
44
' Krauss: It doesn' t say boat. I probably should say boat but I think the
intention here is that it's not prohibiting you parking a boat. It's just
prohibiting you parking a boat in the required stall. If you want to allow
' outside parking of these sorts of things on a project, you've got to
provide some additional spaces for it.
' Batzli: Well the key word there then is required right?
Krauss: Yes.
' Batzli : But I think in the nuisance ordinance or somewhere else there is
something that says you can't park a boat in front of your house and it has
to be on the side of your house. I think that's covered someplace else in
the Code.
Conrad: Right. I know we' ve talked about that.
' Ellson: But this isn't saying you can't do it.
Conrad: You can do it.
' Ellson: That' s it. I didn' t want to take that possibility away. I' ll
just leave it as it is.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Plannin g Commission recommend
approval of the amendments to Article XXV, Off Street Parking and Loading
' set forth in the memo dated November 6, 1989 as set forth except with the
following changes: In Section 20-1117, A(2) , the word "of" shall be
changed to "or" . In Section 20-1118, paragraph A(1) ,'after the word 18
' feet insert, (except parallel parking shall have minimum dimensions as set
forth below) . Delete bicycle parking in paragraph 5 of Section 20-1117.
Paragraph 20-1124, the third line after the word visitors, insert the word
I residents. In paragraph 6 (B) of that same section, change the first
sentence to read, Two, (2) parking spaces. A minimum of fifty percent
(50%) of units shall have 2 parking spaces both of which must be completely
enclosed in a garage. Also delete the 75 degree angle parking. All voted
' in favor and the motion carried.
IConrad: Brian's got to go and I 've got to go real quickly.
Ellson: Well we've only got one more thing.
IConrad: Well we have 2 don't we?
Krauss: You have 2 more. I guess one of them is fairly involved. It's
I the site plan review ordinance. I guess if it wasn't controversial, we're
looking for ammunition in terms of handling projects as they come along. I
think that's the more important one but I could understand it. You'd want
to discuss it more at length than the hour permits.
Planning Commission Meeting
I f ,�
November 15, 1989 - Page 45
Conrad: I just have a situation where I can stay a few more minutes but I
don't know that it would do it justice.
Krauss: We could hold it over .
Conrad: I think that's my preference. So what do we have? '
Emmings: We have number 5 and number '7. Interim uses.
Conrad: Okay. Is that controverial in anybody's mind? Will there be a
lot of discussion tonight? I 've got some comments on it.
Batzli : I have one comment.
Conrad: Maybe we could try to get the interim uses taken care of tonight
and just hold the one item over.
PUBLIC HEARING: '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE REGARDING REVISIONS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TERMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS. '
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: We're going to be amending this one a lot. With every proposal
that comes in, we're going to have to do an ordinance amendment which seems
sort of funny to me but maybe it's the only thing we can do.
Ellson: It also gives us the chance to say no to them.
Conrad: It solves a particular problem right now. It's real incomplete
but on the other hand it does solve a particular problem and I think there I
are needs for interim uses . I really don' t mind interim uses at all . I
think that's pretty good.
Krauss: And the context of interim rather than temporary is a better one.
Interim implies that something's going to happen to change it. Some cities
that have had temporary conditional use permits basically have had ad hoc
changes to the ordinance and so they just keep delaying when is temporary
use has to disappear. .when
Conrad: I'm going to open this up to the public. Is there any input from I
the public?
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: I already made my comments. I think it's something that we need.
It's a hole in our ordinance now. We need something to plug it. I 'm not
real happy about it because I think we're going to be amending it when
something comes up and I don't like that but I can't think of any other way I
i